Battle of the Specses

Happy Thanksgiving everyone!

I am in the market for a new laptop and am thinking to brave the crowds for a Black Friday "deal" (other than trampling). I would like some advice on the relative merits of a few things.

Most of the low-end PCs tend to run about $100/G of RAM. That is, $300 for one with 3G or $400 for one with 4G. WalMart also has one for $200 with 2G.

There are other variables - HDD size, PC brand, chip brand, bus size, single or dual core, but for the most part, it's $100/G.

I don't play games and I don't spend a lot of time on YouTube. If video is fast enough that it's not sputtering and choking, that's good enough for me. So I suspect I don't need all THAT much RAM. OTOH, I skimped on it last time, and have forever paid the price.

So - is there any great advantage in having 3G over 2G? 4G over 3G? Are any of the OTHER specs (that single vs. dual core, for example) important enough to give priority to them? Does a 64-bit bus represent a doubling of speed somehow, such that right away that trumps RAM size? Does the single vs. dual core thing do likewise?

I really would like to get that 2G/$200 one (3 a.m. here I come!), since I'll probably do this all over again in a year. And, quite frankly, even that will be lightning fast compared to what I have NOW.

But...? Any advice?

Also, are eMachines crap? I remember hearing that in the past, but that's what that WalMart one happens to be. And, like I said, the difference in price seems to be more to do with it being the only one with 2G.

The $300/3G and $400/4G ones are for the most part HP, Dell, and Gateway. Maybe a Sony.

 

Hi Cat, welcome to MG


If you don't play games or do any serious multi tasking 2GB of RAM will be more than enough.
Same for Dual core, it is excellent IF you do a lot of multi tasking, but not really needed otherwise.

As for the HDD... get as big as you can afford! (i've got TeraBytes of space and im looking at new drives for the jan' sales)

Same really for the CPU the bigger the better, although anything over 2Ghz is more than sufficient for your needs.

Q: Are eMachines crap?
A: NO but they are always lower spec to keep costs down.


*******************

When it comes to laptops i always try to get personal recommendations for a specific model and have agood google of ANY computer before you buy as *some* just seem to be plagued with the same issues.


To some degree with computers you get what you pay for, but you have to be carefull not to get ripped off.

And finally, while all the numbers i quote are [imo] suitably sufficient today, who know what tomorow will bring.

If you have any model numbers for lappy's you are thinking of, post them and i [and im sure others] will be able to give you more, direct advice


Q

EDIT: Oh and don't get a Vista Laptop! as that OS brings a whole world issues and problems with it! get Win7 or XP

 

They are all W7. I have heard the horror stories about Vista!

My present machine has 2.6GHz CPU and 512M RAM, which is apparently not enough to support multiple windows other than TXT files. 2 or 3 instances of SURFING -- with NO video -- hangs it for hours! So I figured RAM is more important than I used to think.

Anyway, the specific one I'm eying is the eME627, 2G RAM, 160G HD listing on WalMart's doorbusters. I wish it were at Staples or somewhere a little less "trample-icious". WalMart is really the LAST place I want to do battle tomorrow!

But do battle I shall. Here's a quick note about it: http://www.product-reviews.net/2009/11/23/emachines-eme627-black-friday-2009-sales-at-walmart/

The $300/400 ones are really backups, so I won't bother going through those. If you think this eMachine one is sufficient, I more than happy to stick with that. In fact, from what I can tell (looking in fliers) I like the LOOKS of this one better than all the rest! I was in Best Buy last week scoping a lot of the other ones and really did not like the design or cases of many of them. It would be ironic if the cheapest/best one is really the only one I like!

 

Hey cat, if the machine you have now is capable of taking it i would just stick a couple of GIG's of RAM in it...

2.6Ghz is plenty (im running 1.7Ghz with just under a Gig of RAM on this box and it can do pretty much anything)

512MB of RAM is rock bottom, so you would see/feel massive increase in performance with a RAM upgrade, 2GB would be Nice but 1GB would make a world of difference.

**********************************

/having a look at the link you posted.

**********************************

Q

 

That notebook seems all good except for the CPU, only 1.6Ghz! that is quite a step down from where you are now, and i honestly think you would see better results by upgrading your present machine.

 

Bar what Halo says about vista being great, i generally agree with him, but you aint gonna get those specs for $198 :\

Do you use photoshop or play games at all? or is watching a vid the hardest thing your 'book is gonna do?


Q

 

Watching a video is the hardest thing I'm likely to do. For now. Like I said, I'll probably jump on something new a year from now, so I just want something for now which will surf and do email. My current one can't even handle that!

I am disturbed that you point out that this one has a SLOWER cpu than mine. Slower? Is that possible? Mine hangs for hours!

Somehow that slipped past me, given the big jump in RAM, etc. in the specs.

So... my CPU is 40% slower but this has 4x the RAM and another 2x for buswidth? Aside from the illogic there, does this all wash out to mean it's 4.8 times faster or so? (8x x 60%)

:confused

Now to complicate things Best Buy has added a similar HP for a buck less to their own offerings!

http://www.slashgear.com/the-hp-pavilion-g60-120us-notebook-pc-adds-to-the-line-up-2317002/

Any comments re: which of these two? I am getting spectigo!

My gut still likes the eMachines. Normally I'd be a snob for the name brand, but this is so last minute I'm having a hard time refocusing.

 

Completely agreed with Halo, including Vista. XP vs. Vista rtm-- XP was a turd.

Here is the thing.

Get something with the least amount of ram, and the OS you want. Vista is fine, but 7 is about your only choice these days.

Ram is cheap. Get 2gb for 40 bucks, or 4gb for 80. Don't get hung up on CPU speed. Speed does not equate to performance. Look at reviews comparing CPUs.

Hard drives are easy to upgrade as well. There is no need to splurge on the initial spec of a laptop. While not as upgradable as a desktop, there are things that can be upgraded later.

 

Upgrade? On a laptop? Is that ever worth it?

Computer store charges like 90 bucks an hour. Any attempt to tweak the RAM after market will cost me WAY more than buying a fancier machine in the first place. We're talking about the sub-$200 range, after all!

And, no, I'm not qualified to do it myself. I might attempt it on the OLD pc, but I'm certainly not going to learn by busting open the one I just bought!

Back to the specs as preloaded, the HP one is WAY better, right? It seems that the eM one is fairly new and was already selling for $298 anyways. So $198 is not shockingly cheap.

The HP one, otoh, retails for about $549. So $197 is a much better "deal".

Well, I hate to spend $197-8 on something only worth $298 when the same money buys me a $549 model, but still I like the looks of the eMachine. What is it in the HP specs which makes it worth so much in the first place? They kind of look the SAME to me.

 

At some point, you have to take it upon yourself to want to learn how to upgrade something.

Ram upgrades on a laptop consist of two screws, removing the ram bay door, and putting in the new ram. A new hard drive takes a bit more, but nothing that consists of any type of difficulty.

A ram upgrade takes 30 seconds, tops, including booting back up.

Be careful with HP. Yes I use one. However, their laptop reliability has gone downhill considerably lately.

 

As i said earlier the only reason your current model isn't performing is because of your lack of RAM, 512MB is strangling your computer.

As adreynaline said, upgrading ram on a laptop is easy, it is literally about as hard as changing the batteries on a childs toy.

Anyhoo, as per my first post, for a new lappy, 2 Gigs of RAM as big a HDD you can get, and it would appear from Halo and Adrynaline's posts that CPU not as impirtant, dare i say they are more knowledgeable on such things than i am




*********************

I do agree Vista *can* be made to perform "better" than XP, but the undeniable fact is XP *will* work in virtually any laptop, desktop or notebook you can throw at it, and it will work well, 9 times out of ten it will even run straight out of the box .... Vista wont. And many of the laptops that i've come across that wont play ball with XP have been made for vista.

Win7 on the other hand has that wonderfull trait that XP has...... it just works, even on low spec odd bod machines, and is nippy aswell, where as vista, well... probably wont.



I've said before if they had marketed it differently and sold the fact it has to run on a pretty good machine to run well, a sort of elite OS if you will, then it would have been recieved better, but they tried to make out like it was some sort of replacement for XP which is so versatile and adaptable, which is just nonsense, and the fact that they have got Win7 to be so compatable and slim shows that they messed up with Vista big time.


Now it pretty obvious im an XP-lover but im not "scared" of new tech as ive seen it so eloquently put before, Vista just didnt do what i need and that is to work with pretty much anything, now; i will be sticking with XP till at least 2014 (probably longer) but that is not a slant on Win7 it is just that i can do everything i need and want with XP so i have no ned to upgrade at this time, and unlike Vista which i despise(d), i recommend people get 7, whereas i used to give people copies of XP to get them off Vista.

[i own about 100 licenses to date, and plan to buy many more, i will keep XP alive myself ]



Q

 

Not gonna derail the thread, but comparing an old OS to a current OS as to what it can run on is kind of silly.

I mean, Windows 2000 runs on more computers than XP does, when it comes to specs.

 

To throw my 2 cents' worth in:

All of the spec and dollar value comparisons and OS opinions aside, I've always found it valuable to touch the machine, especially laptops and netbooks...ergonomics plays a big part in how satisfied you're going to be with your computer in the long run - I'd hate to know that I saved a few bucks for a machine that disagrees with my aural, tactile, and visual senses...

So, go out and play with the laptop before committing to a sale - I guarantee you'll be glad you did...

 

Ill throw in a couple cents too i guess.

As i say to anyone asking me these types of questions about computers doing what the original poster wants to do. Basic computing can be done with any new computer you go out and buy today. I have 6 year old computers at my work and they can do anything you want to do. Doesnt matter if its emachines, acer, alienware, or anything in between. if all you do on a computer is word processing, facebook, and youtube videos, it doesnt matter what you buy new today. Watching youtube videos on computers these days will come down to your internet connection. if you use dial up, it doesnt matter if you buy a $2000 computer, its still going to be slow downloading vids.

So with that said, decide on your budget and get that computer. Brand, in your case, does not matter even if the manufacturers try to tell you it does. 2GB of ram, dual core processor, 200GB hard drive, whatever graphics card comes with it doesnt matter as it will be capable of what you want to do. OS - nothing wrong with Vista, but as already said, most new comps will have 7 now.

Thats my opinion anyway.

 

I don't think it is silly at all, when *the* current OS (Win7) has [for me] matched XP rig for rig on compatability.

Vista is/was a nightmare on more than half the machines i own.

But 2000 doesn't really work well with the rest of the world anymore, where as XP does.



****************************

King stave makes some very good points, but not all vid's are on youtube (which granted will play on anything)

Some other video sites stream hi-def, and some are just resource hungry, BBC iPlayer and Hulu for example don't really work well on low end rigs, especially if you want to be able to check email etc. while the vid's playing.



Q

 

Well, now, maybe I will try that RAM upgrade after all! Is RAM a generic item or does it need to be matched carefully to the specific laptop model?

I have the e-manual (fancy one for shops) and it does cover this, but I'm always sceptical in them understating difficulties. Really just two screws and a simple swap? I'm not going to hear a loud POP or a loud SNAP or any sort of unanticipated CRACKLE halfway through?

And does one need to "detect" it afterwards? Is RAM considered UPnP, or do I need to perform some sort of install ritual? Last thing I need is to double my RAM only to be informed I need to reinstall Windows to activate it!

Thanks for the tips!

Oh, and BTW, I put the two purchases on hold. Not only did I get a bit indecisive about the models (now having had time to actually READ the specs, that HP is obviously way better), but the line at WalMart was already like 500 long at midnight! My "3 a.m." strategy was obviously flawed from the get-go.

 

Dell Dimension 3000; Windows XP SP3, 512mb Ram, P4, 0 sata ports, 1 sata DVD drive

 

News showed several people who had been in line 30 HOURS at BestBuy.

Man, I am so naive!! I really thought 2 or 3 a.m. was MORE than early enough for the 5 a.m. opening!

Good thing I talked myself out of the particular model before ever setting out to get it. 2-3 hours in the pouring rain for absolutely NOTHING would have seriously bummed me out.

 

gonna go look at RAM today. here's what my emanual says:

Memory module connector 2 user-accessible SODIMM sockets
Memory module capacities 64, 128, 256, and 512 MB
Memory type 2.5-V DDR SODIMM
Standard memory 128 MB
Maximum memory 1 GB
Memory access time: clock speed 266 MHz

no clue what sodimm (google google...), but what gets me is that i'm already 3/4 of the way up the food chain. if "standard" -- which i guess means MINIMAL -- is 128M, then i really shouldn't be "strangling" the system with 512M, right?

yeah, 1G will be better, but shouldn't 512M be FAIRLY good?

again, it is not 3D video and wii controllers doing the hanging, it is plain ole SURFING. 2-3 simultaneous windows and the CPU is pinned at 100%.

i ask again: might it be some OTHER kind of problem, BESIDES ram?

oh, and another thing, are those capacities up there (64, 128, 256, and 512 MB) just what was INITIALLY available (at time of manufacture/manual printing), or is that really it? i mean, given that a coupla years has passed, is it likely that the slots can now handle 1G or 2G or more? or are the slots themselves the limiting factor?

i'm going to at least up my 256s to 512s (total 1G), but if i could leapfrog that and go straight to something even HIGHER....

 

Try crucial.com and see how much memory your comp will take. You don't have to buy it there but it will let you know if the specs have changed since the manual was printed.

 

crucial says the same as the manual, i.e., 2x512k (DDR/266MHz). i presently have 2x256k.

is that the best place to get them? they're showing $31.99 (shipping free), which is a good 8 bucks less than Staples (Best Buy doesn't carry).

i'm so itchy to do this i would have gone ahead and paid the extra 16 bucks to get them in hand, but for the fact that i'm still not 100% sure this is the issue. does CPU = 100% indicate such? mine is muy erratic. will be at like 12% for hours, then suddenly pin itself at 100% for an hour or two. then back to 12%. no correlation to what i'm doing whatsoever (lotta apps, could be 12%; one lousy browser window, whoa here comes 100%...).

i downloaded speedfan and things are ALWAYS running "hot". is this a bigger issue than RAM?

-----
EDIT: while typing this, the price dropped from $31.99 to $25.59! what thu...? i'm too cynical to believe this was random. is the site rigged in such a way to tempt you like this?

 

i've put off the RAM for now (still not convinced that is the problem), and have started looking at laptops and netbooks anew.

what is the pecking order on chip types, or "lines", or however else you evaluate them? i was all excited to see "i3" in the latest PCs -- thinking it must mean *TRIPLE* core -- but this does not seem to be the case. especially after seeing "i5" and "i7" to boot!

it seems that the bottom end for dual core has just dropped from $399 to $349 or so. those "i3"s, tho, i've seen at $299.

at $349 i'm tempted to jump on one of those dual cores, but are they now getting passé? are we, in fact, on the verge of triple core or something like that? (my misinterpretation of "i3" notwithstanding)

 

So there's no quick and easy way to match up model number with "core" amount?

Some of the dual cores state "Dual Core" in the ads, but not all. Yet they all seem to have "II" in the names. Or rather I thought they did until you now telling me that "i3" is also dual core.

I dunno how it compares to i5 or i7, but I guess i3 is below "II" then? Seeing as they're consistently cheaper.

And no, I'm not trying to get anything OVERLY fancy! I just want to ensure it's at LEAST *dual* core. First few models I considered here weren't.

Oh, and the fact that one of them had a SLOWER cpu than my 3-4 year old lump of molasses...since mine is 2.6GHz, I figured even the low-end ones were up to 7 or 8 by now!