phaedo Posted October 3, 2007 Report Share Posted October 3, 2007 Hello all. With any luck I will be looking at getting at least some form of tax refund, so am considering getting a new laptop. I see we do have this topic pop up occasionally, but I will ask also. At present I am using a 3 year old sony vaio, which most probably in theory just needs windows reinstalling and it would run a lot faster. But without a copy to reload it from, and all the current info on the current one like emails and all that plus so much software that I no longer have copies of to put back on, I would really rather just get something new and keep the old one to run stuff off that I still want to use but don't have on the new one. At the moment it can take 10 minutes to just tab between email and internet windows, very frustrating. What I may look at getting for the time being is one we sell at work, I would be able to pick it up for $750AU so pretty cheap. 1GB ram, core 2 duo processor. The brand is lenovo, which is a cheaper Chinese brand, model C200 (not sure on all specs) but for what it is and for what I would be using it for, I figure it is worth considering. Obviously I would rather go for another Sony or a Dell, but for the next 12 months and the cost I am hoping this will be fine. Anyone have any comments? Good, bad or otherwise. Over the next year or so I am hoping to start doing a bit better financially so by then I would look at a serious upgrade so this would really just be an interim fix for such a slow running computer presently. And please, no comments about getting a cheap desktop setup, it isn't practical. Nowhere to put it. Thanks in advance for all your comments. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cornerstone Posted October 3, 2007 Report Share Posted October 3, 2007 [if there is any way you can get the laptop in lieu of wages (which if the company sell them could be in their interest), as a sort of (novated?) fringe benefit then that can be extremely tax efficient. Laptops are one of the few tax free fringe benefits. It would mean you get the laptop and that amount is deducted from your taxable income.] Personally I agree go with the sub-AU$1000 models, a lot of bang for your buck to do most of the things people use a PC for. Look for battery life as something which can drive folk up the wall, a power-hungry processor or a crap battery can drive you nuts in a cheaper brand. But you can get proper brands at that price too, no? The consensus appears to be to give Vista a wide berth on a lower spec PC if you can; stick with XP if possible. External hard drives are cheap too now, so that's one of the weaknesses of laptops sorted. Best of luck!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phaedo Posted October 3, 2007 Author Report Share Posted October 3, 2007 [if there is any way you can get the laptop in lieu of wages (which if the company sell them could be in their interest), as a sort of (novated?) fringe benefit then that can be extremely tax efficient. Laptops are one of the few tax free fringe benefits. It would mean you get the laptop and that amount is deducted from your taxable income.] Personally I agree go with the sub-AU$1000 models, a lot of bang for your buck to do most of the things people use a PC for. Look for battery life as something which can drive folk up the wall, a power-hungry processor or a crap battery can drive you nuts in a cheaper brand. But you can get proper brands at that price too, no? The consensus appears to be to give Vista a wide berth on a lower spec PC if you can; stick with XP if possible. External hard drives are cheap too now, so that's one of the weaknesses of laptops sorted. Best of luck!! CS, thanks for the local reply, as to battery life they are supposed to be around 3 hours but the amount I am actually using the battery it is not an issue either way. As to the tax benefit, not sure how long I will stay at the current job anyway, so not sure that is worth doing - plus I should be able to claim come tax time anyway. Proper brands at that price, I have looked and to add the next option and the next one to bring it up to spec I am looking at least $1100 or more, looking at it in percentages already 30% more in cost. And totally agree with the vista thing too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dax Posted October 3, 2007 Report Share Posted October 3, 2007 CS, thanks for the local reply, as to battery life they are supposed to be around 3 hours but the amount I am actually using the battery it is not an issue either way. As to the tax benefit, not sure how long I will stay at the current job anyway, so not sure that is worth doing - plus I should be able to claim come tax time anyway. Proper brands at that price, I have looked and to add the next option and the next one to bring it up to spec I am looking at least $1100 or more, looking at it in percentages already 30% more in cost. And totally agree with the vista thing too. I Don't know if DELL sell in your area. I've got two DELL laptops, an old inspiron 8200 and my current one is a duo core 9600 with a 17" wide screen, running XP it's quick. Really depends on what you want to use it for? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jkerouac Posted October 3, 2007 Report Share Posted October 3, 2007 If the replacement laptop is just a short-term fix, I'd first consider: -- Defrag (can really make a difference when fragmentation exceeds 20-25%. -- Free up some disk space for your swap file (inadequate swap or temp file space can bring an otherwise decent PC to its knees) --Add memory (1G sounds good, but it depends on how many known and background apps are running at the same time. Open a process and/or performance monitor (Ctrl-Alt-Del) to see what is happening.) Any one of these might buy you the improved performance you are looking for, without having to reload Windows or spring for a new laptop. The first two measures would cost you absolutely nothing, and you should investigate these issues whether you buy that second laptop or not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
docblackrock Posted October 3, 2007 Report Share Posted October 3, 2007 *blah blah blah........MacBook Pro (although I still call it a Powerbook )..........blah blah blah* oh just seen budget issue, in which case: *blah blah blah........MacBook (although I still call it an iBook )..........blah blah blah* Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pugwash Posted October 3, 2007 Report Share Posted October 3, 2007 MacBook if you can afford it, Dell if you can't.-- Defrag (can really make a difference when fragmentation exceeds 20-25%.-- Free up some disk space for your swap file (inadequate swap or temp file space can bring an otherwise decent PC to its knees)--Add memory (1G sounds good, but it depends on how many known and background apps are running at the same time. Open a process and/or performance monitor (Ctrl-Alt-Del) to see what is happening.) -- Snake Oil. -- Snake Oil. -- Good advice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jkerouac Posted October 3, 2007 Report Share Posted October 3, 2007 -- Snake Oil. -- Snake Oil. -- Good advice. You're kidding, right? You've never seen performance suffer when a disk becomes too full? Or when file storage is not optimized? And why suggest that someone spend money on a temporary fix until they've exhausted all the free options? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phaedo Posted October 3, 2007 Author Report Share Posted October 3, 2007 If the replacement laptop is just a short-term fix, I'd first consider: -- Defrag (can really make a difference when fragmentation exceeds 20-25%. -- Free up some disk space for your swap file (inadequate swap or temp file space can bring an otherwise decent PC to its knees) --Add memory (1G sounds good, but it depends on how many known and background apps are running at the same time. Open a process and/or performance monitor (Ctrl-Alt-Del) to see what is happening.) Any one of these might buy you the improved performance you are looking for, without having to reload Windows or spring for a new laptop. The first two measures would cost you absolutely nothing, and you should investigate these issues whether you buy that second laptop or not. Ok, for the first two, already done, not made any difference, and as to adding memory it is older ram which when I tried to get over a year ago, I couldn't and it would not be cost effective to install if I could find some. For those suggesting macs, I knew you would but we are looking a budget of around $600US, not double that. Dell I would like to go for, but again, it would be at a 50% premium over this option. After tax rebates, and if I put the old one up on the bay, I would be looking at total cost around $300US. Really just using it for email, internet, word, watching por... I mean, utube videos that have been posted here... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jkerouac Posted October 3, 2007 Report Share Posted October 3, 2007 Ok, I'm glad you verified that you at least tried the other fixes. So here is one more possibility-- consider buying a used laptop as your interim machine. I just bought a fantastic HP multimedia laptop in August for $700. It was only ab. six months old, and turned out to be more computer than my wife (the primary user) was asking for, but it has everything that I had had specced in terms of memory (2G), CPU, and hard drive, and features a huge screen, the highest quality laptop keyboard I've ever used, and even has built-in Altec Lansing speakers. The one negative that I found, not surprisingly considering the above-mentioned feature list, is that it is a bit on the heavy side. But that doesn't both my wife who was looking for a desktop replacement rather than asuper compact. Best of luck, whatever you end up doing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UB7 Posted October 4, 2007 Report Share Posted October 4, 2007 (edited) Do yourself a favor and listen to DBR - GET A MACBOOK/PRO AND DONT LOOK BACK! But if you like popups, spyware and virus's than get a vista Edited October 4, 2007 by UB7 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phaedo Posted October 4, 2007 Author Report Share Posted October 4, 2007 Re: Macs. Just had a look and based on full retail price through Apple online, the cheapest model is more than double the price of the Lenovo. As for looking second hand, computers are something I would prefer to not buy used. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest carlsbadrolex Posted October 4, 2007 Report Share Posted October 4, 2007 For double the price of a Lenovo you get 10 times the computer with a Macbook. There are lightly used MacBooks available here in the states for under $750. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
promotersf Posted October 4, 2007 Report Share Posted October 4, 2007 I've been an Apple guy my whole life so I'm biased...but the new dual core intel Macbook Pros really are alot of computer even though they are expensive. the main benefit besides having a Mac is that you can run all your PC programs using Apple's bootcamp since the Apple is running on an intel dual core processor...basically you have 2 computers in one, a Mac and a PC so you can run both operating systems. Something to consider, there are deals on ebay for used ones... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
docblackrock Posted October 4, 2007 Report Share Posted October 4, 2007 Re: Macs. Just had a look and based on full retail price through Apple online, the cheapest model is more than double the price of the Lenovo. As for looking second hand, computers are something I would prefer to not buy used. As I said before and others backed me up, it is completely false economy to buy a cheap PC. Aside from the 10x of machine for 2x price, don't forget to factor in at least 2x or 3x lifespan, and 10x user-friendliness and there's really no option. The Intel chip and ability to run Windows (if needs be) has removed the last barrier to switching. No more excuses. You ever wonder why us Mac people are so zealous in our praise??? Try it and you'll see why I realise the Macbook (let's forget the Pro due to your budget) is still expensive AU$1600 about US$400 above price in US/UK, but there is another option, something normally only advertised in UK, France and I believe Canada, but actually available worldwide inc. Australia Go to apple<dot>com<forwardslash>au<forwardslash>buy If the finance options are not an option (just checking) then you can order direct from an 'International Store' Then choose UK You then see this.... Scroll down right to the bottom and click the are marked thus.... then... and browse away at some great prices Don't worry, Apple has an open policy on shipping Macs worldwide (unlike iPhone's/Pods etc.) so shipping addresses are NOT confined to the UK/Eire, remember the "buy from International Stores" link on the first pic's Apple Australia page? Can't comment on import duty. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Viennawatch Posted October 4, 2007 Report Share Posted October 4, 2007 IMO, forget Sony.... More bucks for the name and not much better than other brands like Dell or Acer... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Viennawatch Posted October 4, 2007 Report Share Posted October 4, 2007 (edited) I've been an Apple guy my whole life so I'm biased...but the new dual core intel Macbook Pros really are alot of computer even though they are expensive. the main benefit besides having a Mac is that you can run all your PC programs using Apple's bootcamp since the Apple is running on an intel dual core processor...basically you have 2 computers in one, a Mac and a PC so you can run both operating systems. Something to consider, there are deals on ebay for used ones... Thats very true, but who says Window users want to use Mac programs? We already have more than enough variety of programs to choose from. (I'm speaking from experience, I owned a G4 Tower for 3 years and a G3 Blue and White 5 years before that.) I think a lot of people would agree with me when I say that Macs are damn good for video editing and animation, but then again the average laptop user knows jack about animation and there are good enough video editing programs for Windows as well. Why spend the extra bucks to get a Mac? Besides.. I don't know if the new Quad-Cores are available for Mac laptops yet, and not sure if the laptops have the graphics capacity that Window laptops have. Here in Austria there is some PC company that make custom laptops with 768 MB graphics card processing power.. If thats not a power house I don't know what is. You won't even need central heating in the winter if you've got one of those mothers.... lol Although being able to run both Mac and Windows programs on a Mac may sound like a good argument, it really isn't... Just my 2 cents... Regards, VW Edited October 4, 2007 by Viennawatch Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
offshore Posted October 4, 2007 Report Share Posted October 4, 2007 Can't comment on import duty. FWIW, If invoice value is under A$1000 = zero duty. Over A$1000... computers =25%, and probably 10%GST. However if it is "used" (no books, access etc) and under 1k.. no duty, no GST (probably) Ahh the mind of the bureaucrat!!! Offshore Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pugwash Posted October 4, 2007 Report Share Posted October 4, 2007 You're kidding, right? You've never seen performance suffer when a disk becomes too full? Or when file storage is not optimized? Not since the 20th century, no. Swap files matter for naught when you have enough RAM and defragging assumes you need large contiguous blocks for files: you don't. Both those suggestions assume hard drives are slow and have no caching and that the OS really cannot use pagefiles properly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pugwash Posted October 4, 2007 Report Share Posted October 4, 2007 Here in Austria there is some PC company that make custom laptops with 768 MB graphics card processing power.. If thats not a power house I don't know what is. You won't even need central heating in the winter if you've got one of those mothers.... lol Nothing says ostentatious like a 35 minute max battery life on a laptop. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Admin Posted October 4, 2007 Report Share Posted October 4, 2007 Well, I disagree with you on both of these, Pugs Depending on the software you use, defragmentation can make a huge difference. Most hard drives today have nothing more than 8-16MB of cache and that's not nearly enough. Today, you have modern defragmentation software that use algorithms to calculate what programs you use the most and what files are accesses the most and then defrag your disc so that these programs are accessed faster. Even a defragmentation by the default windows application will help speed up most computers, as your data will be stored in the same blocks and not spread around the disk. This will help reduce the time it takes to access the file and reduce the seek time and what is known as rotational delay. Same goes for the page file/swap file. I have 4GB of ram (althoug only 3192MB show up due to Vistas stupid way of handling memory mapped I/O ), but the system still use the pagefile for many purposes, although not as much on my computer as it would on a machine with less memory. A "normal" computer with XP or Vista installed, will usually have 30+ processes running, and every single of these processes require their own amounf of memory. If you are working with large programs/large files, a single process can use all of your available RAM. So sometimes it might be an idea to increase the % of your harddrive that the page-file can use. T Not since the 20th century, no. Swap files matter for naught when you have enough RAM and defragging assumes you need large contiguous blocks for files: you don't. Both those suggestions assume hard drives are slow and have no caching and that the OS really cannot use pagefiles properly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pugwash Posted October 4, 2007 Report Share Posted October 4, 2007 Well, I disagree with you on both of these, Pugs Well, your opinion, as wrong as it is, is always appreciated. Unless you're working with video, it is unlikely you will see much noticeable (as in real-world, not lab tests) difference between a fragmented and defragmented drive. Also, if you're noticing performance degradation due to page-ins (not page-outs as they are harmless) on a machine with 3GB of memory, you need to seriously rethink your workflow. Oh, and if you're running Vista, you never need to defrag. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Admin Posted October 5, 2007 Report Share Posted October 5, 2007 Unless you're working with video, it is unlikely you will see much noticeable (as in real-world, not lab tests) difference between a fragmented and defragmented drive. Also, if you're noticing performance degradation due to page-ins (not page-outs as they are harmless) on a machine with 3GB of memory, you need to seriously rethink your workflow. Oh, and if you're running Vista, you never need to defrag. Sorry, bit I just think we'll just have to agree that we have different opinions/experience on this and you are wrong Not refering to any lab-test here (although with the physics involved, it is logical that a harddrive will work faster with the fragments of a file in one place than scattered around the different disks inside a hard drive). If you've had your computer running for a year and never defrag'ed it, you will notice a difference in performance if you defrag you disk, almost no matter what kind of defragmentation software you use. If you use an optimized program, like Diskeeper, the difference will be very noticeable. And I'm not sure why you are saying that if you run Vista, you don't need to defrag . Any OS that write/delete/rewrite data to and from a disk will usually end up with a fragmented disk. So the defragment program is still included in Vista also Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pugwash Posted October 5, 2007 Report Share Posted October 5, 2007 it is logical that a harddrive will work faster with the fragments of a file in one place than scattered around the different disks inside a hard drive This is one of those logical assumptions that makes an ass out of you and some guy named Umption. With modern drives and modern OSes, the performance need for defragmenting is a lot less than you'd think. For instance, how many Linux, BSD, Solaris or Mac OSX defraggers are available? And I'm not sure why you are saying that if you run Vista, you don't need to defrag . Because Vista constantly background-defrags. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Admin Posted October 5, 2007 Report Share Posted October 5, 2007 With modern drives and modern OSes, the performance need for defragmenting is a lot less than you'd think. For instance, how many Linux, BSD, Solaris or Mac OSX defraggers are available? Yeees....modern OSes...so why do you bring Linux, BSD, Solaris and Mac OSX into this Because Vista constantly background-defrags. hehe...that was supposed to be MY next argument Also, the NTFS file system has been upgraded on Vista, so the fragmenting is not that bad, even on a default system. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now