Forum Home
Press F1
Thread ID: 100079	2009-05-25 06:31:00	Choosing a laptop	14Steve (14938)	Press F1

Post ID	Timestamp	Content	User
776805	2009-05-25 22:39:00	Thanks for your help, I will look into the Asus. Any other suggestions. cheers.	14Steve (14938)
776806	2009-05-25 22:54:00	So Acer is generally considered a brand with poor reliability? Asus or Toshiba. I think Lenovo are down there with Acer. :) I'd also disagree; Toshiba and Lenovo (along with HP Elitebooks and Dell Latitudes) are the more reliable brands as they are more aimed at businesses rather than home users. Depending on where you buy, you even get onsite support. To OP: I suggested a laptop to a friend with similar requirements (no gaming, just work and some photo editing). I suggested a Toshiba (can't remember model number unfortunately, but it was at Harvey Norman for $987): Celeron 2.16GHz (single core) 2gb ram Integrated graphics 16gb hdd. So it is basically a slower performer because it is cheaper, but it will do everything your one will, just a little slower (and multitasking significantly slower). But my friend will rarely use multithreaded programs anyway.	utopian201 (6245)
776807	2009-05-25 23:04:00	I wouldnt use a celeron, esp if youre planning on using it for video. It wont help things. I agree that Acer sucks. The 1st one I had, spent more time in the shop than here. Had nothing but probs with it. In the end it went to the tip.	Speedy Gonzales (78)
776808	2009-05-26 00:06:00	I wouldnt use a celeron, esp if youre planning on using it for video. It wont help things. I agree that Acer sucks. The 1st one I had, spent more time in the shop than here. Had nothing but probs with it. In the end it went to the tip. agree. you do not want a celeron if your going to do anything that is graphic intensive. espeically if there is no dedicated GFX card.	sonar (14802)
776809	2009-05-26 00:11:00	[QUOTE=utopian201;785464] I'd also disagree; Toshiba and Lenovo (along with HP Elitebooks and Dell Latitudes) are the more reliable brands as they are more aimed at businesses rather than home users. Depending on where you buy, you even get onsite support. [QUOTE] This is kinda true and false. Toshiba and lenovo business range yes are built better and more reliable but their consumer range isnt. you can not tell me Toshiba L300 model is not built for home users...	sonar (14802)
776810	2009-05-26 02:27:00	Celeron! No....definetly get a dual core. And min 2gb or RAM	Blam (54)
776811	2009-05-26 02:59:00	[QUOTE=utopian201;785464] I'd also disagree; Toshiba and Lenovo (along with HP Elitebooks and Dell Latitudes) are the more reliable brands as they are more aimed at businesses rather than home users. Depending on where you buy, you even get onsite support. [QUOTE] This is kinda true and false. Toshiba and lenovo business range yes are built better and more reliable but their consumer range isnt. you can not tell me Toshiba L300 model is not built for home users... I have a L300 at home, great laptop for the $950 price......Utopian is dead right, HP & Lenovo business are hard to beat for price and reliability period. I actually have a Satelite from 2002 still running happily...	SolMiester (139)
776812	2009-05-26 03:34:00	agree. you do not want a celeron if your going to do anything that is graphic intensive. espeically if there is no dedicated GFX card. But does dedicated graphics have any use when it comes to editing photos (photo shopping)? I'm pretty sure it doesn't. There seems to be an incorrect assumption that anythings graphics related (video editing, photo editing, consumer/amateur 3d rendering) benefits from a discrete graphics card. Or am I completely wrong? Celeron! Are celerons really that inadequate though? I'm still using a 1.53Ghz Athlon XP with 266mhz DDR ram and it edits photos, videos and renders POV ray images fine. It just takes a while (for video editing/rendering anyway). For all light usage (web browsing, having multiple idle applications open) it works ok too. I am assuming a 1.66Ghz Athlon XP is slower than a 2.16Ghz celeron, so I thought the 'user experience' would be better. Considering the price (less than $999) can I actually do better than a celeron? The main uses will be web browsing (the most taxing things I can think of for this are the CPU intensive javascript in facebook pages and viewing youtube HD) and photo editing every now and then. I wasn't able to find a better netbook or non-acer notebook with 2gb ram. Or is there anything with better bang for buck? (that is pay 10% more and get 20% faster boot up times/web page rendering etc).	utopian201 (6245)
776813	2009-05-26 03:42:00	But does dedicated graphics have any use when it comes to editing photos (photo shopping)? I'm pretty sure it doesn't . There seems to be an incorrect assumption that anythings graphics related (video editing, photo editing, consumer/amateur 3d rendering) benefits from a discrete graphics card . Or am I completely wrong? Are celerons really that inadequate though? I'm still using a 1 . 53Ghz Athlon XP with 266mhz DDR ram and it edits photos, videos and renders POV ray images fine . It just takes a while (for video editing/rendering anyway) . For all light usage (web browsing, having multiple idle applications open) it works ok too . I am assuming a 1 . 66Ghz Athlon XP is slower than a 2 . 16Ghz celeron, so I thought the 'user experience' would be better . I wasn't able to find a better netbook or non-acer notebook with 2gb ram . Or is there anything with better bang for buck? (that is pay 10% more and get 20% faster boot up times/web page rendering etc) . Video cards do not help with any photo editing or rendering, you are quite right . I wouldnt ever get a celeron as they are just defunk pentiums that didnt make the grade and have half the L2 cache disabled (eek) Cache is why Phemon 1 struggled against the C2D . . . . . For the price point, I really fail to see any value in Celerons . . period	SolMiester (139)
776814	2009-05-26 04:13:00	Video cards do not help with any photo editing or rendering, you are quite right. Thanks, it annoys me when people come on here asking for computer suggestions when their requirements are photo editing, video editing, 3d rendering etc and -not- games, and people say a discrete graphics card is a requirement. I wouldnt ever get a celeron as they are just defunk pentiums that didnt make the grade and have half the L2 cache disabled (eek) Cache is why Phemon 1 struggled against the C2D..... For the price point, I really fail to see any value in Celerons..period hhmm...ok. What CPU would you suggest I look for in a laptop $999 or less? Also would the desktop performance of a 2.16ghz celeron be better than a 1.53ghz Athlon XP? According to some super PI benchmarks I just looked at, the 2.16ghz celeron is about the same as a 1.8ghz Core 2 Duo (2mb cache), so for single threaded uses, would the 'user experience' be about the same?	utopian201 (6245)
1 2 3