| Author |
Message |
|
Spyderbyte
Advanced Member
Joined: 29 May 2003
Posts: 372
|
 Posted: 15 Jul 2007 11:45:11 pm Post subject: |
|
|
How do the various processor options stack up? AMD vs Intel, single vs dual core.
I don't need a top of the line gaming beast, but I want something that performs well. Just for reference, does the following setup seem like a deal?
AMD Turion X2 TL-64
2 gigs ram
240 gig hard drive
Lightscribe DL DVD burner
nVIDIA GeForce GO 6150
$1000
I'm not interested in the integrated webcam and microphone, and I don't know if it has a multi card reader. Makes me wish laptops were as easy to build as desktops :biggrin:
I'm hoping to spend $800-$1000.
In short, what does everyone feel is worth paying for, and what's overkill?
Thanks!
Spyderbyte |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
kermmartian
Site Admin Kemetech
Calc Guru
Joined: 20 Mar 2004
Posts: 1220
|
| Posted: 15 Jul 2007 11:55:05 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| How much battery life does that get? And what's the weight on such a beast? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
AlienCC
Creative Receptacle!
Know-It-All
Joined: 24 May 2003
Posts: 1927
|
| Posted: 15 Jul 2007 11:58:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| That is a good deal. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
justusdude
Advanced Member
Joined: 24 May 2006
Posts: 265
|
| Posted: 16 Jul 2007 06:39:34 am Post subject: |
|
|
Mine has almost the same thing. Just a different processor speed and less hard drive space.
What do you plan to put on that there ridiculously huge hard drive?
Last edited by Guest on 16 Jul 2007 06:40:12 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Arcane Wizard
`semi-hippie`
Super Elite (Last Title)
Joined: 02 Jun 2003
Posts: 8993
|
| Posted: 16 Jul 2007 07:34:58 am Post subject: |
|
|
Spyderbyte wrote: How do the various processor options stack up? AMD vs Intel, single vs dual core. Dual core is obviously better than single core.
AMD is cheaper than Intel, but you'll only barely notice that with low end laptops.
Core2Duo is faster than AMD 64.
Your CPU is fine though.
Brand is more important than specs if you want actual support when your laptop suddenly falls apart. Need you to specify before I can judge.
RAM is good, more excessive unless you know you need it but then you wouldn't have asked for advice, less could suffice but you'd only want to upgrade to 2gb later. However, between 1GB and 2GB speed is more important right now. Need you to specify before I can judge.
Harddrive speed is more important than size, especially for laptops, go for 7200RPM. Sadly I've yet to find a RAID 0 internal HD configuration in a laptop. I'd try to get that though, maybe even mod the second drive into the battery area and leave the battery at home - just for the awesome and uniqueness of it. Need you to specify before I can judge.
DVD burner seems pointless to me but it's not like it'll cost you in a laptop. I only use optical disks for installing the OS - yay for wireless networks - so I guess I could even remove it and save power/weight and have some lols when people ask where it is.
Video chipset is less important than supported output connectors, unless you need it for gaming and you said you didn't. Need you to specify before I can judge.
Screen display is most important. Widescreen sucks unless it's 17". 15.4" sucks if it's 1024x768 max. Overall 17" is best anyway, it's not like you could put a 15" laptop in your pocket so you'd need a carrier or backpack anyway and then it might as well be 2" bigger. Also, the shiny surfaces they have these days are really really bad to work with. Need you to specify before I can judge.
What will you use it for?
Last edited by Guest on 16 Jul 2007 07:39:33 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Spyderbyte
Advanced Member
Joined: 29 May 2003
Posts: 372
|
| Posted: 16 Jul 2007 01:39:49 pm Post subject: |
|
|
kermmartian wrote: How much battery life does that get? And what's the weight on such a beast?
[post="110149"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]
I haven't had a chance to see it in person, but thanks for reminding me of both those valid points.
justusdude wrote: Mine has almost the same thing. Just a different processor speed and less hard drive space.
What do you plan to put on that there ridiculously huge hard drive?
[post="110165"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]
JBirk/NetWIZ introduced me to the wonders of disc images and Daemon Tools.  DVDs eat up space quickly.
Arcane Wizard wrote: Core2Duo is faster than AMD 64.
And is the AMD X2 faster than Core2Duo? I know AMD runs at slower clock speeds, but do they still outperform Intel? Do they also run cooler?
Arcane Wizard wrote: Brand is more important than specs if you want actual support when your laptop suddenly falls apart. Need you to specify before I can judge.
I'll probably go with HP, I've had good luck in the past. My sister had awful luck when she first tried Dell, so I'll also stay away. Just personal preference.
Arcane Wizard wrote: RAM is good, more excessive unless you know you need it but then you wouldn't have asked for advice, less could suffice but you'd only want to upgrade to 2gb later. However, between 1GB and 2GB speed is more important right now. Need you to specify before I can judge.
What speeds should I be looking for?
Arcane Wizard wrote: Harddrive speed is more important than size, especially for laptops, go for 7200RPM. Sadly I've yet to find a RAID 0 internal HD configuration in a laptop. I'd try to get that though, maybe even mod the second drive into the battery area and leave the battery at home - just for the awesome and uniqueness of it. Need you to specify before I can judge.
Thanks for reminder.
Side note, I actually ran across a laptop on Newegg that had a second hard drive tray. I wish I had payed more attention to how I found it.
Arcane Wizard wrote: DVD burner seems pointless to me but it's not like it'll cost you in a laptop. I only use optical disks for installing the OS - yay for wireless networks - so I guess I could even remove it and save power/weight and have some lols when people ask where it is.
You'd be better off putting your second hard drive there.
Arcane Wizard wrote: Video chipset is less important than supported output connectors, unless you need it for gaming and you said you didn't. Need you to specify before I can judge.
I doubt I'll use an external monitor for quite a while, if ever. It is a good thing to keep in mind though.
Arcane Wizard wrote: Screen display is most important. Widescreen sucks unless it's 17". 15.4" sucks if it's 1024x768 max. Overall 17" is best anyway, it's not like you could put a 15" laptop in your pocket so you'd need a carrier or backpack anyway and then it might as well be 2" bigger. Also, the shiny surfaces they have these days are really really bad to work with. Need you to specify before I can judge.
Interestingly, I've changed my mind to go in the other direction. Actually looking at it in person, a 14" widescreen feels like plenty of screen to me and I love how compact the rest of the laptop feels. I'll probably end up splitting the difference and getting a 15.4" widescreen.
I don't understand your shiny surface comment or what I'm specifying.
Arcane Wizard wrote: What will you use it for?
General schoolwork, internet, old school games, music and movie library, nothing remotely taxing. I just want it to do well if I do throw something hard at it. I know Vista is a memory hog (what a surprise).
To sum it up, I'm looking for a compact, reasonably powerful, reasonably priced laptop. I'll pay a little extra for a little more power, but I don't need or want absolute latest and greatest.
Thanks again!
Spyderbyte |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Arcane Wizard
`semi-hippie`
Super Elite (Last Title)
Joined: 02 Jun 2003
Posts: 8993
|
| Posted: 16 Jul 2007 03:23:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
My laptop doesn't even have a battery anymore  Too cheap and lazy to replace it as the adapter works fine.
Quote: And is the AMD X2 faster than Core2Duo? I know AMD runs at slower clock speeds, but do they still outperform Intel? Do they also run cooler? I ment X2. AMD sucks right now and with laptops they're really not much cheaper.
Also, I forgot to say this, but Intel will release some new stuff on the 22nd meaning many price drops.
Quote: Arcane Wizard wrote: RAM is good, more excessive unless you know you need it but then you wouldn't have asked for advice, less could suffice but you'd only want to upgrade to 2gb later. However, between 1GB and 2GB speed is more important right now. Need you to specify before I can judge. What speeds should I be looking for?
Quote: Side note, I actually ran across a laptop on Newegg that had a second hard drive tray. I wish I had payed more attention to how I found it. It doesn't matter really, it's not like I'm going to buy one tomorrow.
Quote: You'd be better off putting your second hard drive there.
Quote: I doubt I'll use an external monitor for quite a while, if ever. It is a good thing to keep in mind though. No monitors, tv's, projectors or beamers at school/college/work you might use it with? You'll want a nice output for TVs if you're going to watch movies - they're no fun on a laptop display.
Quote: Interestingly, I've changed my mind to go in the other direction. Actually looking at it in person, a 14" widescreen feels like plenty of screen to me and I love how compact the rest of the laptop feels. I'll probably end up splitting the difference and getting a 15.4" widescreen. What do you use now?
Quote: I don't understand your shiny surface comment or what I'm specifying. A couple of years ago they started making many laptop screen surfaces glossy/shiny. Like they're made of glass. People buy shiny things. But you can't see anything if there's a light anywhere in the room. Well, nothing but the light anyway.
Last edited by Guest on 16 Jul 2007 03:24:49 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Spyderbyte
Advanced Member
Joined: 29 May 2003
Posts: 372
|
| Posted: 16 Jul 2007 04:02:33 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Arcane Wizard wrote: I ment X2. AMD sucks right now and with laptops they're really not much cheaper.
Also, I forgot to say this, but Intel will release some new stuff on the 22nd meaning many price drops.
Both interesting. Thanks for the heads up, that'll be right about when I want to pick mine up anyway.
Arcane Wizard wrote: ...the RAM speed: mainboard memory frequency and the RAM modules' clock frequencies.
I knew that part, I was wondering what speeds are acceptable/preferred.
Arcane Wizard wrote: No monitors, tv's, projectors or beamers at school/college/work you might use it with? You'll want a nice output for TVs if you're going to watch movies - they're no fun on a laptop display.
Forgot about projectors, that could be fun. :biggrin: Is there a noticeable difference between DVI and VGA? Most of what I've looked at has S-video and VGA.
Arcane Wizard wrote: What do you use now?
A ~15" CRT monitor and my desktop. :biggrin: My sister has the 14" widescreen that I referred to.
Arcane Wizard wrote: A couple of years ago they started making many laptop screen surfaces glossy/shiny. Like they're made of glass. People buy shiny things. But you can't see anything if there's a light anywhere in the room. Well, nothing but the light anyway.
I have noticed that, I thought that might be what you were talking about. I don't see how a bigger screen would help that at all though.
Thanks
Spyderbyte |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Arcane Wizard
`semi-hippie`
Super Elite (Last Title)
Joined: 02 Jun 2003
Posts: 8993
|
| Posted: 16 Jul 2007 05:49:35 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Spyderbyte wrote: Arcane Wizard wrote: ...the RAM speed: mainboard memory frequency and the RAM modules' clock frequencies. I knew that part, I was wondering what speeds are acceptable/preferred.
Quote: Is there a noticeable difference between DVI and VGA? VGA is enough for say up to 1280*1024 at a reasonable refresh rate, below that its just a bit crisper. It's more significant at higher resolutions than that. You will NEED it for HDCP regardless of the resolution. Also, read about DVI-A/DVI-I/DVI-D and look out for HDMI its nice.
Quote: A ~15" CRT monitor and my desktop. :biggrin: My sister has the 14" widescreen that I referred to. You'll like 17inch. Specially for movies, though outside that it's everything the 15" is and then some. 2" some to be exact.
Quote: I have noticed that, I thought that might be what you were talking about. I don't see how a bigger screen would help that at all though. No, the shinyness has nothing to do with the size of the screen.
Last edited by Guest on 16 Jul 2007 05:51:07 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
AlienCC
Creative Receptacle!
Know-It-All
Joined: 24 May 2003
Posts: 1927
|
| Posted: 16 Jul 2007 10:10:55 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Spyderbyte wrote: Arcane Wizard wrote: Harddrive speed is more important than size, especially for laptops, go for 7200RPM. Sadly I've yet to find a RAID 0 internal HD configuration in a laptop. I'd try to get that though, maybe even mod the second drive into the battery area and leave the battery at home - just for the awesome and uniqueness of it. Need you to specify before I can judge.
Thanks for reminder.
Side note, I actually ran across a laptop on Newegg that had a second hard drive tray. I wish I had payed more attention to how I found it.
Battery life should be a concern if you're looking for portable computing of greater than an hour. The 7200rpm harddrive is a serious power hog, get the 5400rpm it's a fair trade off between battery life and speed whereas the 4200rpm is just painfully slow.
Keep in mind by having two harddrives you double the drain on the battery. Additionally if you run both of them in a RAID 0 configuration you double the risk of losing everything on the laptop if just one of the drives goes bad.
Spyderbyte wrote: Interestingly, I've changed my mind to go in the other direction. Actually looking at it in person, a 14" widescreen feels like plenty of screen to me and I love how compact the rest of the laptop feels. I'll probably end up splitting the difference and getting a 15.4" widescreen.
General schoolwork, internet, old school games, music and movie library, nothing remotely taxing. I just want it to do well if I do throw something hard at it. I know Vista is a memory hog (what a surprise).
To sum it up, I'm looking for a compact, reasonably powerful, reasonably priced laptop. I'll pay a little extra for a little more power, but I don't need or want absolute latest and greatest.
[post="110191"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]
You will be much happier with the smaller laptop than having to lug around the 17" for your needs. Not everyone uses a laptop in an environment where they can plug into the wall at all times and size is of no consequence. Don't be duped into trading features that fit your needs for those of someone who has different needs in their circumstance.
Arcane Wizard wrote: Quote: And is the AMD X2 faster than Core2Duo? I know AMD runs at slower clock speeds, but do they still outperform Intel? Do they also run cooler? I ment X2. AMD sucks right now and with laptops they're really not much cheaper.
Also, I forgot to say this, but Intel will release some new stuff on the 22nd meaning many price drops.
The Core2Duo has flaws in it which may be a concern in the future should you want to use an alternate OS or just generally want a better engineered CPU to begin with.
Arcane Wizard wrote: Quote: Interestingly, I've changed my mind to go in the other direction. Actually looking at it in person, a 14" widescreen feels like plenty of screen to me and I love how compact the rest of the laptop feels. I'll probably end up splitting the difference and getting a 15.4" widescreen. What do you use now?
[post="110197"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]
Right now I have an HP laptop that is a 15.4" widescreen capable of 1920x1200@60hz. Any bigger of a screen and I wouldn't want to be hauling that thing around, ever.
Originally it came with a 4200rpm harddrive which I replaced about a year ago with an aftermarket 5400rpm western digital scorpio and couldn't be happier with that harddrive change.
The cpu is an Athlon64 3200+ (single core).
RAM is 768MB @ DDR 2700.
Currently I run Windows XP SP2 on the laptop, and still easily get 4 hours of battery life out of the 12 cell lithium-ion that came with it.
I have had this laptop for 3 years now using it heavily between 4-16 hours almost every day since it's initial purchase. It still runs very solid without any signs of wearing out. Much of what I do on my laptop is right in line with what you listed above that you will be doing. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Spyderbyte
Advanced Member
Joined: 29 May 2003
Posts: 372
|
| Posted: 17 Jul 2007 12:01:22 am Post subject: |
|
|
AlienCC wrote: Battery life should be a concern if you're looking for portable computing of greater than an hour. The 7200rpm harddrive is a serious power hog, get the 5400rpm it's a fair trade off between battery life and speed whereas the 4200rpm is just painfully slow.
I was wondering about that. 5400 seems to be much more common and much less expensive as well.
AlienCC wrote: Keep in mind by having two harddrives you double the drain on the battery. Additionally if you run both of them in a RAID 0 configuration you double the risk of losing everything on the laptop if just one of the drives goes bad.
I don't know if that comment is directed at me, but I was personally only planning on running one. I was just going to give a link to it if I remembered where it was. I do have a media enclosure with a 120 gig hard drive in it currently wired into my Jeep, I could always snag that if I happened to need more space. (Or just get another external hard drive, they're mighty inexpensive lately)
AlienCC wrote: Don't be duped into trading features that fit your needs for those of someone who has different needs in their circumstance.
Always good advice
AlienCC wrote: The Core2Duo has flaws in it which may be a concern in the future should you want to use an alternate OS or just generally want a better engineered CPU to begin with.
So is that a vote to perhaps sacrifice a little clockspeed and go with AMD? My Athlon 64 3000+ has certainly served me well for the past two years.
AlienCC wrote: Right now I have an HP laptop...
I have had this laptop for 3 years now using it heavily between 4-16 hours almost every day since it's initial purchase. It still runs very solid without any signs of wearing out. Much of what I do on my laptop is right in line with what you listed above that you will be doing.
That's good to hear, I'm starting to lean pretty heavily toward HP.
Thanks!
Spyderbyte |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Arcane Wizard
`semi-hippie`
Super Elite (Last Title)
Joined: 02 Jun 2003
Posts: 8993
|
| Posted: 17 Jul 2007 08:07:39 am Post subject: |
|
|
Quote: Battery life should be a concern if you're looking for portable computing of greater than an hour. The 7200rpm harddrive is a serious power hog, get the 5400rpm it's a fair trade off between battery life and speed whereas the 4200rpm is just painfully slow. 5400rpm is a fair tradeoff, but the 7200rpm drives are not seriously worse power hogs, they just use a little more. They wheren't even when they first started being released at 2.5" a couple of years ago - it was actually the P4 they where used with that was hogging the battery dry in an hour - now you'lll still get your expected hours of battery life. You probably won't even notice with general use, just like you'll also notice little of the speed difference then.
But, when you're doing things with hundreds of megabytes, like DVD ripping or anything like that, and I see that's one of the main uses for Spyderbyte, you'll notice a lot of difference in speed which means you won't have to drop that extra audio layer or handfull of fps just so the rip will be done in time for classes.
Quote: You will be much happier with the smaller laptop than having to lug around the 17" for your needs. Not everyone uses a laptop in an environment where they can plug into the wall at all times and size is of no consequence. Don't be duped into trading features that fit your needs for those of someone who has different needs in their circumstance. And don't be duped into smaller traiding features when you're still figuring out what you want either. He may not be much happier, especially if he wants to watch movies on it. Feel free to point out how 1.6" will ever cause an issue with the working environment, though. I've "lugged" all sizes around through college, cafeterias, train coupes, you name it, without those 1.6" forming a disability.
Quote: The Core2Duo has flaws in it which may be a concern in the future should you want to use an alternate OS or just generally want a better engineered CPU to begin with.
http://www.realworldtech.com/forums/index....=80534&roomid=2
Quote: HP HP is good, as are Acer and Sony for example. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
kermmartian
Site Admin Kemetech
Calc Guru
Joined: 20 Mar 2004
Posts: 1220
|
| Posted: 17 Jul 2007 08:38:02 am Post subject: |
|
|
| HP's hardware is good, but I've heard their tech support is complete rubbish if something does break down. I've had good luck with Acer and Toshiba. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
NETWizz
Byte by bit
Bandwidth Hog
Joined: 20 May 2003
Posts: 2369
|
| Posted: 22 Jul 2007 04:31:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Each OS has its own purpose.
I especially like Linux for a desktop and BSD for servers.
For work environments an and the general public, I think XP is superior to Vista in that it has both better hardware and software support. This means if you go to your local computer shop and buy some software and hardware for PCs, it will be compatible with XP more often than not.
The biggest advantage with Linux is that I know how to run most Windows and Linux Applications side by side. See? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Cure
Active Member
Joined: 11 Apr 2006
Posts: 739
|
| Posted: 22 Jul 2007 06:35:55 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Is that Feisty Fawn, NETWiz?
And how're you running the start bar + Windows programs (I noticed MS Office)? WINE? But I didn't think WINE could also support all those functions found in the start menu...
Last edited by Guest on 22 Jul 2007 06:37:05 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
NETWizz
Byte by bit
Bandwidth Hog
Joined: 20 May 2003
Posts: 2369
|
| Posted: 22 Jul 2007 06:48:15 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Nope, it isn't Fiesty Fawn. I didn't see the need to upgrade off of Edgy Eft.
I have MS Office Via Crossover Office. DVD Decrypter and Shrink on the Dock below use WINE.
The starbar is actually Windows running on a on XP Virtual machine... I use VMWARE server to run Windows XP on native virtual hardware. The startbar is a technique stolen err borrowed from Parallels on MacOSX, which has an open source program that runs on Windows to get the location of all the programs, start bar and the like. It then sends that data over a virtual network to the Linux client and presto. Linux Client Draws part of what is on Windows and sets each item up in the windows manager. I am using rdesktop as the linux client. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Cure
Active Member
Joined: 11 Apr 2006
Posts: 739
|
| Posted: 22 Jul 2007 07:22:24 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| So, is XP installed on the same machine? And are there any tutorials to setting up what you've just mentioned in that paragraph? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Arcane Wizard
`semi-hippie`
Super Elite (Last Title)
Joined: 02 Jun 2003
Posts: 8993
|
| Posted: 23 Jul 2007 01:08:44 am Post subject: |
|
|
http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?p=1311545
First you need to set up vmware to run a virtual machine server with windows installed. Note that VMware Workstation 5.5 has experimental hardware directx support, for games and such. Don't forget to install vmware tools into this vm so you get actual good performance.
Basically, you then install seamlessrdp inside that windows vm so that rdesktop has something to connect to and display individual windows within the installation as windows in the host OS, Ubuntu.
It's just a more seemless way of using a vm, so you don't have to constantly switch between it and the host OS interface.
Google these pieces of software and you'll know all about them.
Last edited by Guest on 23 Jul 2007 01:11:15 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
NETWizz
Byte by bit
Bandwidth Hog
Joined: 20 May 2003
Posts: 2369
|
| Posted: 31 Jul 2007 03:51:35 am Post subject: |
|
|
I recommend VMWARE Server. DirectX isn't going to work over SeamlessRDP anyway. Additionally, you can disconnect the VMWARE client and leave Windows running as part of the VMWARE Service.
I wrote a script that looks like this:
#!/bin/bash
rdesktop -rsound -A -s "c:\seamlessrdp\seamlessrdpshell.exe c:\windows\explorer.exe" 10.1.0.2 -u Linux -p ubuntu
It tells the remote desktop Linux client to authenticate with 10.1.0.2, Widnows Username Linux and password ubuntu. It says run the program seamlessrdpshell.exe and have that program run explorer.exe.
YOu can find seamlessrdpshell.exe by searching google. All you have to do is extract a zip file to a folder. There is no installation necessary.
You also want to set a NoDesktop policy:
HKEY_CURRENT_USER/Software/Microsoft/Windows/ CurrentVersion/Policies/Explorer
NoDesktop (DWORD) 1 (Value)
Ensure that fast user switching and the logon/off thing is enabled as it is a requirement. Also make sure the user is in the Remote Desktop group. I think the Administrators group works too for remote access. However, you can always add a group membership via system properties
_______________________________________________
Laptops. I have a 7200RPM Hard Drive I bought 1 years ago to replace the lower capacity 5400 RPM drive. Also the newer drive has a 16MB cache.
Overall I get better battery life with the newer drive, which is probably built more efficiently. The drive manufacturer should publish documentation telling you how much energy the drive consumes. This is specified in milliamperes ... the lower the better for battery life.
Last edited by Guest on 31 Jul 2007 03:55:20 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Spyderbyte
Advanced Member
Joined: 29 May 2003
Posts: 372
|
| Posted: 07 Aug 2007 10:03:02 am Post subject: |
|
|
I'm back :biggrin:
I think I've narrowed it down to the following two options:
Intel® Core(tm) Duo processor T2450 (2.0 GHz, 2MB L2 Cache, 533MHz FSB)
2GB DDR2 System Memory (2 Dimm)
160GB 5400RPM SATA Hard Drive
256MB NVIDIA® GeForce® Go 7400 (128 mb dedicated, 128 shared)
Intel® PRO/Wireless 3945ABG Network Connection and Bluetooth(tm) (Might be fun with my phone :biggrin:)
$890
or
Intel® Core(tm) 2 Duo processor T5450 (1.66 GHz, 2MB L2 Cache, 667MHz FSB)
2GB DDR2 (2 Dimm)
120GB 5400RPM
383MB NVIDIA GeForce 8400M GS (All shared)
Intel® PRO/Wireless 3945ABG Network Connection
$970
Both are HP with a 15.4" screen, Vista Premium, Integrated 10/100BASE-T Ethernet LAN, LightScribe SuperMulti 8X DVD+/-RW with Double Layer Support, Expansion Port 3 connector, ExpressCard/54 Slot, 3 USB 2.0 ports, Firewire, 5 in 1 card reader, S-video out, and the kind of cool remote control.
I realize the first processor is slightly slower, but I think the rest of the computer makes up for it. Any reason I shouldn't go with this one?
EDIT: Changed my mind again.
I upgraded the first processor to Intel® Core(tm) 2 Duo processor T5300 (1.73 GHz, 2MB L2 Cache, 533MHz FSB) (It may actually have 667MHz FSB, I'm finding conflicting information) Everything else is the same, now it's $960.
Thanks again!
Spyderbyte
Last edited by Guest on 07 Aug 2007 12:33:38 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
Computer Tech Support => Technology & Calculator Open Topic
