This laptop or that laptop.

[UChessmaster]

So i`m going to buy a new laptop soon and i was wondering which one is better.

http://laptops.toshiba.com/laptops/satellite/L300/L305D-S5881

http://laptops.toshiba.com/laptops/satellite/L500/L505-S6946

Do notice my pc/laptops knowledge can be rounded up to somewhere between 0 and 1 (out of 100), and the main use will be to play WoW on my free time, any tips?

[Kraco]

Why are these your choices? Like they say on the pages for both of them, they are discontinued and aren't sold anymore in most places (meaning only places wanting to get rid of their old stores would sell them), which is explained also by the fact they have ancient technology.

Also, if you want to play with your laptop, you need to get one with either an Ati or Nvidia video chip. It's a bad idea to try to rely on Intel's "Graphics Media Accelerator" if gaming is a priority at all. However, the other of your choices, which does have an (ancient) Ati chip, has a lousy old AMD CPU not much good for anything.

Unless you have a chance to get either one dirt cheap, forget them.

[David75]

I never really checked, but it seems that there are dirt cheap I3processor laptops around.
Wouldn't they be a better alternative?

Edit:
I3 laptop from Toshiba at Newegg

All of the brands:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/ProductList.aspx?Submit=ENE&IsNodeId=1&Description=i3%20laptop&bop=And&Order=PRICE&PageSize=100

My understanding is that WoW is an old game easy to handle even for entry comps of today.
So I guess the choices are rather on the OS and other criteria, am I right?

Why Toshiba in particular, for example? Other than branding?

[Kraco]

My understanding is that WoW is an old game easy to handle even for entry comps of today.

Yeah, I wouldn't be surprised if you got WoW running even on Intel GMA video. But I tend to think rationally that if you are interested in playing one game now, a couple of years later you might already be playing some other game.

I don't actually know how GMA is today but a little while ago the net was still full of people whining how they can't run one game or another on a laptop with only such a video chip. That's why I wouldn't ever go for it, unless I knew with absolute certainty no game will ever be installed on the system.

[David75]

It's true I didn't mention I'd eliminate GMA.
And I didn't check wether some I3 laptops get GMA...

So I guess my answer should have been: lowend I3 with ati or nvidia.
Of course hoping there's no faulty nvidia chip still being used in the industry... Because nvidia has been constantly changing the commercial names for these chips to force them on the market knowing they were bad.

[UChessmaster]

I can choose between one of those because my aunt has them and she`s selling me one for 100$ :P

[Kraco]

A tough question, then. The one with the Intel T6400 CPU has obviously an edge over the AMD RM-70, but on the other hand even the old Ati 3100 is far better than the crappy Intel GMA 4500.

Unfortunately I don't really feel qualified to tell you which one to get. You could Google and see if people having GMA 4500 are happily playing WoW. If not, then you can't take that one and have to settle for the less powerful CPU.

[Buffalobiian]

Go with the AMD. It's graphics chip will help you out since you'll actually game with it (even if it's WoW).

The lower drive capacity is a pity, but you can upgrade that easily enough. The same can't be said for USB ports (it's only 3 vs 2, but it might just come in handy).

The AMD is a tad smaller and lighter. The difference in screen size and resolution hardly matters.

My only concern is playing HD content. The CoreAVC2 codec is a MUST. You will have no problem playing 720p videos with that, but I can't say for certain whether you'll lag in True HD videos. (My AMD X2 1.6GHz does).

[mage]

You should be willing to spend a bit more if you want to play games at any decent FPS. Don't go with Intel GMA, you will regret it later even if it plays WoW now. You will want to play something else eventually, and it's no good for HD playback either.

I have this laptop
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16834152196

Great all around performer for $1100. Has an i5, 17 inch screen (1680x1050) and the mobility HD5870 which is the 3rd or 4th best laptop gpu (non SLI) if I remember correctly.

Check out MSI's laptops on newegg, they offer some pretty good performance for the price. If you want to spend less, then

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16834152201

has an i3, 15 inch screen, and nvidia 325m, which is still okay as well. In any case, just get a gpu in the 300 series or ATI's equivalent with any dual core CPU and you should be fine.

[Kraco]

You should be willing to spend a bit more if you want to play games at any decent FPS.

Great all around performer for $1100.

I think you missed the post where he said he's going to pay 100 bucks for the thing. No matter which one he chooses, it's definitely worth 100 dollars.

But yeah, if I were to choose one of them, I'd also take the AMD/Ati one. But I've happily had AMD based computers for a long time anyway, despite knowing they lose to Intel in everything but price.

[mage]

yeah, missed that. :(

but still two good suggestions for a laptop if anyone is looking for one.

[UChessmaster]

Thanks for the input guys! i think i`m going to go with the ati one.

[Buffalobiian]

I'd like to hear some feedback from macbook users who have something to say about the pros and cons compared to Windows laptops. My current Dell Inspiron 1501's been having trouble charging its battery past 60%. I could try bidding another battery to try I guess, but I'd like to listen to some feedback anyway. Who knows if this thing will die on me before (or while) I go back to uni next year.

I should say that no matter which type of laptop I'd be getting (if at all), I would be getting something second-hand from ebay or the like for around <$600.

[Animeniax]

I don't imagine you used that Dell for high-end gaming, and since you're considering a Mac anyway I doubt that gaming is a consideration. That being the case, and considering your price range, I suggest you consider an iPad 2. I'm considering getting one and I dislike Mac products.

[Buffalobiian]

No gaming at all. It's used for chat, word processing, internet surfing, visual novels and video playback. (visual novels "sort of" count as gaming, but by no means is high end).

I'm not fond of the ipad concept, but since you're pushing it so much and you hated macs, I'll read a little about the upcoming ipad2 before I make a solid decision of whether I like it or not.

edit: I should clarify that I was talking about 600 AUD. The exchange rate is similar at the moment with USD, but the prices will probably reflect their cost when we had a more inferior exchange rate. In light of that, looking at getting it imported might not be a bad idea.

[Animeniax]

Portability is my main concern now, so much so I considered getting an iPod touch for those cases where I need internet and don't have my laptop with me. The screen size is what killed that idea, though it would be good for a mobile music player too. Decisions, decisions.

[Buffalobiian]

Portability is my main concern now, so much so I considered getting an iPod touch for those cases where I need internet and don't have my laptop with me. The screen size is what killed that idea, though it would be good for a mobile music player too. Decisions, decisions.

Portability isn't THAT great a concern for me, though of course it'd be nice if the machine was light and thin. I really do like physical keyboards though, so if I decide to forgo performance/features for portability, it'll still be a tossup between an Ipad2 or a Macbook Air.

[Archangel]

My sister and her husband both have macbooks and i honestly can't see why anyone would waste that much money on a piece of hardware when a windows equivalent would be so much cheaper

Pros: It's pretty and light, truly a portable computer

Cons: Overpriced and freaking annoying to get used to, not to mention all those little pieces of software you use every day and only miss when they're gone probably aren't compatible with it.

With the exception of the iphone ( and honestly only because of its great third party support ) i have no idea why apple is so damn popular

[Animeniax]

My sister and her husband both have macbooks and i honestly can't see why anyone would waste that much money on a piece of hardware when a windows equivalent would be so much cheaper

Pros: It's pretty and light, truly a portable computer

Cons: Overpriced and freaking annoying to get used to, not to mention all those little pieces of software you use every day and only miss when they're gone probably aren't compatible with it.

With the exception of the iphone ( and honestly only because of its great third party support ) i have no idea why apple is so damn popular

It's especially silly when they buy a Macbook then install a Windows OS on it.

[Buffalobiian]

In its defence, I have to say that Macs have really good battery life compared to conventional laptops. I don't know if this is by design, or that windows use up resources like crazy.


You used to be able to get better hardware for the price when you bought a macbook, but those times are long gone.

[David75]

Battery life is a combo of hardware choices, Os tuning and customer mind control :D

For the later, I refer to the fact that macs can bu tunned down regarding performance, as software and uses are fairly different from PCs, and customers do not buy macs for performances. Moreover, it's hard comparing macs and PCs thanks to the OS... eventhough you can boot windows now.

For a laptop?
I'd go with a cheap one and slam a good SSD in it. Problem is that you clearly eat most of the budget with the SSD alone.
The only quality that laptop would have is silence and temperature control.

[DB_Hunter]

Ok I'm looking to buy a laptop for a friend, but I havn't bought a computer for a while and I'm REALLY out of touch with the technology. Last thing I knew processors were going multi-core, and that was that.

So I have been reading up on the different multi core Intel processors and I know that the i3, i5 and i7 series are the latest ones. I understand that the way their bus systems are make them faster than the old Core 2 Duo series. What I don't understand, and this may seem rather simple to some, is that when someone states the clock speed for one of these processors are they talking about the total clock speed of all of the cores of just the speed at which one core runs? E.g. 2.4GHz i3 dual core processor... does that mean a total processing power of 4.8Ghz or that each core runs at 1.2GHz?

[David75]

Ok I'm looking to buy a laptop for a friend, but I havn't bought a computer for a while and I'm REALLY out of touch with the technology. Last thing I knew processors were going multi-core, and that was that.

So I have been reading up on the different multi core Intel processors and I know that the i3, i5 and i7 series are the latest ones. I understand that the way their bus systems are make them faster than the old Core 2 Duo series. What I don't understand, and this may seem rather simple to some, is that when someone states the clock speed for one of these processors are they talking about the total clock speed of all of the cores of just the speed at which one core runs? E.g. 2.4GHz i3 dual core processor... does that mean a total processing power of 4.8Ghz or that each core runs at 1.2GHz?
Clock is shared, so each core clocks the specified frequency.

[DB_Hunter]

Clock is shared, so each core clocks the specified frequency.

So that means each clock is running at the specific frequency, giving a 'total' speed of cores x clock speed if all cores are utilised?

[Buffalobiian]

So that means each clock is running at the specific frequency, giving a 'total' speed of cores x clock speed if all cores are utilised?

If I tell you this i5 is rated for 2.8GHz, it means that each of its four cores run at 2.8GHz. If you would like a "total", then that would be 2.8*4 = 11.2GHz.

Processors these days have underclocking and (the term used by Intel's processors is) Turboboosting. The i5 760 is rated at 2.8GHz, but will underclock to 1.2GHz to save power and heat when not demanded, and can Turboboost (dynamic overclocking pretty much) up to 3.3GHz given that it has the thermal headroom and other resources available.

In other words, the i5 760 (2.8GHz) is guaranteed to run between 1.2-2.8GHz. If it's not overheating, it can turboboost up to 3.33GHz (though this performance is subjective to operating conditions - heat and threads).

The newest gen of i3s/i5s have even more amazing turboboost capabilities. AMD has something similar too.

[DB_Hunter]

If I tell you this i5 is rated for 2.8GHz, it means that each of its four cores run at 2.8GHz. If you would like a "total", then that would be 2.8*4 = 11.2GHz.

Processors these days have underclocking and (the term used by Intel's processors is) Turboboosting. The i5 760 is rated at 2.8GHz, but will underclock to 1.2GHz to save power and heat when not demanded, and can Turboboost (dynamic overclocking pretty much) up to 3.3GHz given that it has the thermal headroom and other resources available.

In other words, the i5 760 (2.8GHz) is garunteed to run between 1.2-2.8GHz. If it's not overheating, it can turboboost up to 3.33GHz (though this performance is subjective to operating conditions - heat and threads).

The newest gen of i3s/i5s have even more amazing turboboost capabilities. AMD has something similar too.

Thanks, that clears up a lot of stuff.

I'm looking to get a laptop for a friend who just wants it for normal word processing, e-mail/Outlook, internet browsing and occasional use of Adobe Illustraitor. His basic request is that if he has a few windows/apss open like those mentioned above that his machine doesn't start grinding to a halt. His other request is to make the machine as 'future proof' as possible, given that he has a budget of about £400-450 max. I was originally just going to get him a Core 2 Duo machine for half the price but I'm wondering if I should get him an i3? Would it be worth going double the cost from say £200-215 to £400-450 just to get an i3 and possibly an i5?

[David75]

Thanks, that clears up a lot of stuff.

I'm looking to get a laptop for a friend who just wants it for normal word processing, e-mail/Outlook, internet browsing and occasional use of Adobe Illustraitor. His basic request is that if he has a few windows/apss open like those mentioned above that his machine doesn't start grinding to a halt. His other request is to make the machine as 'future proof' as possible, given that he has a budget of about £400-450 max. I was originally just going to get him a Core 2 Duo machine for half the price but I'm wondering if I should get him an i3? Would it be worth going double the cost from say £200-215 to £400-450 just to get an i3 and possibly an i5?


It is only possible with a SSD (assuming the system has 4Gb RAM already) because these symtoms are the sign of a HDD not able to cope with multiple random small write/reads happening at the same time.
Thing is, a SSD is expensive. So in the mentionned budget, only a 60GB or so SSD will do. Meaning you either need to find a dual HDD bay laptop, or sacrifice the optical drive bay and add an adapter, or deal with an external USB/e-sata HDD
And believe me, a good SSD is the best upgrade you can think of.
A vertex 2, a C300 or even an Intel will do the trick around US$ 100 I guess. I know this is a lot of $ for a very small storage capacity, but it really transforms a comp. Just that for a low budget you have to manage your data differently. But you can also think lower in terms of processing power. Of course in the end, the future proofness will be hard to cope with on a very tight budget, or even be impossible for gaming (hell, gaming on a laptop is already madness...)

[Kraco]

I think David invested a sizable sum in some SSD manufacturer's stocks.

[Buffalobiian]

@David: I can have multiple things open without the PC/laptop grinding to a halt. To me having enough ram for the stuff you're doing is arguably more important so that you're not constantly swapping stuff between the RAM and the HDD. Having an SSD will offset this I suppose, but more RAM does seem to be a cheaper option. Manufacturers these days don't seem to mind sticking in 4GB of ram as a tag line.

[David75]

I think David invested a sizable sum in some SSD manufacturer's stocks.

Nope, but I did finally buy a SSD ;)


@David: I can have multiple things open without the PC/laptop grinding to a halt. To me having enough ram for the stuff you're doing is arguably more important so that you're not constantly swapping stuff between the RAM and the HDD. Having an SSD will offset this I suppose, but more RAM does seem to be a cheaper option. Manufacturers these days don't seem to mind sticking in 4GB of ram as a tag line.

I was thinking about illustrator and its hoggish behavior, even with 4GB of ram. You agree with me that 4GB is the limit for a budget laptop, as 2*4GB sticks would be too expensive as most (if not all) laptops have only 2 ram slots available.
Then I adapt the strategy to a smaller SSD and find a way to store data, be it in a bay adapter, dual bay laptop, or external HDD.

As of yet, I see no other alternatives, thing is trying the solution costs. Oh and unfortunately, SSDs go with Win7 for optimal data management reasons (trim for example) or linux... but since we're talking about illustrator it is a M$ environnement.

[darkshadow]

Even with 3GB ram and 80 processes running which amongst are 3dsMAX and Photoshop my pc doesn't grind to a halt....why? Because most programs aren't continuesly writing/reading from the HDD, even those 2. Illustrator doesn't either.
Once the programs are loaded up in the ram, it doesn't really matter whether you are running notepad or Final Cut pro, the performance of the program will mostly depend on the overall performance of the system ( cpu/ram/gpu/vram), the HDD is only really important when actually reading/writing is occuring.

[Kraco]

It would also seem a bit dubious to me to get the cheapest Acer around to be able to fit an SSD into a tight budget like that.

[DB_Hunter]

Clearly RAM is important but the message I seem to be getting here that the CPU is not as important as the RAM...? I mean my thoughts are revolving around whether or not I should go for an i3/i5 or just a Core 2 Duo for half the price?