Bob La Quey wrote: > On 5/24/07, James G. Sack (jim) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> This question has gone around before, but everyone's needs differ >> somewhat. I hope kpluggers haven't gotten tired of the subject. >> >> ..so I think I'm finally going to break down and get a laptop. >> >> My wife, Barbara, is going on a genealogy trip next month and wishes to >> take some notes on the go. She's made a suggestion that is hard to >> resist. She thinks she could share one of these things with me, since >> typically either of us needs the portability at different times. She >> even thinks she might use this opportunity to jump into a Linux >> environment -- no dual boot needed, even! Sorry for burdening you all >> with my personal life, but I just had to tell someone! :-) Anyway, Karen >> should get a kick out of it -- K: you out there? >> >> I'm going to have to make a decision and actually get a laptop ready to >> go by June 11. >> >> About budget: >> >> I'm thinking that the $400 kind would probably be rather disappointing, >> and the $2000 kind seem pretty excessive. But I don't mind something in >> the $1200 range, and maybe even a bit more. >> >> >> Some general questions: >> >> Does anyone have a wide-screen (16:9, 10:6, ..) format and regret it? >> >> I see resolutions like 1280x800 and 1680x1050. The latter sounds >> especially nice to me -- I tend to use multiple windows and like the >> real estate. Anybody have negative experiences with such res? >> >> What do people think is a good overall screen size? What's the max that >> is still convenient to carry around, and actually fit on one's lap? See >> previous question re wide-screen. >> >> I'm attracted to the dual core animals. If I'm not really doing >> processor intensive stuff is that a total waste of money -- or just a >> mild indulgence? >> >> If I go with a dual core, which of AMD and Intel is better in the laptop >> environment? That is, with respect to power consumption, bang/buck, ??? >> Any general advice on processor and related (eg mobo) is welcomed. >> >> I'm thinking that 2GB would be a nice RAM size. That should allow >> running openoffice and several browsers and gimp all at the same time >> without straining, maybe. >> >> Hard disk should be at least 60GB, I suppose. I even see 120's are not >> too uncommon. Nobody should ever need more that that, eh? >> >> Oh, I don't run games or video editing apps, and think I probably don't >> get much benefit from high powered video hardware. >> >> I would prefer not to pay any Microsoft tax, of course. >> >> Anybody want to tell me I would be happy spending $900 rather than >> 1200-1400, please feel free. >> >> Alright. What should I consider that I can get into my hands and working >> with (say) Ubuntu or Fedora in 10 days or so. >> >> Other general advice also welcomed. >> >> TIA & Regards, >> ..jim > > Take a look at Dell's new Ubuntu offerings. > http://www.dell.com/content/topics/segtopic.aspx/ubuntu?c=us&cs=19&l=en&s=dhs >
The Dells do seem attractively priced. Their purchase wizard is pretty straightforward showing just what the diffs are for various options. Their RAM prices seem kind higher than what I've noticed elsewhere. I wonder whether it is advisable to get minimal RAM and install 3rd party stuff? I see the E1505N has a display upgrade, which they call UltraSharp (SXGA+), giving higher res 1680x1050 at 129 ppi (dpi). That adds $100 which seems like a good deal to me. The std res is 98 dpi in same wide format. The UltraSharp claims to have a wider viewing angle, too. UltraSharp info from a google search giving: http://www.dell.com/content/topics/global.aspx/vectors/en/2002_lcd -- [email protected] http://www.kernel-panic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/kplug-list
