On Fri, 2007-05-25 at 00:12 -0700, James G. Sack (jim) wrote: > 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.
[...] > >> 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. As you have seen (and may or may not recall) I first got a something like $1300 laptop computer from Fry's, but then decided that the screen size and resolution wasn't enough for some of the stuff I want to do (LTspice, for example), so I returned it and threw some serious money (even with University of California academic discount) at the rather large Dell D820 you see me lugging to the LUG events these days. > >> 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. Sometimes the 1920x1200 screen resolution makes for very small print. In most cases, this can be easily adjusted. > >> 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 you have an operating system that really can do multitasking (such as Linux is rumored to be), occasionally you max actually max out both processors. Usually, even heavy numerics or simplification of symbolic equations (LTspice, Mathematica) just use one core to the fullest. Interestingly, the workload switches back and forth between the cores more often than in Windows. > >> 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? I work around the problem of unsatisfactory endurance (some 2 hours per battery) with a spare battery. I did not buy the oversized, extra large, batteries, because they'd protrude from the already bulky laptop, and I'm running off AC power whenever possible, anyway. The 2.16GHz dual core T7400 CPU seems OK at the moment, even for the circuit simulations. Of course, there are always problems posed to Mathematica that use up 100% of one CPU for hours without a solution. I think I hardly ever use up all the 2GB of RAM I have. If your backup policy is sloppy, even a 120GB hard drive will get filled up with digital photographs etc. So far, my backup policy is always as sloppy as hard disk size allows. If you run several operating systems on your computer, you'll also use up lots of disk space. I think virtualization doesn't help you there, either. > >> Oh, I don't run games or video editing apps, and think I probably don't > >> get much benefit from high powered video hardware. > >> You do have a digital camera, though, and are rumored to play with gimp on occasion. > >> 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. Get the help of one of the LUG nuts who know what they're doing. Among others, Carl Lowenstein, Bob Donovan, and Gus Wirth helped me out. And then, there's that Sack guy ... > >> 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 > > I went for the ultra high resolution option. All things considered, the right choice for me. Dell's maintenance contract logistics is also quite efficient and good to have if you happen to need a new keyboard. I needed two so far, one of them right after I got the computer out of the box. But I think that even with academic discount, a computer from The Very Big Corporation of America is not the best deal you'll find. Christoph <- wondering whether you know my computer better than I do, anyway. -- [email protected] http://www.kernel-panic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/kplug-list
