Advice on buying laptops

[Ryu]

I'm a senior in college so I'm not sure if I should try to wait until I have a full time job to do this but my laptop shows signs of crapping out so I've started looking at laptops.
What range of specs should I look at, such as processor type/speed, ram, and memory. I'd like it to be light enough/not bulky so I can be mobile with it if need be(mines a bit of a clunker) and have the battery last longer than my current (practically nothing)
Are there any brands you guys recommend? And should I try to get XP or allow for Vista to be installed?
Thanks for any advice.

[Pedersen]

What you get depends hugely on you, and you've given very little information to go on.

For instance, what's your budget? What's your needs? What must run, what should run, and what would be nice to have? How will you use it?

All of that being said, here's some things to consider: Modern desktops (and laptops too) don't take full advantage of multi-gigahertz CPUs. Basically, 2 GHz+ should do for most non-gaming uses.

Where you're going to want to splurge is on the memory. The more you can pack in, the better. Modern programs want memory. They eat memory like I can eat tacos (since I eat at least a half dozen, on a slow night, and that's home made, not Taco Bell, that's saying something). If the system can handle it, put it in. Max out memory right up front. You won't be sorry later.

Hard drives: On laptops, more so than on desktops, you have to make a choice: Fast drives, or big drives? The bigger the drive, the slower it will be. Your choice entirely.

Video: Matters much more if you are dealing with Vista (and want the Aero interface) and/or gaming. If neither of those is true, then most any video card will do.

Finally, the great XP/Vista debate: Personally, I'm not seeing a lot of Vista uptake. Maybe it will improve when SP1 comes out early next year, I don't know. Myself, I'd go with XP, but that is because I don't trust a lot of Vista. Won't get into a debate over the merits of either here. Just say I don't trust Vista. Don't trust XP, either, but I don't trust Vista more

As to brands, I've got no clue on their track records at this time.

You might consider an Apple. Throw in a copy of VMWare Fusion (and whichever flavor of Windows makes you happy), and you get the best of all worlds. The hardware is decent, you get OSX, and you get Windows. Just an idea, which you are free to promptly (and totally) ignore

[Ryu]

Obviously I dont want to spend a ton of money but dont have a specific budget. I dont know all the programs I'll need if I need any for my job but what I currently use primarily are firefox, thunderbird, sunbird, itunes, trillian, word, dreamweaver on occasion but rarely at present. It's hard since I'll be graduating soon I dont know what needs I'll have at my job or for leisure once I have free time.
I do like playing games but dont currently play any computer games and dont know if I'll be getting any after graduation or not
Most of the laptops I see for sale come with Vista which is why I asked if I should try to find one with XP or settle for one with Vista
How many commonly used programs need windows as opposed to apple? Or does that program allow them to run?
Thanks for the advice.

[Rapscallion]

Personally, I'm not seeing a lot of Vista uptake.

Just reached ten percent of site visitors.

Rapscallion

[Broomjockey]

You might consider an Apple. Throw in a copy of VMWare Fusion (and whichever flavor of Windows makes you happy), and you get the best of all worlds. The hardware is decent, you get OSX, and you get Windows. Just an idea, which you are free to promptly (and totally) ignore

Actually, that's probably the best idea if you don't know what you're going to need it for. There's a fair bit of Mac specific software in some businesses, and cross-platform or Windows specific in others, so getting an Intel MacBook (if there is such a creature, not up on the MacBooks), and doing the whole Boot Camp thing so that you can run either the Mac or Windows O/S is going to be your safest bet. You're probably going to pay more for the flexibility, but at least you won't be stuck with something you can't use.

[Pedersen]

what I currently use primarily are firefox, thunderbird, sunbird, itunes, trillian, word, dreamweaver on occasion but rarely at present.
--SNIP--
How many commonly used programs need windows as opposed to apple? Or does that program allow them to run?

The only one of those that I don't know about is Dreamweaver. I have no idea if that's on OSX or not. For Trillian, you would switch to Adium. The rest are all on OSX natively.

VMWare Fusion and/or Boot Camp both allow Windows to run on the Mac, and do so quite nicely. Boot Camp is free (I think), VMWare Fusion costs $80. I prefer the Fusion product, since it provides more flexibility.

Just reached ten percent of site visitors.

That's cool. Honestly, I don't know if that's wide uptake or not. Another way to put it is that, nearly one year after release, 9 out of 10 people who visit this site don't use Vista.

That particular issue can be quite heated, depending on the people, so I will only say this: For my needs, Vista is the wrong choice. It's probably great for others, though.

so getting an Intel MacBook (if there is such a creature, not up on the MacBooks), and doing the whole Boot Camp thing so that you can run either the Mac or Windows O/S is going to be your safest bet. You're probably going to pay more for the flexibility, but at least you won't be stuck with something you can't use.

Yep, MacBook Pro and current MacBook both provide Intel based processors. You can run Windows, OSX, and/or Linux, depending on your needs/mood.

And yeah, it is more pricey, but the added flexibility is a good choice for me. Just wish I could afford the machine.

[Shabo]

Also, are you positive that you need a laptop? Most businesses now will not let you bring in your own machine simply because of security issues. I would venture a guess that most home machines have some form of a virus on them, whether the owner knows about it or not.

You can get more for your money if you go with a desktop computer, but it certainly does limit mobility with the machine. However, that choice is entirely up to you. I have both, and I use my laptop when I'm at school and my desktop when I'm at home.

As for XP vs Vista, I am not a fan of Vista, but to each their own. The new Mac OS (Leopard or 10.5, whichever you want to call it) has Boot Camp built in to the OS. It's super dooper easy to use, but you can only use EITHER Windows OR Mac at one time. There is another piece of software called Parallels that allows you to run both at the same time. That program costs $79.99, plus you need to purchase a copy of Windows. XP is pretty cheap right now because of Vista, so that's not bad. The only thing about macs is that they are more expensive than PCs, so there is that cost to factor in. I am personally a huge fan of IBM (not the prettiest things in the world, but damn good customer service!) but again, they are a bit more expensive than most PCs. I got mine used off of eBay (but be REALLY careful doing that! Lucky for me the IBM warranty transferred, otherwise I would have been sans working screen .)

I've said it before, and I'll say it again... brand preferences are COMPLETELY subjective. Do yourself a favor, and spend at least $1000 on a new laptop. Get the extended warranty, too. Tell us what you need the laptop for, and we'll tell you what specs to look out for. Getting a fairly high end machine may cost you more money now, but if all you're going to be doing on it is word processing, you won't need to upgrade for a few years. If you want to be doing some things that require high end processing requirements, (gaming, engineering of any sort, graphical design, video editing, etc.) then you will want the best you can get for your budget with options to upgrade if possible. Because you will be wanting to upgrade as much as possible.

If you find some laptops that you like that you want our opinions of, link them here and we'll let you know.

[Mr. Rager!]

There's a reason why I'd stay away from Mac OS anything, limited use. Yeah, you can run Windows on top or along side Mac OS. But if you need to do that, why not just buy a windows machine? Software choices for Windows ranges far greater than Mac OS.

As far as what you should look into for a laptop... just about any brand will suit you. But if you want good battery life, make sure you're getting a good processor. I recommend a Centrino T5250 at the minimum. As far as RAM goes, if you are going to go with Mac OS, then a gig will do just fine. If you do go with Vista, then a gig minimum... 2 gig preferred.

As far as Vista goes, Vista is a good operating system. For most people, it suits their needs just fine. When the services packs for Vista come out, it'll only get better. As it stands right now, compared to when XP first came out, Vista has fewer security issues. I think you'll find Vista to be a very stable, easy to use operating system. A lot of the bad things being said about Vista can be attributed to FUD.

And yes, I realize that 9 out of 10 users on CS are not using Vista. However, there's no need to run out and get the new operating system when your current rig is working just fine. XP just recently broke the 80% mark worldwide, if that says anything.

[Pedersen]

There's a reason why I'd stay away from Mac OS anything, limited use. Yeah, you can run Windows on top or along side Mac OS. But if you need to do that, why not just buy a windows machine? Software choices for Windows ranges far greater than Mac OS.

Well, as a person who uses a Mac daily, I have to point this out: The only reason I have a Windows configuration available to me is that it is needed to administer some of the servers here at work.

Outside of those items, though, I find myself much more productive than I do on Windows XP. This, though, is my experience, and others will have different experiences. Also, I do not compare to Windows Vista, as I have never used it, and only seen it in passing.

As far as RAM goes, if you are going to go with Mac OS, then a gig will do just fine. If you do go with Vista, then a gig minimum... 2 gig preferred.

Again, no comment on Vista. As far as Mac goes, though, get 2G at a minimum. This OSX laptop started at 1G, and I quickly (within a month) found myself needing much more memory. 2G is widely considered the minimum for acceptable speeds on OSX.

The rest of your comments, though, I agree with. For most people, Vista is probably fine. I just wouldn't get it for me at this time. Then again, my use of the computer is quirky (at best) when compared to most

[Shabo]

Actually, the Mac OS is not terribly limited by software anymore. The only reason to get a Mac would be if you like them, and the only reasons to avoid them is if you don't or if you can't afford them. You can also install the Mac OS on PCs (osx86project.org for more info). In fact, one could argue that for most artists, Macs are the better machine as they usually have better graphics cards than what comes stock in PCs, have better stock programs for photo and video editing and organizing, and look cooler. AND they have a fun remote!!!! So don't worry about not being able to do things on a Mac. True, there is some software that is still incompatible for the Mac, but that's what the dual boot is for.

I'm so totally getting a new iMac when I can afford it. Those things are SEXAY!!!

[Mr. Rager!]

What I find nuts is I can walk into Best Buy, get an HP laptop with a T5250 Centrino Processor, 12-cell extended life battery, 200GB hard drive, 2 gigs of RAM, web cam all for $849.99. And then of course, I can get just about any program used on Mac on it, plus programs that aren't used on a Mac.

And if I want to play games, a decent gaming machine is about $600 more.

But, if I want a samiliar machine in a Mac, I'm paying $2000+. Then, if I want to play games or use a program that just isn't Mac compatible, I'm buying XP to dual boot, or run on top of Mac OS. But this is like comparing apples to oranges.

I have absolutely nothing against Mac OS. I just really hate paying for hardware because Apple has a complex over what hardware their software uses.

Oh yes, and I did think about getting a Mac. Glad I didn't, actually. The OS is so easy to use, I don't feel like I'm getting anything done.

Ryu, try walking into an Apple store, and work into a place like Circuit City or Best Buy. Talk to an associate from each store and tell them how you really plan on using the machine. Listen to what each one is telling you, then decide on who had the best solution to fit your need. That's really the best way.

[Shabo]

Not everyone who works at computer stores is necessarily trained on computers though. We can dish out the same advice here with no extra time and cost required. Plus, everyone has prejudices. True, I don't like spending extra for the Mac hardware, but I really like the look of the Mac, which is something I can't duplicate, so that's why I want to buy it.

And like I said in my last post, you can put the Mac OS on some PCs. So you don't have to buy their hardware, just their OS.

[Mr. Rager!]

And like I said in my last post, you can put the Mac OS on some PCs. So you don't have to buy their hardware, just their OS.

Wrong! It's actually illegal to put Mac OS on anything other than an Apple unles you have a developer license through them ($600). The only way to get Mac OS on your non Apple machine is to download a cracked copy of the OS via torrent. So the legality of it all is a major issue in that it's not legal at all. Trust me, I've looked into it.

I'll stick with paying less for hardware that can do the same thing an Apple machine can do. And if I really want to dabble into a version of Unix, I'll download a version of Linux for free and have fun.

Like I've said before, I like the Mac OS in that it's really easy to use and pretty. I almost bought a Mac; however, in order to get what I have now, I'd be spending over $2000 on Mac.

If you really want to buy a Mac because they're nice to look at, that's your choice. I'm just a fan of functionality and value.

[gbm85]

Modern desktops (and laptops too) don't take full advantage of multi-gigahertz CPUs. Basically, 2 GHz+ should do for most non-gaming uses.

I'd like to hear the story behind that. The processor runs at every cycle. As long as there are instructions waiting for it, it is being taken advantage of fully. I think what you may be getting at is that the average user doesn't take advantage of anything over 2 GHz because it's unnecessary for their needs.

Now, multi-core CPUs are another story. Most software isn't written to take advantage of more than one core, so the advantage is rare (I won't say minimal because that could be misinterpreted. mencoder runs almost twice as fast on my laptop when making use of both cores).

Hard drives: On laptops, more so than on desktops, you have to make a choice: Fast drives, or big drives? The bigger the drive, the slower it will be. Your choice entirely.

While that is technically true, it could be misunderstood. Yes, a larger drive will have a higher seek time, especially during real-world usage, but we're talking about centiseconds. Not exactly noticeable to the lay person, especially when using a modern filesystem like NTFS or ext3.

[Pedersen]

I'd like to hear the story behind that. The processor runs at every cycle. As long as there are instructions waiting for it, it is being taken advantage of fully. I think what you may be getting at is that the average user doesn't take advantage of anything over 2 GHz because it's unnecessary for their needs.

You're right. The average user won't take advantage of the enhanced speeds, and that's what I meant to say. Screwed up my own message there.

[/QUOTE]While that is technically true, it could be misunderstood. Yes, a larger drive will have a higher seek time, especially during real-world usage, but we're talking about centiseconds. Not exactly noticeable to the lay person, especially when using a modern filesystem like NTFS or ext3.[/QUOTE]

Actually, I'm referring to a very visible measure of speed on the typical laptop: The RPM for the hard drive. The higher the capacity, the lower the RPMs. This is not a small difference, either, as the really big drives (160GB+) tend to run at 4200 RPMs, while the smaller drives (60GB) run at 7400 RPMs. Somewhere around 75% extra motion on the platters per second.

That is a noticeable difference in speed.