IT / PC people, rate this laptop

i need a cheap laptop with decent power. probably can't wait until black friday. i don't know anything about AMD Athlon processors, but is this a decent machine:

http://www.bestbuy.com/site/Acer+-+Aspire+Laptop+with+AMD+Athlon%26%23153%3B+Single-Core+Processor/9555769.p?id=1218127632130&skuId=9555769

Not a big fan of Acer laptops myself.

Specwise and Pricewise seems quite decent though.

Grtechguy wrote: Not a big fan of Acer laptops myself. Specwise and Pricewise seems quite decent though.

any comments on the AMD processor versus an Intel?

Spend a little time shopping the egg or tigerdirect and you will almost always find more bang for your buck than bigbox stores. Pay attention to the reviews.

There are some great basic machines in the $4-500 range. Some have free shipping too.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/ProductList.aspx?Submit=ENE&N=2034940032%204020&name=%24400%20-%20%24500

AngryCorvair wrote:

Grtechguy wrote: Not a big fan of Acer laptops myself. Specwise and Pricewise seems quite decent though.

any comments on the AMD processor versus an Intel?

Its good. The AMD top of the line and the Intel top of the line offer about the same performance depending on the time it was released... If the intel is better now, it won't be when the new AMD is released and vice-versa. The same goes for whatever their midline processor and bottom line one is.

Typically, Intel builds their processors to enterprise standards, meaning it has been tested to fairly stringent standards. This is typically why they tend to run more cool and longer. Think of them as a Rolls Royce. Or an elephant

AMD can be more like an Italian exotic or a cheetah (depending on where they are in their product cycle) so they can sometimes run a little warmer and perhaps be more liable for problems. Not to say they don't test them, but they strike me as having "small man" syndrome where they are always striving hard to impress people with their feats of strength, etc.

Realistically, they both work well and given the typical lifespan of PC these days, there isn't a huge difference other than price. I would only pick one over the other if I were going to use an operating system or an application that was processor specific or had known problems with a specific processor. I doubt you'd have anything like that.

That CPU seems to be the workhorse of the AMD bottom end. I personally looked at that laptop, but chose a very similar one.

http://www.walmart.com/catalog/product.do?product_id=13045213

That's the one I ended up with. I wanted something dual core, but raw CPU speed wasn't so much of a concern. I seem to get about 3 real hours of real use on my battery. The extra RAM helps make up for the low speed CPU, as does the extra core.

I'll have a full review of my particular laptop up on my friend's website in a few days. I always give any device I review a full week of real-world use before I will give an opinion on it.

I always used AMD's in the desktops I built when I was doing that kind of thing, as you can overclock the bejezus outta them if your cooling system is up to the task. As warm as a laptop gets I would be leary of them.

The low voltage CPUs are a little different. My laptop barely gets warm. Laptop cooling has come a long way in the past year or two. Where there used to be one heatpipe, there are 4 or more. As long as you're using low voltage chips, your heat won't get too out of hand.

I bought a $500 laptop as an experiment about 2 years ago. It was to see if I would get more use out of a laptop than a desktop. At this point I'd never own a desktop again unless I were using it as a file server at my house.

Deal is...for $300 you could use it for a year and then pass it along to the wife or use it in the garage for posting on GRM with oily fingers.

So I'd pick up one that you like and has the highest spec for your price point. Then, after you get a feel for the features you like and the level of performance you require you can get another one when the tech changes in a year or two.

btw - AMD's haven't been problematic for me. They usually sell a bit cheaper than intel powered products.

Back to the laptop you posted...I like it. It has a decent cpu, a good chunk of RAM, decent sized hard drive, and a brand name vid card. I would like a laptop with a larger screen but that's going to raise your price into the $500 or $600 dollar range. If you're just surfing and using it for office tasks then you'll be fine. If you're doing some more demanding stuff like gaming, video editing, or CAD then you might need more horsepower.

For the ultimate in laptop power check out gaming laptops and expect to drop a grand. I've got an Asus G50vt-x1. I game a bit so it works for that. If I had it to do over I'd get a Gateway P-7805u FX.

thanks for all the feedback. i don't hot-rod my computers, and i don't game. it'll be used for "office" computing, web surfing, email, and youtube/youp0rn viewing.

pricepoint is as much performance as i can get for about $300 today. $400 is out of the question at this time, but $325 is containable if i don't go out to lunch anymore this month.

AMD's mobile processors suck. They haven't had a competitive mobile product like they do with desktops.

This Toshiba is $25 more, and the Celeron 900 benchmarks about 2x faster than the TF-20 Athlon. (Celeron 900 scores 820 on passmark, TF-20 scores 391)

http://www.bestbuy.com/site/Toshiba+-+Satellite+Laptop+with+Intel%26%23174%3B+Celeron%26%23174%3B+Processor+-+Silver/9548983.p?id=1218122295102&skuId=9548983

It's faster, bigger hard drive, more cache, etc. Definitely worth it.

i just bought this

right place right time, as they just went on sale today for $249, so i came in $30 under budget instead of $56 over.

only 2gig of ram instead of 3, but easily and cheaply upgradeable if i ever need it.

no multi-memory-card reader but i don't have memory cards anyway so no loss.

built in webcam is a plus.

so for me, it should be just fine.

Wow. Great deal there. That should do all that you specified you want it too. At $250 if you get a year's use out of it you'll be ahead of the game. First laptop for you?

That is a pretty good deal. At $250, I'd be happy that it boots up. Specs wouldn't matter at all to me.

Xceler8x wrote: Wow. Great deal there. That should do all that you specified you want it too. At $250 if you get a year's use out of it you'll be ahead of the game. First laptop for you?

first one i've ever bought for myself with my own money. former employer supplied me with laptops for about the last 12 years, but current employer has me on a desktop only. laptops are available only to people on active travel status.

so far, i gotta say it's pretty friggin' nice. the keyboard has great feel. one day i might even learn what all the buttons are for. right now, i'm gonna see how it works for p0rn.

That laptop is horrible for p0rn. The screen stains too easily. Cover it in saranwrap first.

Uh is it just me or is this thing rather short on processing power? 1.6 single core? My sister's Inspiron 10v Mini (which I picked out for her) has a 1.6 dual core (although the screen resolution is lower). I have a 1.9 single core (although an older one) in my couch-surfer laptop and it's barely adequate. I couldn't play videos on it without GPU acceleration enabled.

BTW this is a great time to pick up a laptop with Ubuntu (although I'd recommend 9.04 over 9.10 for you...9.10 is a "bleeding edge" release and may give you some trouble)...a netbook is not going to do any gaming and once you're running a good stable Linux distro, it won't give you trouble unless you physically smash it.

I know that they're not much cheaper than Windows laptops (sometimes the exact same price...long story about shady vendor exclusivity deals), but it will save you a lot of trouble in the long run.

EDIT: Oh I see the one you picked up. Good deal, has enough processing power and memory, although I'd still recommend an Ubuntu install (although if you do video conferencing that could be an issue, depending on what software you use).

Gameboy- What does Ubuntu really get for you? I read the website, but is it a derivative of Linux? (which I'm still trying to understand the benefit of that). But all it says is that it's "safe", has a bunch of freeware, and will update every 6 months. Forgive me, but that doesn't seem appealing enough. If it runs faster on an old computer, and will interface with various tools that are windows based (tuning, data acq, etc)- then it would be useful.

Lets put it this way- I've got an old Toughbook that I could not reload all of the drivers, so I can't use the PCMCIA card to either put in a wireless card or USB ports. If Ubuntu would make that easy, then I would consider the change.

Other than that, what really is the benefit?

Eric

GameboyRMH wrote: Uh is it just me or is this thing rather short on processing power? 1.6 single core? My sister's Inspiron 10v Mini (which I picked out for her) has a 1.6 dual core (although the screen resolution is lower). I have a 1.9 single core (although an older one) in my couch-surfer laptop and it's barely adequate. I couldn't play videos on it without GPU acceleration enabled.

Also, for typical web users, how does extra power really get any benefits? Seems as if the real limit is the web, not the computer. I, like AC, just do basic tools and web browsing. When my computers are running properly, seems as if the speed isn't the issue- my laptop is 3 years old now.

Just curious how dual cores will help out when web browsing and reading e-mail. Or manipulating simple spreadsheets, word documents, etc.

Eric

One thing about newer laptop processors, it is very easy to upgrade them. I got my wife a $200 Dell laptop off of Buy.com and for another $40 I put in a faster dual core chip.

alfadriver wrote:

GameboyRMH wrote: Uh is it just me or is this thing rather short on processing power? 1.6 single core? My sister's Inspiron 10v Mini (which I picked out for her) has a 1.6 dual core (although the screen resolution is lower). I have a 1.9 single core (although an older one) in my couch-surfer laptop and it's barely adequate. I couldn't play videos on it without GPU acceleration enabled.

Also, for typical web users, how does extra power really get any benefits? Seems as if the real limit is the web, not the computer. I, like AC, just do basic tools and web browsing. When my computers are running properly, seems as if the speed isn't the issue- my laptop is 3 years old now. Just curious how dual cores will help out when web browsing and reading e-mail. Or manipulating simple spreadsheets, word documents, etc. Eric

It's not really the number of cores, it's the total processing power. A 1.6 dual core is roughly equal to a 3.2Ghz single core. And if you want to play flash videos online, a 1.6Ghz single core is not going to cut it. If you were to browse without flash content you could get away with a lot less - a <1Ghz CPU would be more than enough with a lightweight OS.

alfadriver wrote: Gameboy- What does Ubuntu really get for you? I read the website, but is it a derivative of Linux? (which I'm still trying to understand the benefit of that). But all it says is that it's "safe", has a bunch of freeware, and will update every 6 months. Forgive me, but that doesn't seem appealing enough. If it runs faster on an old computer, and will interface with various tools that are windows based (tuning, data acq, etc)- then it would be useful. Lets put it this way- I've got an old Toughbook that I could not reload all of the drivers, so I can't use the PCMCIA card to either put in a wireless card or USB ports. If Ubuntu would make that easy, then I would consider the change. Other than that, what really is the benefit? Eric

Gameboy Thanks for answering the speed question, but the ubuntu question is also still there- this is a real question, as I've never heard of this OS, and am interested in it if there's a real benefit. Like I pointed out, I've got a few older laptops at home that I intend to use for tuning of all of my car projects. Just got to work out a data acq system to go with them. If this OS will help me better set them up, I'm game to work with it.

Thanks

Eric

The big benefits to an average user are security (viruses are practically a non-issue), low maintenance and reliability (although Win7 is pretty reliable in my experience). Oh and it's free You can try it without installing. Just download the ISO, burn the CD and boot from it.

The current version might give you some trouble. I'd recommend going with 9.04 for now:

http://releases.ubuntu.com/9.04/

On older systems you can go with a more lightweight version, Xubuntu:

http://www.xubuntu.org/

A lot of auto tuning and data acquisition tools are available for Linux, and if you need to use a specific Windows-only app, you can try running it with WINE (lets you run Windows apps in Linux).

I was leaning more toward Linux than anything else- but I know little to nothing about OS's. I need something light so that these old machines run quickly, and I somehow need to find the drivers so I can install a wireless card.

Not too many requirements, eh?

E