Topic: Somebody tell me what laptop to buy.

[Quemaqua]

I've spent probably upwards of 4 hours looking at reviews, specs, and random internet crap, and I am hopelessly lost.  It seems I just plain can't find a fucking system that does what I want that's at least relatively easy.

All I want is a decently robust system with 2-3GB of RAM, DVD burner, wifi, etc., that either comes with XP or can be "downgraded" to it from Vista with no issues, has a screen that's at least 15+", and has a decent keyboard that isn't truncated.  Thus far I have found nothing that meets all those requirements, even trying to custom build something.  Nothing even close.

I'm steering away from Gateway and Dell because I've had bad experiences with both.  There were some Toshibas that seemed promising but didn't quite make it, and this Lenovo almost looked good, but I can't find any fucking information on whether or not it's a pile of crap.  I don't have money to waste on another disaster like the Gateway laptop I had.

Anybody have any experience here?  I'm at my wit's end.

[scottws]

Ugh.  I hate 15.4" "laptops" (tabletop is a more appropriate term).  I'm on one now.  I will never understand why a company would issue a consultant such a beast.

I realize that you explicitly mentioned that you are avoiding them, but if I got a laptop today it would be a Dell Latitude E6400.  Those things are niiiiice.  The E6500 is the 15.4" flavor.  They get pretty expensive real fast though, especially when you add a nVidia card, Centrino 2 with Wireless-N (draft), and a DVD+RW.

I've found that with Dell it is cheaper to spec out with the lowest amount of RAM and buy and add RAM separately.  This involves taking off the keyboard in most cases, since usually the lowest is 1.0 GB and that is found in the internal RAM slot with the expansion slot open.  To get to 3 or 4 GB you have to take the keyboard off and replace that 1.0 GB module.

Keep in mind that I wouldn't even bother looking at anything less than a business-class laptop.  Those things they foist on consumers "for the home" are complete pieces of shit.

[Quemaqua]

These are the kinds of things I need to hear.

Also, I realize that even though wifi net access etc. is very important for me on this, I know nothing about it.  I have wireless devices like my PS3, PSP, DS, what have you, but I don't really know anything about wireless.  I only just last year got a wireless router, so I'm still sort of new to the whole thing.

[scottws]

You probably have Wireless B/G stuff.  Wireless-B is really old, and has a max throughput of 11 Mbps.  WIreless-G is newer and has a throughput of 54 Mbps.  Practically everything released today is or supports Wireless-G, and usually Wireless-B too.  Every once in awhile you'll see Wireless-A stuff, but that's really uncommon and generally you have to seek it out.  Wireless-A is also 54 Mbps, but is much shorter range than Wireless-B/G.

Wireless-N is a new spec that's much faster than any of the previous wireless specs (300 Mbps) and offers a little bit increased range.  But you need a Wireless-N access point and Wireless-N wireless NIC to take advantage of it.  In general, Wireless-N NICs and access points also support Wireless-B/G.

In regards to Mbps, first keep in mind the numbers listed are theoretical maximums.  Also keep in mind that really it only matters in an internal network.  For instance, a decent broadband connection will be about 3 Mbps.  Even if you have Wireless-B, you're wireless won't be a bottleneck when accessing the Internet.

However, if you are accessing files or resources on a LAN, 11 Mbps is really slow and limiting,  Even Wireless-G is a big bottleneck on a LAN since standard Ethernet is 100 Mbps.  Since standard Ethernet is 100 Mbps, with Wireless-N, the wired LAN for the first time becomes the bottleneck, but if you have a gigabit Ethernet network (1000 Mbps), then the wireless link again becomes the "slow" part (300 Mbps is fast).

That's a really high level, skim the surface blurb on wireless.  I tend to lean on Wireless-G stuff right now since generally it is good enough and it's cheap.  Wireless-N routers are really overpriced.  But if I was going to buy a laptop, I would spring for the Wireless-N card on the Dell because it gives you Centrino 2, plus it's such a small percentage of the overall price.

[WindAndConfusion]

either comes with XP or can be "downgraded" to it from Vista with no issues

This is going to sound strange coming from me, especially considering how much I bitched about Vista before and shortly after it was released, but...

I strongly advise you pick Vista in favor of XP (unless you can wait for a laptop that comes with Windows 7 or an upgrade license for 7).

While it was true that Vista had a rocky start - small performance reductions, driver & software compatibility issues, some highly questionable UI decisions, etc - these issues have been almost entirely worked out. The current 32-bit version of Vista (SP1) is about as fast as XP SP2, and the 64 bit version of Vista is comparable to XP SP3. (The 64-bit version of XP has terrible hardware support, so don't bother asking about it.) Furthermore, Vista has better application startup times (mostly because of Superfetch), and it runs faster and more reliably than XP when you have several applications running at once. And Vista SP2 (soon to be released) may bring further improvement.

And while Vista can compete evenly against XP when it comes to raw speed, XP can't compare to Vista on features or design. Vista is quite a bit more secure, it has end-user improvements like indexed file searches, better malicious software removal tools, and much smarter I/O (so that, for instance, antivirus can run in the background without thrashing your hard drive and bringing your system to a crawl).

Besides UAC (which is somewhat obnoxious but easy to disable), the only real issue with Vista is that it performs badly on systems with less than a gigabyte of RAM. If you have 2 or more gigs, you're completely fine (and this is regardless of CPU speed - I've seen Vista run pretty well on a Pentium III with 1.5GB RAM, even with antivirus and a few torrents running in the background).

Lastly, if you want to have 4GB of RAM, Vista is the only (Windows-based) game in town - you'll need a 64-bit OS for that, and XP 64 is like some cruel joke whose butt is the fragile human psyche.

[Quemaqua]

Well, speed really isn't an issue.  Most of what you mention isn't really an issue.  Compatibility is the biggest problem with Vista, and you can't argue that away, unfortunately.  There are still myriad programs that Vista doesn't agree with, and it doesn't ultimately matter whether that's the fault of Vista or the program.  There's stuff I plan to use the thing for that I know for a fact Vista doesn't like.  Really, I wouldn't even go with XP if I could help it.  I'd go with Linux if I didn't need Windows in some form.

Thanks for the explanations and advice, in any case.  I'm hoping Pug will come in and magically save the day with a link to the perfect laptop and I can stop thinking about it all.

[Xessive]

I wish Lindows was still around. I think would have been the best of both worlds. Frickin' Microsoft and their lawsuits.

Good luck finding the right laptop, Que

[scottws]

Compatibility is the biggest problem with Vista, and you can't argue that away, unfortunately.  There are still myriad programs that Vista doesn't agree with, and it doesn't ultimately matter whether that's the fault of Vista or the program.  There's stuff I plan to use the thing for that I know for a fact Vista doesn't like.

I like personally like XP more than Vista overall and use Vista only out of necessity, but I think you are caught up in a myth.  I haven't had any problems with compatibility at all.  Literally not a single one.  Can you cite specific examples?

Really, I wouldn't even go with XP if I could help it.  I'd go with Linux if I didn't need Windows in some form.

Since I don't imagine a laptop you'd buy would be a gaming machine, what programs do you need Windows for?  I once complained that there was nothing that came close to Dreamweaver on Linux, but then someone told me that it runs fine under wine, which it does.

I've got that Kubuntu laptop and I'm actually quite impressed that I've been able to do a lot more with it than just use it as the mobile web-browsing Linux toy I bought it to be.

[Quemaqua]

Just because you haven't had problems doesn't mean something is a myth.  And yes, I know specifically that there are at least a couple of programs I want to run that have issues.  It isn't necessarily a deal breaker, I just really don't want to have to deal with Vista since it *shouldn't*, at least in theory, be that big of a deal to get XP on a machine.

Wine is a possibility with Linux, I mostly just don't want the extra hassle of figuring out whether or not everything works right.  You must remember I'm sitting in a huge house full of boxes, my back is thrown, and I still have to put in 8 hours of work every day.  I'm sort of fucked up right now.  Dual booting is certainly a possibility, but I've never done that before, and despite my interest in Linux, truth is I don't really know how to use it.  I've almost gone Linux several times, but it never ended up happening.

[K-man]

Yeah I'm also curious as to what programs you use that are currently incompatible with Vista.  I mean I'm running 64 bit Vista and even I haven't had any compatibility issues.

[Quemaqua]

They aren't "incompatible with Vista", there are just known functionality problems.  I have no idea why this baffles any of you.  There are tons of programs that have issues with Vista; not as many as when it launched, of course, but there are still plenty.  They may *work*, but that doesn't mean all features work correctly.  I really don't have time to type out a list as I have to go to work.

[scottws]

Well, it baffles me because I use a ton of stuff for work on a Vista x64 laptop and a whole other set of stuff at home on a Vista x64 machine and I have had no program compatibility problems of any kind.  Every program works, period.  No missing or broken functionality or anything like that.  I guess what I am (and I presume K-MaN is) wondering is what programs you are using that you know have problems on Vista.

As far as Linux and wine go, yeah, it's a bit of a project.  As a user of a Linux machine that has all the programs you need or want already set up for you, Linux is very easy to pick up and deal with.  But as an administrator, it is very different than Windows and you have to fiddle with things sometimes and at the beginning it is very foreign.  So yeah if you have a lot of other things going on, I wouldn't try to mess too much with Linux.  The good thing is, when you get the system pretty much to your liking, it's very easy to maintain.  You just have to run the package manager every once in awhile and update all your packages (just a few mouse clicks, and some package managers have a sister update client that's even easier and runs automatically similar to Windows update).

As far as dual booting, that is actually really, really easy to set up.  Generally all the Linux installers will see your Windows partition and set up grub to have an entry to boot to Windows (and gives you the option of setting it as the default).  That way you've got Linux on there and can mess with it when you have the time, but you still have your Windows.  Then again, if you don't have a lot of time, by the time you get around to messing with Linux the distro might be rather outdated.

An alternative to dual booting is setting up VMware workstation or server (server is free) on your Windows installation, and installing Linux to a virtual machine.  That won't give you the same experience as running it natively on your hardware, but it gives you the opportunity to mess around with it (and test several different distros) without having to reboot your computer to get to it.

[K-man]

The only difficulty I've had with Vista/Vista 64 is having to physically go download a patch for Diablo 2 rather than having the autoupdater do it.  I mean I'm sure there are programs out there with issues, but I've yet to run across one.

[Cools!]

I second scottws' recommendation. Go with a small business level Dell laptop. They are robust and affordable. Before I switched to Mac, I was using all Dell machines (workstation and laptop), and they still run to this day. I don't know how they are now, but I've always been happy with the machines and most problems I had were with Windows rather than hardware.

Regarding Linux, if you need, it just install a distro, like Ubuntu. Easy to setup, fairly user-friendly and pretty much complete application wise these days. I wouldn't bother with any of the virtual environments...

My other suggestion if you wanted a Linux like system without the "hassle" is to go with a Mac. Plus you can dual boot them and have Windows if you need it. *grin*

[scottws]

My other suggestion if you wanted a Linux like system without the "hassle" is to go with a Mac. Plus you can dual boot them and have Windows if you need it. *grin*

Eh.  I know OS X is based on Unix and has the terminal and all that, but it really isn't the same thing at all.

[Cools!]

When a non-programmer talks about wanting to try Linux it probably comes down to using the vast library of (mostly free) applications and less about configuring window managers, etc,.

In that respect you can run virtually all Unix and Linux services (terminal apps, etc.) and GUI applications with minimal hassle (in some cases you'll need to install a specific port of a *nix GUI library). Most of the time, you don't even have to go that far with GUI applications as a lot of them are now available as native Mac ports (including native Mac UI).

As far as the command line interface is concerned, you can operate a Mac system using the exact same *nix commands, install the same services in the same directory system (/usr/bin, etc.), etc. In fact, you can perform the vast majority of end user tasks without ever knowing that you are actually on a Mac.

For example, as a programmer, I've developed Unix services and build LAMP based websites on the Mac without requiring any modifications when moved to a proper Linux system. I've configured Apache, MySQL, PHP, Python, Ruby, Lisp, etc. on my Mac the same way as on my Linux servers. It all works pretty much the same. Yes, there have been a few cases where I had to do something Mac specific, similar to the minor differences you'll find between the *nix distros.

From my standpoint, ignoring the GUI, the whole experience is fairly transparent between Mac and Linux. On the Mac, you have access to virtually all the services, without the hassle of having to deal with all the configurations, application dependencies, etc. associated with using a Linux box (though again, Linux distros have become much better now).

Then again, Que is an Apple hater.

[WindAndConfusion]

Well, it baffles me because I use a ton of stuff for work on a Vista x64 laptop and a whole other set of stuff at home on a Vista x64 machine and I have had no program compatibility problems of any kind.  Every program works, period.  No missing or broken functionality or anything like that.  I guess what I am (and I presume K-MaN is) wondering is what programs you are using that you know have problems on Vista.

I actually know a few categories of programs that won't run on Vista:

• Various games (especially those published by EA) have strange and stupid dependencies (like an application launcher that crashes if it doesn't detect the presence of an obsolete and unused DirectInput interface). Examples include several Heroes of Might and Magic games, and much of the crap Sega produced for the PC.
• Those godawful "web applications" that require you to install clientside software and that only work in IE 5.5 or 6. Examples include some older version of Blackboard and a lot of in-house enterprise software.
• Pretty much anything that is written entirely in Visual Basic and that was last updated prior to 2007. I don't know if this is anything to do with Visual Basic itself, or if it's just that VB programmers are hideous little goblins.
• Device drivers, and any custom applications for interfacing with hardware. Even in 2008, more than a year after Vista's release, it was still possible to find WiFi cards in stores that didn't (and would never) have Vista support.

Eh.  I know OS X is based on Unix and has the terminal and all that, but it really isn't the same thing at all.

OS X is built on a complete BSD subsystem and all POSIX-compliant software will run on it. You can also get X11 for OS X (officially supported by Apple, no less), and there are even Linux compatibility layers you can install to make OS X binary-compatible with some Linux software.

Not that it really matters, since you can get OS X-native versions of pretty much all major, current OSS projects.

[scottws]

I actually know a few categories of programs that won't run on Vista:

• Various games (especially those published by EA) have strange and stupid dependencies (like an application launcher that crashes if it doesn't detect the presence of an obsolete and unused DirectInput interface). Examples include several Heroes of Might and Magic games, and much of the crap Sega produced for the PC.
• Those godawful "web applications" that require you to install clientside software and that only work in IE 5.5 or 6. Examples include some older version of Blackboard and a lot of in-house enterprise software.
• Pretty much anything that is written entirely in Visual Basic and that was last updated prior to 2007. I don't know if this is anything to do with Visual Basic itself, or if it's just that VB programmers are hideous little goblins.
• Device drivers, and any custom applications for interfacing with hardware. Even in 2008, more than a year after Vista's release, it was still possible to find WiFi cards in stores that didn't (and would never) have Vista support.

You're missing the point.  K-MaN said it best.  It's not that I think that every piece of software and hardware under the sun works on Vista.  It's that in my day-to-day use of Vista (going on several years now), I have not experienced one program incompatibility with Vista.  Not one.

Have I used all software there is to use on Vista?  No, but I've used office suites, virtualization servers, e-mail clients, web browsers, money management programs, IM clients, FTP clients, VPN clients, media players, games, CD and DVD ripping programs, audio and video compression utilities, audio editors, file archiving and backup software, web development software, Java development software, download software, anti-virus and anti-spyware programs, software for a Blackberry, Cisco router and network virtualization software, OPNET network simulation software, database servers and tools, image editing programs, image collection/gallery programs, Windows disc editors/repackagers, registry cleaners, file shredders, icon extractors, EXE editors, and file-system analysis tools without one problem due to a Vista incompatibility issue.  That's quite a bit of stuff over a wide range of purposes.  Does Que use programs that I don't?  I'm sure he does, but it just strikes me as odd that I've had no issues with any of the myriad programs I've used yet he has not just one, but several he knows have issues.  So many that he didn't have time this morning to make a list.

I don't know, I guess I just have a hard time swallowing it.

Again, and this is to Que, you like XP better and that's fair and I agree with you there.  If you aren't going over 3 GB of RAM then I would stick with XP too.  It's just that I think one of your complaints is pretty unfair.

Vista is far from perfect.  File transfers to servers on a LAN are slow, even after SP1 supposedly "fixed" that.  I find the OS as a whole to be pretty slow and bloated.  My Windows Update broke on Vista RTM when I moved some of my personal folders to my second hard drive.  Other than the new search bar, the Start menu sucks.  It never remembers my folder view preferences, making every folder usually default to Extra Large Icons, showing two giant-ass pictures of icons at once and that's it.  UAC is annoying to deal with if you try to grin and bear it.  It's annoying you have to go through two other screens before you can get to the Network Connections window (unless you use the command-line shortcut).  With the Administrator account disabled (default), administrative shares don't work.  But program compatibility... well it just hasn't been a problem at all.

OS X is built on a complete BSD subsystem and all POSIX-compliant software will run on it. You can also get X11 for OS X (officially supported by Apple, no less), and there are even Linux compatibility layers you can install to make OS X binary-compatible with some Linux software.

Not that it really matters, since you can get OS X-native versions of pretty much all major, current OSS projects.

Yeah, I know all that.  My point was that "the Linux experience" and "the Mac experience" are not the same thing at all.  Sure you can do "Linux things" on a Mac, I mean after all they are close cousins.  But that's not really what the Mac is supposed to be about.

[WindAndConfusion]

Well for what it's worth, I deal with a lot of legacy apps in my line of work, and I run into Vista compatibility issues at least every week. Now I just use VMware and some old OS images.

[K-man]

I've installed a wide variety of legacy games and they've all ran pretty well aside from my copy of Quake.  Which was equally as painful to run in XP.  I mean I'm playing games like Wolfenstein and Doom with zero issues. 

By no means am I saying Vista is perfect, but I've certainly come to prefer it over XP.  And I love XP, have for years.

[Quemaqua]

A lot of the stuff I'm talking about is either legacy stuff, or homebrew apps.  Most more professional stuff is probably fine, though some games still have troubles.

Anyway, I ended up going with a fat, cheap Toshiba.  It's basically the Acer I wanted except bigger and cheaper.  It doesn't seem like a piece of shit, and the reviews were all pretty middling mostly because it wasn't as fast as it could be and isn't terribly "slick".  I didn't want slick, and speed isn't even that big of an issue.

I think I'll stick with Vista and see how it goes.  One of the things I was worried about seems to have had an update, so maybe I can deal.  Dunno' yet.  I'll see if I can live with it for a bit... if not, I'll try to figure out XP.

For now, I'll spend my time uninstalling a billion gigabytes of bloatware.

[scottws]

Congrats on the new laptop!  My brother has a Toshiba and seems to like it a lot.

[Quemaqua]

Thanks!  Seems like it'll work out.  I sort of hate Vista after spending last night using it, but the parts I hate seem mostly offset by nice features that are useful.  Dunno' if I'll keep it or not.

I forgot to mention that the system is huge.  It's bigger than the desktop replacement I used to have.  17" screen.  Screen real estate is going to be fairly important for a few of the things I want to use it for, so that's a big plus, and it also gives enough room for a full keyboard with separate numpad.

After spending an hour using different laptops at Best Buy, I'm totally confused as to why some companies make the decisions they do about laptops.  The Asus models were quite nice, but they keys had fucking glitter like... embedded in the plastic.  Do they think 13 year old girls are going to be using these?  What the hell?  Why not brand it with My Little Pony stickers while you're at it?  HP makes some really nice laptops too, but then they utterly destroy them with horrible touchpads that your fingers stick to, these horrible glossy keyboards that feel weird and look ridiculous, and a reflective coating over the screen that makes it impossible to see in nearly any lighting condition.  Crazy.

[Pugnate]

Update till at least SP1 and turn UAC off. It isn't that bad.

[scottws]

Thanks!  Seems like it'll work out.  I sort of hate Vista after spending last night using it, but the parts I hate seem mostly offset by nice features that are useful.  Dunno' if I'll keep it or not.

Vista is kludgy, but you'll come to appreciate Superfetch and maybe the little real-time taskbar previews.

Edit: ...and the Start menu search.  That's pretty nice too and something I miss when I go back to XP.

[Quemaqua]

Meh.  I don't really use functionality like that so much.  The taskbar previews are kind of nice, but I find the alt+tab thumbnail thingies to be kind of distracting and not terribly helpful.  It's all just too colorful and attractive.  Looking nice is fine, but I prefer a much more barebones approach to an OS overall.  Pretty is okay if you can do it with a sense of minimalism, but it doesn't need to look pretty, it needs to be functional and let me do things fast.  Vista is pretty much the antithesis of that so far.

[scottws]

Have you tried Windows key+Tab yet?  You'll hate that. 

If you want, you can go back to the classic interface.  It's still there.

[Quemaqua]

Haha, I actually like the win+tab thing.  It's fairly useful on a smaller screen, makes it easier to tell what window you're actually switching to.

I didn't know classic interface was still around.  I'll likely be switching to that shortly.  Though I do have to say that Vista's general look is much better than XP's colorful toybox bullshit.  Fuck, I couldn't tolerate that for even 10 seconds before switching.  Vista's stuff isn't so great for functionality, but it looks pretty nice at least.

[WindAndConfusion]

I think if you go back to the classic view (Luna), it disables GPU acceleration for the GUI, which will actually make your system slightly slower.

[beo]

a programmer friend mentioned something about a bug in vista where it holds all windows in memory twice. something to do with the GDI. can anyone shed any light on that while we're on the subject?

[scottws]

I thought Vista didn't have GDI anymore.

[WindAndConfusion]

Sort of. Vista's GDI interface is basically just a wrapper for the Desktop Window Manager, which is GPU-accelerated.

a programmer friend mentioned something about a bug in vista where it holds all windows in memory twice. something to do with the GDI. can anyone shed any light on that while we're on the subject?

According to the wiki, it's not a bug. The GDI/DWM compatibility layer requires that each window be stored twice, once in main memory and again in VRAM. (In previous versions of Windows, there would only be one copy, located in VRAM.)

With GDI, which is the most used UI rendering technique in Microsoft Windows, each application window is notified when it or a part of it comes in view and it is the job of the application to render itself. Without DWM, the rendering rasterizes the UI in a buffer in video memory, from where it is rendered to the screen. Under DWM, a buffer equal to the size of the window is allocated in system memory. GDI calls are redirected to write their outputs to this buffer, rather than the video memory. Another buffer is allocated in the video memory to represent the DirectX surface, which is used as the texture for the Window meshes. The system memory buffer is converted to the DirectX surface separately, and kept in sync. This round-about route is required as GDI cannot output directly in DirectX pixel format. The surface is read by the compositor and is composited to the desktop in video memory. Writing the output of GDI to system memory is not hardware accelerated, nor is conversion to DirectX surface. When a GDI window is minimized, by the limitations of GDI, the buffer is no longer updated. So, DWM uses the last bitmap rendered to the buffer before the application was minimized.[7]