new lappy

[stinkoman]

im looking at nw lappies, and was wondering which of thse is my best choice:

RefurbDepot.com - Product Details

RefurbDepot.com - Product Details

RefurbDepot.com - Product Details

RefurbDepot.com - Product Details

RefurbDepot.com - Product Details

[techieMoe]

Nix the one with 512MB of RAM. That's just not enough these days. The first Sony VAIO looks nice. It has Intel integrated graphics, which aren't great for heavy 3D gaming but should work out of the box (or at least with minimal work) on any Linux distribution.

I don't see any advantage between the first VAIO (vista business) and the second one that comes with Vista Home. Unless you're actually going to use Vista, either will do. If you plan on using it, Vista Business is much more capable than Home Premium.

The first HP Pavilion has good specs (Intel Wireless, Nvidia graphics). Those will do you well in Linux. I just don't personally trust Hewlett-Packard. It's up to you. The second Pavilion has a beefier graphics card (256MB of discrete RAM). Other than that the specs are pretty much the same.

Any of those should work just fine with a popular Linux like Ubuntu, Fedora, or openSuSE.

[IsaacKuo]

Nix the one with 512MB of RAM. That's just not enough these days.

What's wrong with 512megs of RAM? One of my laptops has only 128megs of RAM and it runs full GNOME acceptably with a default Ubuntu install.

I think the 512meg 5110HX has a lot going for it. It has the second biggest screen, and it's 1024x768 meaning all liveCDs and practically all linux distributions will work with the correct resolution from the start. It also uses Intel graphics, which means no nVidia headaches (even if your distro has a friendly install for the nVidia closed source drivers, unhappy hiccups can occur when the kernel is updated).

Of course, that fancy Pavilion DV9743CL is a lot beefier all around. Compared to the others, it's faster, with more memory, a much bigger screen, and larger hard drive.

The fact that this list includes such a variety of screen sizes indicates to me that stinkoman perhaps hasn't put much thought into what size he wants. With any laptop it's a tradeoff between how pleasant it is to use and how pleasant it is to carry. This is what's really going to have the biggest impact on how "nice" a laptop is. All of these laptops have sufficient specs that there won't be much noticeable difference in general computing during use--assuming you're not gaming. If you're gaming, then the fancy Pavilion is the obvious choice. Otherwise, even the 1.3Ghz 512meg machine will fly for general computing.

Personally, I don't game so I'd pick the 1.3Ghz 512meg machine. Perhaps not the most compact of the laptops, but if I wanted a smaller machine I'd get an eeePC or something like that.

[techieMoe]

What's wrong with 512megs of RAM? One of my laptops has only 128megs of RAM and it runs full GNOME acceptably with a default Ubuntu install.

Ok. Perhaps I should have clarified. When buying a new computer in 2008 there's no reason to stick with only 512MB of RAM. I don't know about you, Isaac, but I like to buy a PC that's going to stay relatively current for a few years.

Yes, in theory 512 is decent enough for most distributions, but I do more than run a web browser on my machines. 3D games, multimedia, software development. All these things require a great deal more available RAM.

It also uses Intel graphics, which means no nVidia headaches (even if your distro has a friendly install for the nVidia closed source drivers, unhappy hiccups can occur when the kernel is updated).

I've used at least half a dozen different Nvidia cards throught the years with quite a few different Linux distributions and the official Nvidia drivers have never given me trouble. Yes, you do need to reinstall when the kernel is updated. Not a big deal for me. Given the option of no 3D games, I'll deal with the occasional driver reinstall.

Personally, I don't game so I'd pick the 1.3Ghz 512meg machine. Perhaps not the most compact of the laptops, but if I wanted a smaller machine I'd get an eeePC or something like that.

Thus your recommendations would be different than mine. Of course, neither of us knows what stinkoman plans on doing with the laptop, so either of our suggestions might be more suitable.

[stinkoman]

i need a general purpose laptop that can run quickly online while having music playing and open office writer and impress. I play a fw onlin games and graphics arent THE MOST important, but i do watch movis sometimes on the go so decent video is nice. weight is entirely insignificant, and i dont mind paying a little more for a better product. so the first sony vaio? but i seemed to think this was the best: RefurbDepot.com - Product Details but i don't know much about comparing processors, i know they tell you procssing speed and higher = better, but i've hard about other things with processors like bus speed? I've shortened my old post to show the two im narrowed down to.

[bryansmith]

Just to throw my two cents in with the RAM debate, I have to say I'm with techieMoe on this one. I have a Dell Inspiron 1150 with 512 MB of RAM and while a full GNOME desktop does run nicely, I do begin to feel the shortage of RAM after a while. For your average user, 512 is probably ok but there is no reason to go south of 1GB. I would probably recommend 2GB just to "RAM-proof" yourself for the future.

stinkoman (lol), for your purposes, 1GB is probably enough. If you want this to keep up in a couple of years, 2GB is probably the way to go.

For your needs, any modern laptop will do. I haven't looked at the laptops you listed but I can guarantee that if it is a (relatively) new model, you will be more than fine.

Bryan

[stinkoman]

it wouldnt lt me change them so here they are
RefurbDepot.com - Product Details

RefurbDepot.com - Product Details


this is my current laptop's specs:
Toshiba Support -

[IsaacKuo]

Looking at the stats on your current laptop, I wonder why you even listed the inexpensive laptop. It's barely even an upgrade, just a little bit more RAM.

Anyway out of those two, the more expensive one seems the obvious choice. It's only 5% more expensive, but it has a significantly bigger screen with significantly more resolution, and more RAM.

[stinkoman]

i forgot tomention i don't have a battery, the 'e' button doesn't always work, the touchpad (not the pad itself) is dead and my graphics card runs at 7%. but it was from the trash

[bryansmith]

Being unaware of any quality problems associated with either company in regards to laptops, the HP Pavilion looks like the better choice.

Like IsaacKuo stated, the price difference is very much worth it.

Bryan