i need a new laptop

[Spell]

hello.
i am moving to austin, TX from europe in two days and i need (after 4 years) to change my laptop.
i have no idea of what shops (online or not) are the best ones in usa, nor what kind of laptop should i shoot for.

i am looking for:
P4 2.4 GHz;
system ram: 1 GB;
video ram: 256 MB;
double layer DVD recorder;
the more USB 2.0 slots, the better.

these are the requirements to run some music hardware i have and to burn my soundtracks on double layer dvds.

now, this is what i need. i don't necessarily want the fastest, bigger, flashier laptop i can't find, but i don't even want to buy just what i need, if that means that i will be forced to change machine after 6 months or so.

any advice?

another information that you might find useful: i do not intend to upgrade to windows vista, unless forced. in fact, i would instal linux right now, if i had the time to learn it (and if it was compatible with finale, pro tools and a couple of computer games i still have to finish).

thanks a lot!

PS: if the warranty lasts longer than 1 year, i would like it to be valid even in europe: i will stay in austin for just 1 year, and then i have to go back to uk for at least another 12 months, to finish my degree.

 

[drothgery]

The basic notebook questions are

What's your budget (note that consumer electronics are generally cheaper in the US than in Europe)?

How important is portability (size, weight, battery life)?

Are you going to be doing anything that requires decent graphics (games, video editting)?

But first the basics...

Just ignore the CPU specs from your software. Any notebook you buy is going to have a Pentium M, Celeron M, Core Solo, Core Duo, Turion 64, or Turion 64 X2 CPU (or if you can hold out a few months, a Core 2 Duo). And unless you go for the ultra-portable sub-4lb models, they'll all be more than fast enough (even the 1.6 GHz Celeron Ms in Dell's cheapest non-ultraportables are comprable to a 2.4 GHz P4).

If you're planning on keeping the notebook a long time, that argues for a 64-bit capable box (which means wait for Core 2 Duo notebooks -- no more than a month off, or find the rare Turion 64/Turion 64 X2 based models).

 

[Steel_Wind]

If battery power is not important to you, and you are looking for a cheap but very serviceable machine, look at the Acer Aspire Sempron based 3300.

If battery power is important - however - avoid this product line.

 

[azhrei_fje]

Compaq might be my next one

If you're planning on keeping the notebook a long time, that argues for a 64-bit capable box (which means wait for Core 2 Duo notebooks -- no more than a month off, or find the rare Turion 64/Turion 64 X2 based models).

I'm in the market for a new laptop myself. Since the Intel Core chips are not 64-bit, I'm planning to stay away from them (why buy old technology?). And the weekly newspapers here in Tampa are filled with Turion single- and dual-core laptops... (My current laptop is an Athlon64 @ 2GHz and I love it!)

I just saw an ad for a Compaq with an AMD Turion 64-bit dual-core chip with 512MB RAM (after rebates) for $699. I would bump the RAM up to 1GB, probably 2GB since this will be for business purposes. And yes, that includes a DVD burner (double layer), Wireless (a/b/g), a few media reader slots (I think CF, SM, SD, MS, and XD, if I remember correctly).

I think it came with Windows Media Center, but I don't know -- I plan to wipe Windows off the machine before I have to respond to the EULA agreement and get my money back on it! (Check here or here for details.)

This box is in today's St. Petersburg Times in the OfficeDepot ad. I'm sure the warranty is fairly short; I purchase my electronics with either American Express or my premier VISA, since they both double the warranty period (they'll double up to a year's worth of the original warranty, and there's no registration or paperwork required).

I generally buy computers retail because the rebates are so good. Since my computer purchases are for business, there are advantages to having one number on a receipt, yet getting cash back in the form of rebates.

Whatever you buy, if you want graphics performance you're better off with nVidia, but they're becoming harder to find among the major brands. Especially with 256MB of non-shared video RAM.

 

[drothgery]

I'm in the market for a new laptop myself. Since the Intel Core chips are not 64-bit, I'm planning to stay away from them (why buy old technology?).

Why buy a Core Duo notebook? Well, because you can get them now, from Dell (this may matter if you're getting things for work or through a university discount program) or Apple (many people swear by OSX, or just like Apple's designs), they offer the best performance in most 32-bit apps, and it's unlikely that much desktop software is going to be 64-bit only (or even 64 bit at all) in the next 3 years or so.

AMD's largely a non-factor in notebooks; they're pretty common in low-end retail channel PCs, but they're non-existent in business-targetted machines and scarce in higher-end systems. Pentium M and Core Duo, despite not being 64-bit, have kept up with Athlon 64 far better than Pentium 4 and Pentium D did.

 

[Darth K'Trava]

And as far as video graphics go, you would want to find one that doesn't share video memory with RAM. Find one that has a dedicated videocard. They'll cost more but you won't have the video hogging a chunk of your RAM.

 

[azhrei_fje]

Rebuttal: 32-bit vs. 64-bit

I apologize to everyone in advance. There were some comments made about 32-bit vs. 64-bit hardware, and a few assumptions about operating systems and applications, and I felt I had to reply. Embedded in the middle is an admission that the OP is probably best off sticking with 32-bit hardware because the Windows OS that will be pre-installed can't handle 64-bit hardware anyway (sigh).

If you're not interested in my diatribe, skip to the next message.

Why buy a Core Duo notebook? Well, because you can get them now, from Dell (this may matter if you're getting things for work or through a university discount program) or Apple (many people swear by OSX, or just like Apple's designs),

The ad I mentioned describes dual core AMDs that can also be gotten "now".

Concerning Dell, my wife just bought a dual-core desktop from them last Christmas. I'm not happy with the number of calls she has had to make to India. (Yes, it's a U.S. number, but you know what I mean.) She's not happy, either.

First, the USB ports on her Dell monitor will not work with the Dell mouse or Dell keyboard. If any of those devices (or her iPod) are plugged into the monitor's USB ports, the machine will not finish the BIOS boot cycle. Period.

If we wait until the machine is up and running, then plug the USB devices in, they will work for some random, undetermined amount of time, and then the machine will BSoD. (This is Windows Media Center, fully patched.)

Media Center is also to fault for some weird performance problems, IMO. Her Outlook client started running terribly slow. After spending 1.5 hours on the phone with Dell, they had her reinstall Outlook and reboot. What do you know, it suddenly speeds up!? (Wtf?) A similar situation happened with Adobe Acrobat Professional 6.0 about 3 months ago; reinstall, reboot, and the problem is gone...

I'm sorry, but with that kind of support, I'll take my chances running a true 64-bit operating system on true 64-bit hardware and STAY AWAY FROM DELL! In fact, it has gotten so bad (and she and I have had some arguments over this), that I refuse to support her when it comes to her Dell. (I am in the industry as a trainer. I teach everything from Intro to Linux up to Internals and Writing Device Drivers. I'm no slouch. )

Lenovo has announced that they will start putting AMD chips into their laptops, and in fact, they will start pre-installing SUSE Linux for those customers that want it. I don't recall the start date for those two announcements, and when I checked the IBM sales site I couldn't find mention of it, either.

they offer the best performance in most 32-bit apps, and it's unlikely that much desktop software is going to be 64-bit only (or even 64 bit at all) in the next 3 years or so.

Huh? You must be stuck indoors all the time, locked behind closed Windows, eh?

There has been 64-bit hardware out for 3 years now. Every machine in my office (I count 4 of them) is running 100% 64-bit software (except for the Java runtime, because Sun won't release a 64-bit Java for Linux -- argh!).

And 64-bit rocks over 32-bit. A world of difference, not so much because of the instruction size/set, but because RAM can be managed so much more efficiently. Take a look over at top500.org and check out what operating system the top 500 supercomputers are running. Last I looked (March), 7 of the top 10 were running a Linux distribution. In fact, 72% of the entire top 500 were running Linux. Windows had about 1.4% of the top 500.

Now I ask you: if you want to get WORK done, which operating system would you trust? If you just want to futz around with games and become a spam zombie for some Russian script kiddie, stick to Windows.

To be fair, though, the original poster said he wanted a powerful laptop to play games (sigh). I assume he means under Windows, of course. So the conclusion might as well be a 32-bit chip, since Windows isn't going to do much better on 64-bit hardware anyway. But if you want to plan ahead a little bit...

AMD's largely a non-factor in notebooks; they're pretty common in low-end retail channel PCs, but they're non-existent in business-targetted machines and scarce in higher-end systems. Pentium M and Core Duo, despite not being 64-bit, have kept up with Athlon 64 far better than Pentium 4 and Pentium D did.

Huh? So I should buy a P-M or Core Duo because they doesn't fare as badly against the 64-bit AMD as their predecessors? I'm sorry, but that's not useful logic to me.

The Turion TL-50 (dual core 64-bit chip) is available from Compaq (and now Acer and Toshiba) and backed by HP's support. I wouldn't rate their support 100%, but they are better than most that I've had to deal with. And if you study how the memory fetch cycle works on Intel chips vs. AMD chips, you'll find that AMD's HyperTransport technology can get data from RAM to the cpu about 40% faster in a dual core configuration than Intel's so-called "front-side bus". And the HT technology scales reasonably well up to 8 processors. Of course, Intel VP of Marketing recently said that he doesn't see multi-core becoming popular for the home desktop. And I agree -- for the people who read email and surf the web. But I want a quad-core configuration at home, and AMD expects to ship one by the end of the year! (In combination with motherboards by Tysan and MSI, IIRC.)

What's keeping me out of the market right now is that my current Athlon64 laptop (1GB RAM, 2GHz chip, 802.11a/b/g, and nVidia GeForce w/ 64MB) has a 17" widescreen display with 1920x1200 resolution at 16 million colors and I can't find anything new that comes close to that resolution. The best I can find is 1600x1080 widescreen at 15". Of course, I also spent $2500 on it in Aug 2004 and I'd spend another $2500 this year, if only I could find what I want... :\

 

[drothgery]

I apologize to everyone in advance. There were some comments made about 32-bit vs. 64-bit hardware, and a few assumptions about operating systems and applications, and I felt I had to reply. Embedded in the middle is an admission that the OP is probably best off sticking with 32-bit hardware because the Windows OS that will be pre-installed can't handle 64-bit hardware anyway (sigh).

This isn't a Windows vs. Linux vs. OSX thing (though in the real world, almost everyone runs Windows on desktops/notebooks, and almost everyone who doesn't runs OSX; despite the orignial poster not intending to upgrade to Vista, I'd bet a lot that he'll end up doing so or buying a new machine with Vista preinstalled and running it). Normal business apps (office apps, web browsers, email clients, etc.) will not be 64-bit exclusive within the lifetime of a machine purchased today (especially if you're buying on 3-year corporate replacement schedules), and don't gain any performance advantage from being 64-bit right now. If OpenOffice and FireFox are any different in this regard than MS Office, IE, and Safari, it's news to me.

Now, if you're a programmer working with server apps, someone who does tons of media encoding, or using some other app that gets a lot out of 64-bit (and if you are, you know it; the original poster doesn't seem to be such a person), it's a different story, but typically you don't use a notebook for that kind of stuff (you use a desktop, and if you've got the funding, you use a dual-socket workstation). There are certainly applications where having 64-bit capability helps. And if you're looking to keep a machine for a long time, it's definitely a nice-to-have because 64-bit exclusive stuff probably will start trickling into the mainstream in three to five years. But it's not worth paying extra for, sacrificing 32-bit performance for (P-M and Core Duo are generally faster than Turion and Turion X2 in 32-bit apps), or dealing with non-Intel chipsets for.

But if you're using exclusively 64-bit apps today, then I'll have to refer you to something one of my computer science profs wrote across the board in large, friendly letters on the first day of a Human-Computer Interaction course. "You are not normal." And don't assume that other people are even remotely like you.

 

[azhrei_fje]

Normal business apps (office apps, web browsers, email clients, etc.) will not be 64-bit exclusive within the lifetime of a machine purchased today (especially if you're buying on 3-year corporate replacement schedules), and don't gain any performance advantage from being 64-bit right now.

He's not buying it on any kind of corporate or educational pricing. Or if he is, he didn't say so.

And 64-bit exclusivity is not the question. The question is whether 64-bit apps are (a) available now, and (b) will be available soon. The issue is sort of like the old 16-bit world vs. the win32 and win32s add-ons to the Windows of yore. All of the apps were 16-bit (of course), but win32 was obviously the future and program developers were trying hard to get their code to win32 because the writing on the wall was written in Common in LARGE BLOCK LETTERS.

If OpenOffice and FireFox are any different in this regard than MS Office, IE, and Safari, it's news to me.

Then here's a news flash: OOo is available 64-bit (but only a developer release), FF is available 64-bit. Blender (for those into professional-grade 3D modeling) is available 64-bit. In fact, if you want professional anything, you want 64-bit.

Output of "file firefox-bin blender":
/usr/lib64/firefox/firefox-bin: ELF 64-bit LSB executable, AMD x86-64, version 1 (SYSV), for GNU/Linux 2.4.1, dynamically linked (uses shared libs), stripped
/usr/bin/blender: ELF 64-bit LSB executable, AMD x86-64, version 1 (SYSV), for GNU/Linux 2.4.1, dynamically linked (uses shared libs), stripped

However, the OP wants to run games. Most games are not currently 64-bit. However, history shows us that it's the gaming industry that pushes the envelope on PC hardware (memory requirements, disk space requirements, CPU speed, video performance, network performance, etc). You name the resource and it's the requirements of PC games that push it to the limit. (Of course, digg.com just ran a story about piracy of PC games forcing developers towards consoles, so maybe this trend is going to change over the next few years?)

Now, if you're a programmer working with server apps, someone who does tons of media encoding, or using some other app that gets a lot out of 64-bit (and if you are, you know it; the original poster doesn't seem to be such a person),

Agreed.

it's a different story, but typically you don't use a notebook for that kind of stuff (you use a desktop, and if you've got the funding, you use a dual-socket workstation).

I travel a lot. And I can't (easily) take a desktop with me. So I want as powerful a laptop as I can buy and I'm willing to pay a little bit more to get it. Not a lot more, but a little more.

There are certainly applications where having 64-bit capability helps. And if you're looking to keep a machine for a long time, it's definitely a nice-to-have because 64-bit exclusive stuff probably will start trickling into the mainstream in three to five years.

Again, exclusivity is not the issue. I remember that 16-bit vs. win32 period when apps were distributed in either format, sometimes even on the same set of floppies. If you have a 386 or above, you definitely wanted the win32. If you were stuck on an 80[2]86 (there was no effective difference between the 8086 and 80186 for this discussion), there was a trade-off, since the 80286 protected mode (used for win32 stuff) sort of sucked. And most people didn't have enough memory to make it practical anyway.

But it's not worth paying extra for, sacrificing 32-bit performance for (P-M and Core Duo are generally faster than Turion and Turion X2 in 32-bit apps), or dealing with non-Intel chipsets for.

Agreed on the performance of 32-bit apps on 32-bit chips.

But I'm not sure what you mean by, "dealing with non-Intel chipsets for". Does that imply that non-Intel chipsets are somehow under-supported by Intel or OEM manufacturers? In fact, my wife's Pentium 9x0 (950, IIRC?) required BIOS updates from Dell (it took 4 days to figure this out) to reliably run the software that was pre-installed on the system! Would that have happened with an AMD chip? I have no idea. But I doubt she would've been worse off...

But if you're using exclusively 64-bit apps today, then I'll have to refer you to something one of my computer science profs wrote across the board in large, friendly letters on the first day of a Human-Computer Interaction course. "You are not normal." And don't assume that other people are even remotely like you.

Yep! Similar to a Unix programming I took in college (gee, that's too long ago to even quote a time difference!), "All the world is not a Vax." Same concept.

I don't disagree with your points about 32-bit vs. 64-bit for performance. And as I mentioned in my last post, the OP is just going to run games.

Would I buy a 64-bit chip to run my microwave? Nope, not if it's even a penny more than a 32-bit chip (or 16-bit or 8-bit!). However, if the price point is the same either way, would I choose 64-bit? Of course -- why wouldn't I? In general, the 64-bit chips will run cooler and consume about the same amount of power -- usually a little less, because the same amount of work can be done in less instructions (there's a wider data path), meaning more idle time on the CPU, which leads to lower power consumption over time and better battery life.

And if you look at the technology (as I mentioned in my previous post), the AMD chips are a superior design. The HyperTransport throughput beats the pants off the Intel chips. And Intel doesn't even try to spin it in their direction. Instead they repeat the mantra, "We're faster running today's applications!" Of course, today will be yesterday real soon. And if you want to run yesterday's software, then that probably won't bother you. But if you want to run tomorrow's software, it's certainly worth looking at.

It's been fun chatting about this, but I'll bet that by now the OP has already bought a machine!

My point is simple: if you can get a V8 instead of an inline-4, and the V8 consumes about the same amount of fuel as the 4-cylinder but has more torque, why not get it? You may not need that power right now, but when you do, you'll enjoy it.

 

[drothgery]

And 64-bit exclusivity is not the question. The question is whether 64-bit apps are (a) available now, and (b) will be available soon. The issue is sort of like the old 16-bit world vs. the win32 and win32s add-ons to the Windows of yore.

No it's not, because 32-bit is not fundamentally broken the way x86 16-bit was, and it doesn't take any oddball hacks to get an a x64 CPU to run 32 bit code and 64 bit code at the same time; there's essentially no performance penalty when running a 32-bit Windows app under x64 Windows.

Then here's a news flash: OOo is available 64-bit (but only a developer release), FF is available 64-bit.

... but is there any advantage to running them in 64-bit, which is what I asked? I doubt it.

I remember that 16-bit vs. win32 period when apps were distributed in either format, sometimes even on the same set of floppies. If you have a 386 or above, you definitely wanted the win32. If you were stuck on an 80[2]86 (there was no effective difference between the 8086 and 80186 for this discussion), there was a trade-off, since the 80286 protected mode (used for win32 stuff) sort of sucked. And most people didn't have enough memory to make it practical anyway.

What you're not getting here is that the issues that made 16-bit apps suck relative to 32-bit apps are nowhere near as applicable in the 32-bit to 64-bit transition. 32-bit executables will perform fine on mainstream 64-bit OSs, so apps that don't gain a lot from switching are going to be slow to move unless moving isn't much more complicated than a simple recompile.

But I'm not sure what you mean by, "dealing with non-Intel chipsets for". Does that imply that non-Intel chipsets are somehow under-supported by Intel or OEM manufacturers? In fact, my wife's Pentium 9x0 (950, IIRC?) required BIOS updates from Dell (it took 4 days to figure this out) to reliably run the software that was pre-installed on the system! Would that have happened with an AMD chip? I have no idea. But I doubt she would've been worse off...

Generally speaking, Intel chipsets are far more stable and reliable than those that AMD, Via, SIS, nVidia, and ATi have made (the suspicion is that ATi's will improve considerably if the merger with AMD goes through). There are definitely exceptions (a few Intel chipsets, like the notorious 820, were pretty bad), and specific cases of people with problems will pop up for any piece of hardware, but there are very good reasons why lots of IT guys won't let non-Intel chipsets hit their users' desktops.

And if you look at the technology (as I mentioned in my previous post), the AMD chips are a superior design. The HyperTransport throughput beats the pants off the Intel chips.

HyperTransport is nice, but it's of no particular value for single-socket systems with a single core or dual cores with a shared L2 cache (like Core Duo, Core 2 Duo, and Xeon 51xx). Midrange Core 2 Duos completely thrashing A64 FXs in every application benchmark imaginable (and it only being close in GPU limitted games) should have made this pretty clear.

HyperTransport is a big deal when comparing multiple-socket systems (though the dual FSBs on Intel's new server chipsets knock down the advantage considerably in two socket boxes, enough that the otherwise superior Xeon 51xx aka Woodcrest always beats Opteron in a dual CPU box), or when competing against dual core systems that do core-to-core communication over the FSB (like the Pentium D). It's completely irrelevant in the notebook space (where Intel never sold a CPU like that) and not all that relevant in the desktop space (now that Core 2 Duo is becoming available).