Looking to upgrade

[Smokescreen]

Well I am finally admitting it...my trusty Pentium III 1Ghz 512M RAM 40G HD running Windows2000 desktop just isn't cutting it anymore. It loads to slow, I can barely surf and run music and do spreadsheets at the same time....I fought the good fight and its time to upgrade. I think I might try a laptop...always wanted to try that...maybe even go wireless...whoa don't get to crazy...I know, I know...

So the only question I have to ask is...now what? I have been out of the game for so long now I don't have a clue. I looked at some Intel core i5 and i3 driven machines, but don't know how it stacks up to an AMD Athlon X2 or Neo K25...what??? I talked to the guys at the local store, they tried to sell me on these gaming setups, and I just don't want to shell out a lot of coin for something I won't use.

My needs aren't great (as you can tell) so here is what I need:

- a decent video card, so it can stream internet ->LCD TV without buffering as much.
- can run skype effectively (my machine won't run it)

I don't need a RAM measuring contest here, just a couple of clear choices on what motor to look for. Any resident pros that knows what specs will fit the bill?

 

[Bill in Utah]

Pretty well anything dual-core will do what you want. I'd say 4 gig of ram, at least a Intel Dual-core or AMD Athon x2 (I've got both and they youtube/watch anything on the internet and surf (and allow me to play online poker) all at the same time.

On the desktop machines that I use I'm using a cheap $29 512k Vdram video card in one on board graphics with the other. Can't tell the difference between the two.

The Dell I bought for less than $400 delivered works great! Don't need to spend a lot. I remember my first 10MB harddrive costing a lot more than that!

As far as a Laptop. I've watched many a video (both DVD and streaming) on my $400 laptop. The only thing that I don't like about laptops are that they are expensive if anything goes wrong and every brand does their own thing. (I've got a ASUS laptop with a buzzing power cube and they will not replace it until it fails... It did not make any noise until a few months ago. They are the only MFG of their power supply...)

There are a lot of "contests" going on here. I do what works for the least amount of coin.

Take care, Bill

 

[97tbird]

I have a thinkpad R60 and it has a 1.83 Ghz, dual core, on-board video, and 2 GB RAM. Ran XP Pro until Windows BSODs ended the run, and now running Ubuntu 10.10, runs like a champ.

I use this laptop heavily for watching streaming Hulu videos (at 480p), connected to my Samsung LCD TV (40") via VGA cables, and the pic quality (and sound) is amazing, and rivals that of a very good DVD (and i am VERY picky about a/v quality).

(The on board video can be set to output a wide screen 16:9 format, which is important if you want to connected it to a wide screen LCD - make sure whatever laptop you buy allows you to change the video out resolution to 16:9 mode. for example, my wife's old ThinkPad R50 didn't have that option)

 

[jaj]

When it comes to laptops, it's hard to beat Lenovo. I've owned one after another for fifteen years and they've never let me down.

The current one I have is about 14 months old, and it's a lightweight X200 base model with a 2.4 GHz Core 2 Duo running Windows 7 with 4 GB of RAM. The one "mod" I did was to install an Intel 160GB Solid State Drive (I use it in a high vibration environment). The SSD also speeds it up a lot, and with the SSD installed, it runs everyday programs faster than my super-performance maxed-out gaming computer.

You can get this level of setup or better in a full-sized Lenovo laptop (the small ones cost more) for less than $1,000 these days, especially when they're on sale at the Lenovo website.

As for video, I have yet to find a video monitor that doesn't just plug in and work - even the my 23" Samsung at work with the 1920x1080 pixel ratio works just fine and doesn't strain the video subsystem.

 

[Rand]

+1 for lenovo although I was irritated that they didnt mention it was shipping from canada and it got stuck in customs and It took me a month to get it.

I have a t400 pretty much maxxed out for 600 last december right before they switched to I5's etc

I think the 14" size is a great compromise between mobility and actual size of keyboard etc.

although next time I may get a 13.3" with a su4100 culv processor (or whatever is current at the time)

you may not want to upgrade to the best screen on a smaller laptop.. It makes the pixels so small its a semi-waste of money. 1440x900 on a 14" is plenty for my eyes.

If you want alot of memory you can probably save by buying the 2gig and adding a 2gig yourself.. they generally rip you off for 40-50$ on the memory

+1 also on a SSD makes it amazing.. however unless its changed they charge a super premium to get one with the computer. I got mine seperately.. 30min with acronis and I was in business.
I also recycled the 160gb factory hdd as a backup drive in a 14$ esata/usb case.

 

[Donald]

I have a Lenovo T61P. Its a great laptop, I use the laptop video and another screen at the same time. Love that concept. My only complaint is they still use CARDBUS rather than EXPRESSBUS and/or do not have a full speed eSATA connector.

 

[Nick R]

As far as a laptop, without going crazy, anything with an AMD Graphics chip will be decent. The intel HD graphics are still very slow and cruddy. But yes, anything Dual-Core. 3GB of RAM minimum, 4 would be best.

 

[ToyotaNSaturn]

I don't agree that the Intel chips are slow & cruddy. Some are, especially the older ones. I wouldn't touch a 500 or 900 series Intel GMA basic video, those are just, well, blah.

Things have change. The 4500 series built-in graphics are fine for non-game players and have shown to be great performer for displaying graphics, such as high-resolution x-ray images.

I don't bother spec'ing laptops with anything but the 4500 series Intel video.

 

[CivicFan]

I am in a similar boat with an aging laptop with a Core Duo processor. My plan is to get a Lenovo with an i7 processor so that it stays relevant for 4-5 years.

So I've been following http://slickdeals.net/ for deals that pop-up.

 

[Nick R]

Originally Posted By: ToyotaNSaturn
I don't agree that the Intel chips are slow & cruddy. Some are, especially the older ones. I wouldn't touch a 500 or 900 series Intel GMA basic video, those are just, well, blah.

Things have change. The 4500 series built-in graphics are fine for non-game players and have shown to be great performer for displaying graphics, such as high-resolution x-ray images.

I don't bother spec'ing laptops with anything but the 4500 series Intel video.



Maybe not, but it's a matter of "for the same price".... If batter life doesn't matter, the AMD processor is roughly the same performance, and the graphics chip is much faster. Would be to me, like choosing between a 3 speed transmission, versus a 5 or 6 speed for the same price.

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted By: Nick R
As far as a laptop, without going crazy, anything with an AMD Graphics chip will be decent. The intel HD graphics are still very slow and cruddy. But yes, anything Dual-Core. 3GB of RAM minimum, 4 would be best.


They are hardly slow and cruddy. And for running Windows 7 and "regular" use that doesn't involve much 3D gaming, you can't tell the difference between them other than the superior battery life on the Intel graphics system. We aren't talking about the GMA950 here; the embedded graphics on the i5 and i3 CPU's works very well.

And if you want the better ATI/AMD video hardware, you can definitely get it coupled with an Intel CPU. Many of the ASUS notebooks come with Intel CPU's and AMD/ATI graphics. A nice combo that works well.

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted By: Nick R
Originally Posted By: ToyotaNSaturn
I don't agree that the Intel chips are slow & cruddy. Some are, especially the older ones. I wouldn't touch a 500 or 900 series Intel GMA basic video, those are just, well, blah.

Things have change. The 4500 series built-in graphics are fine for non-game players and have shown to be great performer for displaying graphics, such as high-resolution x-ray images.

I don't bother spec'ing laptops with anything but the 4500 series Intel video.



Maybe not, but it's a matter of "for the same price".... If batter life doesn't matter, the AMD processor is roughly the same performance, and the graphics chip is much faster. Would be to me, like choosing between a 3 speed transmission, versus a 5 or 6 speed for the same price.


Or you just get the better CPU (Intel) with the better graphics (AMD). Since there are a pile of notebooks out there in that configuration.

 

[jaj]

Originally Posted By: Rand
+1 also on a SSD makes it amazing.. however unless its changed they charge a super premium to get one with the computer. I got mine seperately.. 30min with acronis and I was in business.
I also recycled the 160gb factory hdd as a backup drive in a 14$ esata/usb case.


I bought the SSD from a local retailer and installed it myself. I reinstalled the operating system and apps from the System Restore Disk and it all went very smoothly.

Aside from the speed, the SSD draws almost no power - the unit will run for hours on a charge - much longer than the usual HDD.

 

[Bill in Utah]

Originally Posted By: jaj

Aside from the speed, the SSD draws almost no power - the unit will run for hours on a charge - much longer than the usual HDD.


Not on my Acer 10.2 netbook with a Kingston 64gig SSD. The factory 160gig HD while slightly slower runs about 2 hours longer than the Kingston with the 6 cell. About 1 hour difference on the 3 cell.

I'd not do the "upgrade" again to an SSD.

 

[Nick R]

Originally Posted By: Bill in Utah
Originally Posted By: jaj

Aside from the speed, the SSD draws almost no power - the unit will run for hours on a charge - much longer than the usual HDD.


Not on my Acer 10.2 netbook with a Kingston 64gig SSD. The factory 160gig HD while slightly slower runs about 2 hours longer than the Kingston with the 6 cell. About 1 hour difference on the 3 cell.

I'd not do the "upgrade" again to an SSD.



See Bill, in a netbook the harddisk is not the limiting factor. The processor, memory, chipset... Pretty much everything else.

I upgraded my desktop with an Intel 40GB SSD. It makes an ENORMOUS difference in speed. boot speed, application load speed.... It is incredible. POST on my computer takes longer than it takes to load windows, log in, and load all the startup applications like AV, ATi Catalyst, etc. Of course, I'm running an oc'ed C2D and 4GB of RAM. Not an Intel Atom with 1GB.

 

[Bill in Utah]

I've got 2 gig in the Netbook.

I was commenting more on the longer battery life (IE the SSD draws almost no power. "much longer" than the usual HDD")

 

[Nick R]

Originally Posted By: Bill in Utah
I've got 2 gig in the Netbook.

I was commenting more on the longer battery life (IE the SSD draws almost no power. "much longer" than the usual HDD")




Ah. I've heard tales of this happening. I can't imagine why that would be, since even under load they draw less power than a typical HDD. Very interesting.

 

[Bill in Utah]

I think the newer 5400RPM HDD have real low power consumption.

I'm going to be taking the SSD out and going back to the HDD in the netbook. I'll prob put the SSD in the Laptop just to see how it runs.

Then sell it since I do want more than 64gig cap in it. The netbook did not matter.

Bill

 

[Nick R]

If you have a desktop with SATA, use it as the boot drive in that. And use the existing HDD as the storage drive. That's what I do, with only a 40GB boot drive now. But it's well worth it.

 

[Bill in Utah]

Originally Posted By: Nick R
If you have a desktop with SATA, use it as the boot drive in that. And use the existing HDD as the storage drive. That's what I do, with only a 40GB boot drive now. But it's well worth it.


I hardly ever reboot (maybe twice a month) and the desktop is plenty fast so I'd rather have the $100 for the drive I think. Maybe I'll try it just to see if there is anything there.

But most likely it will get sold.

Bill