posted
I need a little quick advice. I'm ordering a new laptop (joy!) and I have a fixed budget. I don't need any real frills other than battery life, but I have a little bit of extra money in the budget, and I'm wonder if it's really worth it to upgrade the processor.
I'm pretty well set on the 13.3 inch laptop from HP (I was between that and the 14.1, but the extra .8 inches doesn't seem worth it for the hit on weight and battery life). The laptop will have two primary purposes: Some net browsing, and word processing. It's primarily to help me with school, both for the research I have to do this year, and the research I'll have to do in grad school starting next year, or law school, as the case may be. Does anyone find their 13.3 inch screen is too small for a lot of word processing?
Anyway, the main thrust is, given my purposes, is it worth it to upgrade the processor. The only processor upgrade I could afford would be to take it from: Intel(R) Pentium(R) Processor T4200 (2.0 GHz, 1MB L2 Cache, 800MHz FSB) to Intel(R) Core(TM)2 Duo Processor T6500 (2.1GHz, 2MB L2 Cache, 800MHz FSB). I can't afford the upgrade to get it up to a P chip. So, is it worth the $50 to upgrade to the Core Duo? It's going to have 4GB of RAM, so I figured it was fine on speed, but am I downplaying the role of the processor too much?
All advice is appreciated. I'm pretty excited about this. Being able to have a laptop with me at almost all times on campus is going to make my research a LOT easier, and despite the burden, I like that I've saved up the money to buy it myself all at once. Thanks in advance.
ETA: Okay, I just looked at it again, and I forgot how much more expensive the 13 inch was over the 14 inch, so I should say, which is more important, a faster processor or getting 3 years of Norton anti-virus? I can't do both.
ETA (Again): And what are people's recent experiences with HPs? I've read about six or seven million reviews, half of which seem glowing, a fourth of which hate HP to death, and the last bit don't really care one way or the other. I've tried pricing Toshibas, Dells, and other brands, but HP seems to be the only one with the right hardware for the right price.
posted
I would definitely go with the processor. Anymore you need a duo core. One to run the OS and one for everything else.
Your needs are simple but chances are you will have Vista on it and....I wouldn't get stuck with a single processor. There is no excuse for that these days.
That being said, I have an HP Mini 2133 with 1.6Mghz processor and 4 GB of RAM and it does everything I need it for---note taking in meetings and remoting in to switches and the like. It duel boots with Ubuntu and XP.
I LOVE it! I've had it a while and never felt a need to upgrade. My screen is only 10.1 BUT the keyboard feels like a full keyboard.
Since I use it in short blocks--IE meeting note taking or using with a projector, the small size of the screen has been more of an asset then annoyance.
EDIT: It is worth it to pay $50 to NOT have Norton on your machine in my opinion. AVG or AVAST is just as good, free, and not the resource hog that bogs your computer.
EDIT 2: My experience with DELL is that they are cheap and have lots of hardware issues...however they are FANTASTIC at replacing bad hardware for large institutions. Individual customer support/service has a different reputation in my neck of the woods. HP makes a solid laptop in my opinion.
Posts: 2445 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yes, it would have Vista initially, but I plan on upgrading to Win7.
I've heard that Avast and what not are perfectly good, but I've never tried them. My consumer driven indoctrination leads me to doubt the efficacy of something offered for free versus something established and offered at a premium.
And yeah, my Dell was pristine for about three years, then practically everything on it failed within six months, but Dell sent someone out within two days of each problem and it was right as rain within minutes. It's a bit of a hassle to get them to agree to send someone out, but on the whole, I have zero complaints with their tech service.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by lem: It is worth it to pay $50 to NOT have Norton on your machine in my opinion. AVG or AVAST is just as good, free, and not the resource hog that bogs your computer.
posted
You didn't mention how much memory your new computer will have. Most would recommend nothing less than 2 Gb, but for todays computers, 4gb is more the standard, and with Vista or Win-7, I think you will need every byte of it.
So, if you have a minimum of 4Gb of memory, the perhaps a processor upgrade is worth it. But I think you will be disappointed with anything less the 4Gb.
posted
It will have 4gb. There's a free upgrade right now, which is a piece of why I'm rushing to get it done.
I've actually heard that Win7 had far less code, took up less processor and RAM space, and in general is expected to run a lot leaner. I've also read that it's, for some reason, better on battery life as well.
Regardless, yes, it will have 4GB of RAM. My current laptop has 1GB, which is fine for most things, but I wouldn't mind a little more zip.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I love HP computers myself, and I think HP and Toshiba and among the best medium cost laptops out today. I know a ton of people with HP's and Toshiba's and they love them.
I love my Toshiba, but I almost went with the HP myself. It was a tough call.
I have 4G of RAM, and wouldn't have it any other way. Posts: 15082 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I second the recommendation for dual core. Sounds like you're going with 14.1 inch screen based on price? I wouldn't recommend one over the other without seeing them, because .8 isn't necessarily a lot, but how comfortable it is to view each screen and how clean/sharp it looks at the native resolution is very important, along with brightness, reflectivity, and, for some users, whether it shows fingerprints (I try hard to avoid touching the display surface, because I like it to be clean, but I work with a lot of philistines who just love jabbing their greasy fingers into any display within reach).
Posts: 4287 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
Same core design -- right down to the transistor count! Same number of cores, same FSB, similar clockspeed... the only substantive difference is the amount of L2 cache. For the kind of usage pattern you're talking about, I don't think 2MB of L2 vs 1MB of L2 is going to make a huge difference.
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: Never have problems with viruses, spyware or popups under the protection of Avast?
Nope, not at all.
I have fewer problems with Avast than with either Norton or McAffee. I did however pick some nasty malware that Avast couldn't get rid of. I was able to kill it with Malwarebytes.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think Avast works fairly well. (Or AVG, for that matter.) But it doesn't hurt to have something like Lavasoft's AdAware available for an occasional spyware check, whatever anti-virus you use.
Getting a quad-core machine (moving up from a single core Athlon) was the first time that multitasking actually began to seem practical.
Posts: 3826 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Twinky's right. Those two processors are nearly identical except for a small difference in clock speed and cache size. They're both dual-core and use the same amount of power. The difference in processing power is going to be pretty small.
Posts: 9945 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
Same core design -- right down to the transistor count! Same number of cores, same FSB, similar clockspeed... the only substantive difference is the amount of L2 cache. For the kind of usage pattern you're talking about, I don't think 2MB of L2 vs 1MB of L2 is going to make a huge difference.
Oh, yeah. *feels like an idiot for not checking*
Posts: 4287 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I really wonder how Norton and McAfee stay in business these days. They must figure they've got a lock on the business market because they simply do not work against the current malware.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well that answers two questions then, and for that matter, saves me a nice chunk of money. I wonder why HP lists every other chip as a dual core except that one. Some sort of trick to make people think they need to upgrade to get the better chip? Actually, following those links, Intel lists them that way too, which is weird. Given that information, I really don't think it's worth the money for what is essentially a fancy word processor. And for that matter, I'm going to take a leap and try Avast instead of Norton or McAfee, both of which I've used in the past, to the detriment of my computer's performance, but I was never willing to take the plunge and try out the free software available. I'm going to give it a go!
quote:Originally posted by scifibum: I second the recommendation for dual core. Sounds like you're going with 14.1 inch screen based on price? I wouldn't recommend one over the other without seeing them, because .8 isn't necessarily a lot, but how comfortable it is to view each screen and how clean/sharp it looks at the native resolution is very important, along with brightness, reflectivity, and, for some users, whether it shows fingerprints (I try hard to avoid touching the display surface, because I like it to be clean, but I work with a lot of philistines who just love jabbing their greasy fingers into any display within reach).
It's the 13.3 inch screen. The 14.1 is even cheaper. There's a big sale (well that's relative, there's a sale every 3 months). I was slightly worried about it being too small, but it seemed big enough when I was playing with it in the store, and really, the weight and the better battery life on the smaller machine is the deciding factor for me. I don't want to lug around a 12-cell battery on the 14.1 to get the kind of battery life I want, so I'm going to try the 13.3 with the 9 cell battery that juts out the bottom of the machine a little bit. I think the portability is going to outweigh the screen size. When I'm going back over notes, I can always jack it into the 17 inch monitor I have at home for a larger viewing area.
But I guess I won't really know until I have it in my hands and get to use it. Worst case scenario I send it back and get the 14.1 inch machine.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
If you've seen it in person then I'm sure you can trust your gut on it.
I'm also a bit baffled why Intel doesn't label T4200 with Core 2 Duo. Probably an upsell angle, like you figured.
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: I really wonder how Norton and McAfee stay in business these days. They must figure they've got a lock on the business market because they simply do not work against the current malware.
I think they work well enough to be useful. Symantec at least has an enterprise version of AntiVirus that lacks many of the downsides of the consumer-level product. For the home user, though, they both seem overpriced and clunky, IME, so I would guess their continued success in that arena is pretty much due to brand recognition and, more importantly, deals with the big PC vendors.
Posts: 4287 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yes they do, but how long do they think they can keep it.
My brother-in-law has a computer business and has one full time employee who does nothing but remove malware from customers computers. I just don't see that businesses will keep paying for McAfee or Norton when they also have pay a consultant to do the same job.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
My BIL who runs the computer consulting business disagrees and is doing good business because they don't.
I should add, my University which is running the professional versions of both McAfee and Norton has been hit with a rash of USB malware. McAfee and Norton are totally worthless against this stuff.
Perhaps we just have more virulent computer viruses here in the tropics. Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: I have fewer problems with Avast than with either Norton or McAffee. I did however pick some nasty malware that Avast couldn't get rid of. I was able to kill it with Malwarebytes.
Same here. Though there was one particularly nasty bit of malware which got through Avast and deleted the Malwarebytes executable, and did so again every time I tried to reinstall the latter. (After several attempts, I was able to rename the executable in the two seconds or so between installation and deletion, after which I ran the renamed version and nuked the problem.)
Still, for most day-to-day virus issues, Avast does just fine.
Posts: 884 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Norton has a bit of an advantage in having a long-standing reputation, a number of other utilities with their brand (Ghost, Partition Magic, etc.), and an established relationship with many of the major computer companies. It probably doesn't help that while Avast has a free version for download, a system-builder would pretty much have to install the commercial version, at which point the cost savings on that end becomes negligible. (I suspect that a lot of small local system builders are probably either installing the free version on the sly or suggesting their users go to Avast or AVG's site the moment they connect to the Net, though.)
That said, I get a strong impression that Norton is in the process of demolishing their good name. Aside from the anti-virus side of things, I'm hearing a lot of "Ah, if you're going to use Norton, you probably want to use the version they put out two years ago... This year's version is dreck, and their technical support is useless in digging you out of the hole their software got you into."
Posts: 3826 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Part of the continued existence of McAfee/Norton is due to continued use in Government. DoD has a list of acceptable software for use on government networks. Currently, Norton and McAfee are the only software developers on that list for Antivirus and Software Firewall applications. McAfee also produces the only approved Host Based Intrusion Detection software. I'm relatively convinced that some money changed hands to make this happen.
Despite their lack of actual protection, both offer significantly better centralized control capabilities (For monitoring, reporting, and updating) than any other offering. Centralized control is extremely important in any network with more than 10 workstations.
Basically, Norton and McAfee have a lock on the corporate world simply because they offer more to the corporate environment. They don't focus as much on Home users, and as a result their home offerings are absolute garbage. Which is a shame, because a lot of people see what they have at work and decide that that's what they should use at home, too.
That said, even their corporate offerings have been backsliding heavily as of late. Norton End Point Protection is one of the worst pieces of software I have ever had the misfortune of dealing with. Using default settings, it will actually break WSUS (Microsoft's Update management suite) if it's installed on the same server. And that's just one of the many problems that exist with it.
Posts: 38 | Registered: May 2009
| IP: Logged |
Whew. I always get a post ordering adrenaline rush following by nervousness whenever I spend over a certain amount of money. And that's kicking in right about now.
It ended up costing me $100 over budget, but that includes an all in one wireless printer and what not, and tax, which I apparently forgot about. Overall, I'm satisfied...now I just have to see if I'm happy with what I bought.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
