more laptop selection help
AllEmailDeletedImmediately
this is another question about the diff betw the turion 64x2 and the intel
core 2 duo. for what i do, i'd think either would work fine at this time.
i think i read that the intel is a 32x2; is that correct?
if so, would there be an advantage to getting the turion 64x2 in terms of
future software/hardware? i'm not sure what the 32 and the 64 mean.
would software written for the 32 run on the 64? vice versa? is software
most likely to be written for one over the other in the future? does it
even affect the software? :) i'm thinking it might because i know there
are terms like 32 bit platform and 64 bit platform and i think this might be
what it refers to, but, i'm a real dummy when it comes to hardware :(
i usually keep my computer until i really need a new one in terms of
software, so i'm trying to make sure that the one i get will be able to
handle future software as far into the future as possible.
thanks for all the help.
Jeff
> thank you everyone who helped me out. i'm learning and getting there.
>
> this is another question about the diff betw the turion 64x2 and the intel
> core 2 duo. for what i do, i'd think either would work fine at this time.
>
> i think i read that the intel is a 32x2; is that correct?
Everything is 64 bit now from the big two.
You can't go wrong with Intel. Buy the AMD if there is a big price break
in your favor, or if it has features you want that the Intel doesn't.
Jeff
Gary Heston
AllEmailDeletedImmediately <der...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>thank you everyone who helped me out. i'm learning and getting there.
>this is another question about the diff betw the turion 64x2 and the intel
>core 2 duo. for what i do, i'd think either would work fine at this time.
Either should be fine for you for years.
You can find some information about the differences between 32-bit and
64-bit architecures here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/64-bit
>i think i read that the intel is a 32x2; is that correct?
No, it's 64x2.
>if so, would there be an advantage to getting the turion 64x2 in terms of
>future software/hardware? i'm not sure what the 32 and the 64 mean.
How many bits form an instruction.
>would software written for the 32 run on the 64? vice versa? is software
>most likely to be written for one over the other in the future? does it
>even affect the software? :) i'm thinking it might because i know there
>are terms like 32 bit platform and 64 bit platform and i think this might be
>what it refers to, but, i'm a real dummy when it comes to hardware :(
32-bit code will run on 64-bit architectures, although not always very well.
The Core2Duo and the Turion will have no problem with it.
64-bit code will not run on 32-bit architectures, to my knowledge.
>i usually keep my computer until i really need a new one in terms of
>software, so i'm trying to make sure that the one i get will be able to
>handle future software as far into the future as possible.
The primary limitation is memory. Software _never_ gets smaller, so buy
a system that you can expand to 4GB when you need to. If you decide to
run Vista (not recommended), you should start with 1GB.
Get a CPU with a large cache--2MB minimum, 4GB is better; trade off clock
speed for more cache. Get a fast hard drive. You're not doing things that
push the limits of current technology, so the rest isn't critical.
Gary
--
Gary Heston ghe...@hiwaay.net http://www.thebreastcancersite.com/
Yoko Onos' former driver tried to extort $2M from her, threating to
"release embarassing recordings...". What, he has a copy of her album?
** Frank **
"AllEmailDeletedImmediately" <der...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:r8A4j.3888$xB.1301@trndny06...
Intel is eating AMD's lunch. Year-to-date, AMD loss over 50% of market value
while Intel gain almost 30%. AMD completes on price alone. As for me, I
think either chip would be ok, as I'm don't need the fastest machines any
longer, especially if AMD is much cheaper. Great prices, day after Xmas if
you're willing get up early to fight the lines.
As for bits and bytes, check this out: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/64-bit
In particular, see the section on "32 vs 64 bit".
Dennis
To run 64-bit applications, you would need to install a 64-bit OS.
Generally, you would only need 64-bit OS/applications if you needed
really large amounts of memory and did lots of crunching of big
numbers. I suspect that neither would be an issue for you with the
type of use you describe. Bottom line: either processor could
accomodate a 64-bit OS, but you likely will never need one so don't
sweat it.
Dennis (evil)
--
I'm behind the eight ball, ahead of the curve, riding the wave,
dodging the bullet and pushing the envelope. -George Carlin
Paul Pluzhnikov
> AllEmailDeletedImmediately <der...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>i'm not sure what the 32 and the 64 mean.
>
> How many bits form an instruction.
That is incorrect: for x86_64 Intel architecture, the shortest
instruction takes just 1 byte (e.g. '0xC3' == RET) and the longest
is at least 12 bytes long). The 64-bit refers to the size of
integer/address registers in the CPU, as the wikipedia page you
referenced correctly states.
> 32-bit code will run on 64-bit architectures, although not always very well.
Do you have an example of a 32-bit application running "not very well"
on an x86_64 CPU? (My experience has been that they run *better*
than their 64-bit coutnerparts, until the task becomes too large
for 32-bit application to handle.)
Cheers,
--
In order to understand recursion you must first understand recursion.
Remove /-nsp/ for email.
Logan Shaw
> if so, would there be an advantage to getting the turion 64x2 in terms of
> future software/hardware? i'm not sure what the 32 and the 64 mean.
> would software written for the 32 run on the 64? vice versa? is software
> most likely to be written for one over the other in the future? does it
> even affect the software? :) i'm thinking it might because i know there
> are terms like 32 bit platform and 64 bit platform and i think this might be
> what it refers to, but, i'm a real dummy when it comes to hardware :(
OK, here's my crack at an explanation. You know when you're filling out
a paper form and there is a blank for your last name, and it's (say) 15
letters long? For some people the blank isn't long enough and they have
to write only the first 15 letters of their last name. This can lead to
problems.
In computers, everything is basically ultimately a number, and the easiest
way to build a computer is to pick some standard size of number (i.e. a
maximum number of digits, just like the maximum number of letters in the
blank on the form) and use that for almost everything. That way everything
is standardized and a whole bunch of stuff can all work the same way. And
that makes it easier to build the hardware mainly, but also the software.
A "bit" is in fact a digit. In fact, it's a contraction of the words
"binary" and "digit". So 64-bit bits means 64 digits. Specifically,
it means *up to* 64 digits. A "64-bit" computer uses (up to) 64-digit
binary numbers for most things. A "32-bit" computer uses 32-digit binary
numbers, so there are certain things it can't do as easily.
To make things a little more complicated, computer engineers wanted to give
people the option of not wasting space, so they allow you to use smaller
numbers if that's all that's needed. That means a 32-bit computer can use
32-bit numbers, but it also can use 16-bit numbers and 8-bit ones. And a
64-bit computer can use 64-bit, 32-bit, 16-bit, and 8-bit numbers.
And then it gets more complicated than that: computers not only have the
ability to deal with numbers, but they have "instructions" as well. An
instruction is just a code where the computer knows that a certain number
means to do a certain thing. One number means "reset the whole computer",
another number means "add some numbers together", another means "copy
some data from here to there", and so on. Software is ultimately built
by stringing together millions of the right numbers, i.e. instructions,
so that the computer knows what to do, one step after another. Different
types of computers have different instructions, and a particular type of
computer's instructions are collectively known as an "instruction set".
And when you build a piece of software, you've got to build it out of
the right kind of instructions for the target computer to use. The
software has to match the instruction set on the computer that's going
to run it.
32-bit computers have different instructions sets than 64-bit computers.
With a 32-bit computer, the instructions are written as 32-bit numbers.
With a 64-bit computer, the instructions are written as 64-bit numbers.
That's the most important difference right there.
However, the manufacturers aren't stupid. They don't want their processor
to completely flop in the marketplace, so they make it so the 64-bit
machines can understand either 64-bit or 32-bit instructions. And most
of the people who make software assemble their software out of 32-bit
instructions because that will work on either type of computer. Eventually,
there will come a day when enough people have 64-bit computers that people
will start building their software out of 64-bit instructions, but that
doesn't happen very much right now because software people are also not
stupid and don't want their software to flop in the marketplace. (Some
software people offer both 32-bit and 64-bit versions of the same software,
but very few offer only 64-bit.)
So, bottom line is, the 64-bit computer can do everything that the 32-bit
computer can do, but it can also do some "64-bit type things" that a 32-bit
computer can't do. But since not everybody has 64-bit computers, 99.9%
of the software out there doesn't take advantage of "64-bit type things".
So for the next several years, you don't *need* a 64-bit computer.
Of course, as somebody else said, you almost can't buy anything *but*
a 64-bit computer these days, so it doesn't really matter. But now
you know.
- Logan
AllEmailDeletedImmediately
"Gary Heston" <ghe...@hiwaay.net> wrote in message
news:13l5rhh...@corp.supernews.com...
> You can find some information about the differences between 32-bit and
> 64-bit architecures here:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/64-bit
i don't usually think to go to wikipedia because anyone can write up
anything
for it.
> The primary limitation is memory. Software _never_ gets smaller, so buy
> a system that you can expand to 4GB when you need to. If you decide to
> run Vista (not recommended), you should start with 1GB.
>
> Get a CPU with a large cache--2MB minimum, 4GB is better; trade off clock
> speed for more cache. Get a fast hard drive. You're not doing things that
> push the limits of current technology, so the rest isn't critical.
the memory, cache and drive speed were all at the top of my list. since
most
off the shelf machines come with vista preloaded, i should get a custom
built one? what xp software would i load on it? i have a copy of xp, but
it's
registered to this current machine and dh will be using it. do the shops
still
sell xp? i thought ms was getting ready to stop supporting it.
oh, and now dh is thinking he'd like the laptop to deal with lyric, a
graphics
manipulating program (he'd prefer final cut pro but he says it usually run
on a mac).
just threw that at me today. so know i'm really looking at 4+G memory, min
2G cache,
7200rpm hd and really a good graphics card (like a gamer needs? anyone got
suggestions?)?
i just know this is gonna hit at least 2k (lyric not included), but getting
proficient in lyric
will let him get more overtime/freelance work. maybe a desktop with all
that stuff since
they're cheaper and get a laptop more for just what i need? might not be
much more than
the laptop all loaded up.
thanks for the help, gary.
>
> Gary
> Yoko Onos' former driver tried to extort $2M from her, threating to
> "release embarassing recordings...". What, he has a copy of her album?
the ONLY copy?
Paul Pluzhnikov
> A "bit" is in fact a digit. In fact, it's a contraction of the words
> "binary" and "digit".
No, it isn't: there are 2 binary digits: '0' and '1'. A bit is a
single binary digit, i.e. a 0 or a 1. Where is the contradiction?
> 32-bit computers have different instructions sets than 64-bit computers.
Partially true: 64-bit processors usually have additional instructions.
> With a 32-bit computer, the instructions are written as 32-bit numbers.
Completely false for all Intel (and compatible) processors.
True for most 32-bit RISC processors (but that isn't what makes
them 32-bit).
> With a 64-bit computer, the instructions are written as 64-bit numbers.
Completely false for all common 64-bit processors.
> That's the most important difference right there.
Except it isn't even close to reality.
This isn't the right forum for discussing computer architecture,
but your understanding of 32-bit vs. 64-bit difference is quite
incorrect.
AllEmailDeletedImmediately
"Logan Shaw" <lshaw-...@austin.rr.com> wrote in message
news:47531cb6$0$8880$4c36...@roadrunner.com...
> AllEmailDeletedImmediately wrote:
snip
> Of course, as somebody else said, you almost can't buy anything *but*
> a 64-bit computer these days, so it doesn't really matter. But now
> you know.
thank you logan. this is what i was intuitively understanding but unable
to put into words. and gi joe to you, too! :) <<<---if you don't
understand,
let me know.
AllEmailDeletedImmediately
"Paul Pluzhnikov" <ppluzhn...@charter.net> wrote in message
news:m3bq98v...@somewhere.in.california.localhost...
> Logan Shaw <lshaw-...@austin.rr.com> writes:
>
>> A "bit" is in fact a digit. In fact, it's a contraction of the words
>> "binary" and "digit".
>
> No, it isn't: there are 2 binary digits: '0' and '1'. A bit is a
> single binary digit, i.e. a 0 or a 1. Where is the contradiction?
i'm guessing because there are 2 digits in the binary numbering: 0 and 1,
hence (b)inary dig(its) = bits?
>
>> 32-bit computers have different instructions sets than 64-bit computers.
>
> Partially true: 64-bit processors usually have additional instructions.
>
>> With a 32-bit computer, the instructions are written as 32-bit numbers.
>
> Completely false for all Intel (and compatible) processors.
> True for most 32-bit RISC processors (but that isn't what makes
> them 32-bit).
>
>> With a 64-bit computer, the instructions are written as 64-bit numbers.
>
> Completely false for all common 64-bit processors.
>
>> That's the most important difference right there.
>
> Except it isn't even close to reality.
>
> This isn't the right forum for discussing computer architecture,
> but your understanding of 32-bit vs. 64-bit difference is quite
> incorrect.
thank you for your info, paul. i've tried the computer groups way
back when for info, but they were always explaining over my head.
AllEmailDeletedImmediately
"Dennis" <dg...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:fhu5l3dcqgh0pluge...@4ax.com...
that's what i kinda thought, but now dh has tossed something else into the
mix. it's in one of the later posts. might make a diff, now. thanks
for
the help, o evil one :)
Paul Pluzhnikov
> i'm guessing because there are 2 digits in the binary numbering: 0 and 1,
> hence (b)inary dig(its) = bits?
Yes, that's the etymology of "bit".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bit
> thank you for your info, paul. i've tried the computer groups way
> back when for info, but they were always explaining over my head.
For your practical purpose, the difference between 32-bit and 64-bit
CPU is as follows:
1. On a 64-bit Intel (or compatible) CPU you can run one of the
64-bit operating systems (OSes), such as Windows XP for x64,
Vista for x64, or Linux/x86_64.
(You can't run 64-bit OSes if you only have 32-bit CPU).
(You *can* run 32-bit OSes on 64-bit CPUs, and most systems sold
today are configured exactly that way.)
2. If you are running 64-bit OS, then you can run 64-bit applications
(such as Photoshop) on your computer.
(You can't run 64-bit applications if you are using 32-bit OS).
3. If you are using 64-bit application, then such application can
use much more memory (at once) than an equivalent 32-bit
application can. A 32-bit application can not easily use more than
2GB of memory on Windows, but 64-bit application can easily
use 6GB, or even 20GB.
When could point 3 matter?
Consider a 10 mega-pixel digital camera. An uncompressed image from
that camera will occupy at least 30 MBytes of RAM, when loaded in
its entirety into Photoshop (each pixel is described by 3 bytes --
the values of the 3 primary colors). This means that 32-bit Photoshop
will likely run out of memory if you try to load a 100 of such
pictures at once (2GB is 2048MB, and you are trying to use 3000MB).
So, *today* you are not very likely to run into too many 32-bit
limitations, unless you are doing professional digital photography,
or HD-video work.
Cheers,
P.S. Don't look for 4GB of cache either, such systems do not exist,
and are unlikely to ever exist. You are looking for 4MB cache,
not 4GB cache.
AllEmailDeletedImmediately
> "AllEmailDeletedImmediately" <der...@hotmail.com> writes:
>
snip
> P.S. Don't look for 4GB of cache either, such systems do not exist,
> and are unlikely to ever exist. You are looking for 4MB cache,
> not 4GB cache.
see what i mean :)
The Real Bev
recovery disk to at least put the system back to the way it was when it
came out of the box? How good are they?
--
Cheers,
Bev
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Do not try to solve all life's problems at once -- learn to
dread each day as it comes. -- Donald Kaul
krw
>
> "Gary Heston" <ghe...@hiwaay.net> wrote in message
> news:13l5rhh...@corp.supernews.com...
> > In article <r8A4j.3888$xB.1301@trndny06>,
> > AllEmailDeletedImmediately <der...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > You can find some information about the differences between 32-bit and
> > 64-bit architecures here:
> >
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/64-bit
>
> i don't usually think to go to wikipedia because anyone can write up
> anything
> for it.
It's still useful, but you're right. By its very nature there are
problems with it. Of course they don't help...
> > The primary limitation is memory. Software _never_ gets smaller, so buy
> > a system that you can expand to 4GB when you need to. If you decide to
> > run Vista (not recommended), you should start with 1GB.
> >
> > Get a CPU with a large cache--2MB minimum, 4GB is better; trade off clock
> > speed for more cache. Get a fast hard drive. You're not doing things that
> > push the limits of current technology, so the rest isn't critical.
>
> the memory, cache and drive speed were all at the top of my list. since
> most
> off the shelf machines come with vista preloaded, i should get a custom
> built one? what xp software would i load on it? i have a copy of xp, but
> it's
> registered to this current machine and dh will be using it. do the shops
> still
> sell xp? i thought ms was getting ready to stop supporting it.
XP is still supported. I just bought a new laptop (came last week)
with XP on it because Vista on my wife's is a disaster. Getting that
ugly virus off her's is getting close to the top of my honeydo list.
> oh, and now dh is thinking he'd like the laptop to deal with lyric, a
> graphics
> manipulating program (he'd prefer final cut pro but he says it usually run
> on a mac).
> just threw that at me today. so know i'm really looking at 4+G memory, min
> 2G cache,
> 7200rpm hd and really a good graphics card (like a gamer needs? anyone got
> suggestions?)?
He likely doesn't need a top-o-the line graphics card. If he really
does, forget the laptop. 4G memory requires a 64-bit processor *AND*
a 64bit operating system. You're not going to find a 2G cache (2MB
maybe). ;-)
A 7200RPM drive is a good idea in any case, but can run hot. Be a
little careful there.
If he wants to use Mac software, why not a Mac?
> i just know this is gonna hit at least 2k (lyric not included), but getting
> proficient in lyric
> will let him get more overtime/freelance work. maybe a desktop with all
> that stuff since
> they're cheaper and get a laptop more for just what i need? might not be
> much more than
> the laptop all loaded up.
Besides, you get a laptop out of the deal. ;-)
Kidding aside, that's a reasonable alternative. Decent desktops
aren't cheap either though.
> thanks for the help, gary.
> >
> > Gary
>
> > Yoko Onos' former driver tried to extort $2M from her, threating to
> > "release embarassing recordings...". What, he has a copy of her album?
>
> the ONLY copy?
Unfortunately not.
--
Keith
krw
ppluzhn...@charter.net says...
> Logan Shaw <lshaw-...@austin.rr.com> writes:
>
> > A "bit" is in fact a digit. In fact, it's a contraction of the words
> > "binary" and "digit".
>
> No, it isn't: there are 2 binary digits: '0' and '1'. A bit is a
> single binary digit, i.e. a 0 or a 1. Where is the contradiction?
Umm, he's right. "Bit" indeed is the contraction of BInary digiT.
> > 32-bit computers have different instructions sets than 64-bit computers.
>
> Partially true: 64-bit processors usually have additional instructions.
Different, but the same.
--
Keith
Rod Speed
> On a completely different note: Do laptops generally come with a recovery disk to at least put the system back to the
> way it was when it came out of the box?
Yes.
> How good are they?
They do that job very well. Most of them dont however save
what you have done since you got the laptop, like emails etc,
you lose that if you didnt back it up before the restore.
And with a modern OS like XP you normally want to do a
repair install when the OS install has gone pear shaped,
because that doesnt lose your data or settings and they
dont usually come with a CD that can do a repair install.
The Real Bev
I was thinking more about a possible format-and-install-linux problem.
If that won't work on one of the cheap laptops for some reason, is it
possible to get back to the OS it came with? Actually, I'd rather put
2K or XP on it than Vista if I can't have linux...
--
Cheers, Bev
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
Polish loan sharks: they loan you money and then skip town.
Rod Speed
> Rod Speed wrote
>> The Real Bev <bashley1...@gmail.com> wrote
>>> On a completely different note: Do laptops generally come with a recovery disk to at least put the system back to
>>> the way it was when it came out of the box?
>> Yes.
>>> How good are they?
>> They do that job very well. Most of them dont however save what you have done since you got the laptop, like emails
>> etc, you lose that if you didnt back it up before the restore.
>> And with a modern OS like XP you normally want to do a repair install when the OS install has gone pear shaped,
>> because that doesnt lose your data or settings and they dont usually come with a CD that can do a repair install.
> I was thinking more about a possible format-and-install-linux problem. If that won't work on one of the cheap laptops
> for some reason, is it possible to get back to the OS it came with?
That varys. Some have that in a recovery partition thats on the hard
drive and as long as you dont damage that in the process of the
linux install, you can return it to the state it was out of the box.
Others come with a CD that will restore the hard drive to the
state it was in out of the box, tho thats less common now.
> Actually, I'd rather put 2K or XP on it than Vista if I can't have linux...
There's no point in using 2K anymore, unless you want
to be completely legal and are desperately poor.
Vista does work pretty well on most of them that come with it installed.
How easy it is to put XP on it when it didnt come with that varys, trivially
easy with some, very difficult to get all the drivers etc with others.
Paul Pluzhnikov
> Rod Speed wrote:
>
>>> How good are they?
>> They do that job very well. Most of them dont however save what you
>> have done since you got the laptop, like emails etc, you lose that if
>> you didnt back it up before the restore.
Not only that, but they restore all the garbage that comes
"preloaded" on the machine -- exclusive offers for this and that,
trial versions, etc.
I've spent an hour to clean all that stuff from my mother's new
machine, then added a second disk, and decided to test the restore
DVD on that (so she could boot off the second disk if the first
one failed for some reason). It worked, but I got all the exclusive
offers again :-(
> I was thinking more about a possible format-and-install-linux problem.
Be warned: Linux on a laptop is a hit or miss: you may find that
your display, or mouse pad, or WiFi, or sound doesn't work, or
requires that you build non-standard drivers.
> If that won't work on one of the cheap laptops for some reason,
Cheap laptops are more likely to work -- it's the "bleeding edge"
hardware that is more likely to not be supported.
> is it possible to get back to the OS it came with?
OTOH, you can:
- try "live-CD" distribution. These don't install anything on the HD
(everything runs from RAM disk). If "live" distro works, then the
real thing will also work.
- use GParted (also from "live-CD") to shrink the NTFS partition
(no need to reformat/reinstall anything), and free up space for
Linux install. I've now done GParted resizing on several machines,
with no problems whatsoever.
Cheers,
Logan Shaw
> Logan Shaw <lshaw-...@austin.rr.com> writes:
>
>> A "bit" is in fact a digit. In fact, it's a contraction of the words
>> "binary" and "digit".
>
> No, it isn't: there are 2 binary digits: '0' and '1'. A bit is a
> single binary digit, i.e. a 0 or a 1. Where is the contradiction?
Contraction, not contradiction. :-)
>> 32-bit computers have different instructions sets than 64-bit computers.
>
> Partially true: 64-bit processors usually have additional instructions.
>
>> With a 32-bit computer, the instructions are written as 32-bit numbers.
>
> Completely false for all Intel (and compatible) processors.
> True for most 32-bit RISC processors (but that isn't what makes
> them 32-bit).
Good point. Having studied RISC machines most recently, I had momentarily
forgotten about the insanity that is variable length instruction codes.
But x86 machines have them.
>> With a 64-bit computer, the instructions are written as 64-bit numbers.
>
> Completely false for all common 64-bit processors.
Right again. What I should've said is that with a 64-bit computer, the
instructions may make reference to 64-bit quantities (such as 64-bit
registers). Which is not at all the same thing as the instruction codes
themselves being 64-bit numbers.
- Logan
krw
+use...@gmail.com says...
> On a completely different note: Do laptops generally come with a
> recovery disk to at least put the system back to the way it was when it
> came out of the box? How good are they?
>
ThinkPad (my third T6x). It was delivered last Tuesday and my first
task was to create the backup disks, with the system as virgin as I
could get it. I couldn't do the backup to DVD because evidently the
preload is bad. I called the help desk and they've "consented[*]" to
shipping me the disk to reload it myself. We'll see if reloading the
preload solves the problem.
[*] The guy was so nice when he told me what a favor he was doing my
be sending me the disk (rather than shipping the thing back - on
them). If my system worked, as sold, it would have cost $45. Wow, I
was simply speechless!
--
Keith
krw
+use...@gmail.com says...
> Rod Speed wrote:
>
> > The Real Bev <bashley1...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> On a completely different note: Do laptops generally come with a
> >> recovery disk to at least put the system back to the way it was
> >> when it came out of the box?
> >
> > Yes.
> >
> >> How good are they?
> >
> > They do that job very well. Most of them dont however save what you
> > have done since you got the laptop, like emails etc, you lose that if
> > you didnt back it up before the restore.
> >
> > And with a modern OS like XP you normally want to do a repair install
> > when the OS install has gone pear shaped, because that doesnt lose
> > your data or settings and they dont usually come with a CD that can
> > do a repair install.
>
> I was thinking more about a possible format-and-install-linux problem.
If they don't provide the initial disks they provide a means to make
them from the disk. It seems to work. I've had to resort to backups
before and they're clean, though I generally do it to USB disk.
> If that won't work on one of the cheap laptops for some reason, is it
> possible to get back to the OS it came with? Actually, I'd rather put
> 2K or XP on it than Vista if I can't have linux...
Good choice. At least some of the laptop makers still ship XP
(highly recommended if you need/want Win). Vista is a disaster
that's finished waiting. Stay away! As much as I liked 2K (more
than XP) is a tad long-in-the-tooth to be putting on a new system.
There are lots of things it's missing that I care about.
--
Keith
Robert
Robert
> In article <XGJ4j.247$tR6....@newsfe06.lga>, bashley101
Computers don't use disks anymore. They use discs.
Robert
Gary Heston
AllEmailDeletedImmediately <der...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>"Gary Heston" <ghe...@hiwaay.net> wrote in message
>news:13l5rhh...@corp.supernews.com...
>> In article <r8A4j.3888$xB.1301@trndny06>,
>> AllEmailDeletedImmediately <der...@hotmail.com> wrote:
[ ... ]
>> The primary limitation is memory. Software _never_ gets smaller, so buy
>> a system that you can expand to 4GB when you need to. If you decide to
>> run Vista (not recommended), you should start with 1GB.
>> Get a CPU with a large cache--2MB minimum, 4GB is better; trade off clock
>> speed for more cache. Get a fast hard drive. You're not doing things that
>> push the limits of current technology, so the rest isn't critical.
>the memory, cache and drive speed were all at the top of my list. since
>most
>off the shelf machines come with vista preloaded, i should get a custom
>built one? what xp software would i load on it? i have a copy of xp, but
>it's
>registered to this current machine and dh will be using it. do the shops
>still
>sell xp? i thought ms was getting ready to stop supporting it.
Due to customer demand (or screaming at the disaster Vista is) most PC
vendors, such as Dell, are offering XP again.
>oh, and now dh is thinking he'd like the laptop to deal with lyric, a
>graphics
>manipulating program (he'd prefer final cut pro but he says it usually run
>on a mac).
>just threw that at me today. so know i'm really looking at 4+G memory,
Be aware that 32-bit versions of Windows will not address more than 4GB
of memory. In fact, they can't address a full 4GB. If you need more than
that, you'll need XP for 64-bit systems and a real 64-bit application.
> min
>2G cache,
4MB is the max I know of at the moment.
>7200rpm hd and really a good graphics card (like a gamer needs? anyone got
>suggestions?)?
The high end Radeon graphics are good, but some of those are over $1000 just
for the video.
>i just know this is gonna hit at least 2k (lyric not included), but getting
>proficient in lyric
>will let him get more overtime/freelance work. maybe a desktop with all
>that stuff since
>they're cheaper and get a laptop more for just what i need?
You'll get better performance out of a desktop/tower since they have more
heat dissipation capacity. You can put more/bigger drives, more memory,
faster CPU, dual or quad if need be.
Laptops are primarily for portability, not top-end performance.
> might not be
>much more than
>the laptop all loaded up.
>thanks for the help, gary.
You're welcome.
>> Yoko Onos' former driver tried to extort $2M from her, threating to
>> "release embarassing recordings...". What, he has a copy of her album?
>the ONLY copy?
There may have been three or four sold. I heard a few tracks from it on
the radio; it was horrible. Incoherent off-key screeching is being nice.
Gary
--
Gary Heston ghe...@hiwaay.net http://www.thebreastcancersite.com/
Yoko Onos' former driver tried to extort $2M from her, threating to
John Weiss
>
> the memory, cache and drive speed were all at the top of my list. since
> most off the shelf machines come with vista preloaded, i should get a
> custom built one? what xp software would i load on it? i have a copy
> of xp, but it's registered to this current machine and dh will be using
> it. do the shops still sell xp? i thought ms was getting ready to
> stop supporting it.
You can still buy XP, and it is still supported. MS just announced another
extension of how long it will be offered for retail sale (Aug 08?).
Look through the ads in PC-Magazine or maximum PC and see what's available
in non-mainstream "custom" laptops. There are a bunch out there.
> oh, and now dh is thinking he'd like the laptop to deal with lyric, a
> graphics manipulating program (he'd prefer final cut pro but he says it
> usually run on a mac).
> just threw that at me today. so know i'm really looking at 4+G memory,
> min 2G cache, 7200rpm hd and really a good graphics card (like a gamer
> needs? anyone got suggestions?)?
There are laptops available with mobile versions of high-end nVidia or ATI
graphics cards, just look for them in the advertisement.
32-bit Windows will only address something less than 4 GB RAM. You can
install 4 GB, but depending on the BIOS it may only show as little as 3 GB
available. 64-bit Windows still has driver and application problems, so he
probably doesn't want that.
> i just know this is gonna hit at least 2k (lyric not included), but
> getting proficient in lyric will let him get more overtime/freelance
> work. maybe a desktop with all that stuff since they're cheaper and
> get a laptop more for just what i need? might not be much more than the
> laptop all loaded up.
A desktop will DEFINITELY be cheaper than an equivalent laptop! If he
doesn't really need the portability, you will likely be able to find a
desktop that is MUCH more capable than a laptop.
Jon v Leipzig
It sounds like you're better off getting a desktop, for now. Much cheaper.
Last I heard, this Vista's been such a flop, they even have a service
pack 3 in the works, for XP.
(I noticed, at TigerDirect they stilll have em with XP, XP Pro)
Vista SP1 a Performance Dud
http://exo-blog.blogspot.com/2007/11/vista-sp1-performance-dud.html
What Intel Giveth, Microsoft Taketh Away
http://exo-blog.blogspot.com/2007/09/what-intel-giveth-microsoft-taketh-away.html
AllEmailDeletedImmediately
"John Weiss" <jrw...@nospamattglobal.net> wrote in message
news:47550579@kcnews03...
> "AllEmailDeletedImmediately" <der...@hotmail.com> wrote...
thanks john, this will come in handy.
AllEmailDeletedImmediately
"Jon v Leipzig" <J...@myday.com> wrote in message
news:47554...@myday.com...
> AllEmailDeletedImmediately wrote:
snip
> It sounds like you're better off getting a desktop, for now. Much cheaper.
>
> Last I heard, this Vista's been such a flop, they even have a service pack
> 3 in the works, for XP.
>
> (I noticed, at TigerDirect they stilll have em with XP, XP Pro)
>
>
>
> Vista SP1 a Performance Dud
>
> http://exo-blog.blogspot.com/2007/11/vista-sp1-performance-dud.html
>
>
> What Intel Giveth, Microsoft Taketh Away
>
> http://exo-blog.blogspot.com/2007/09/what-intel-giveth-microsoft-taketh-away.html
thanks. i'll trot right over to read this stuff.
Dennis
wrote:
>In article <T0G4j.6343$Lg.2921@trndny09>,
>AllEmailDeletedImmediately <der...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>"Gary Heston" <ghe...@hiwaay.net> wrote in message
>>news:13l5rhh...@corp.supernews.com...
>>> In article <r8A4j.3888$xB.1301@trndny06>,
>>> AllEmailDeletedImmediately <der...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> [ ... ]
>
>> do the shops
>>still
>>sell xp? i thought ms was getting ready to stop supporting it.
>
>Due to customer demand (or screaming at the disaster Vista is) most PC
>vendors, such as Dell, are offering XP again.
Microsoft has announced the end of availability of new XP licenses,
but they keep slipping the cutoff date out. First it was Jan '08, but
IIRC, it is now out to mid-2008. I certainly wouldn't rule out the
date slipping even further with sufficient demand from the
marketplace.
>>oh, and now dh is thinking he'd like the laptop to deal with lyric, a
>>graphics
>>manipulating program (he'd prefer final cut pro but he says it usually run
>>on a mac).
>>just threw that at me today. so know i'm really looking at 4+G memory,
>
>Be aware that 32-bit versions of Windows will not address more than 4GB
>of memory. In fact, they can't address a full 4GB. If you need more than
>that, you'll need XP for 64-bit systems and a real 64-bit application.
>
Not strictly true. On hardware that supports it, 32-bit Windows (and
probably other OSes) includes a Physical Address Extension feature
that allows access to more than 4GB of physical address space (how
much varies with the motherboard design). However, a single Windows
process (essentially, application) is still limited to accessing 2GB
of linear address space at a time.
Dennis (evil)
--
I'm a hands-on, footloose, knee-jerk head case. -George Carlin
Dennis
wrote:
>Last I heard, this Vista's been such a flop, they even have a service
>pack 3 in the works, for XP.
XP SP3 is mostly just a roll up of all the security patches and bug
fixes that have been realeased (through Windows Updates) since SP2.
All in one convenient package.
Microsoft will continue to support XP for quite some time yet, even
after they quit selling new XP licenses. They have commited to
"Mainstream" support until April 2009 and "Extended" support until
April 2014.
Dennis (evil)
--
Rick
>
>
> Last I heard, this Vista's been such a flop, they even have a service
> pack 3 in the works, for XP.
>
> (I noticed, at TigerDirect they stilll have em with XP, XP Pro)
>
> Vista SP1 a Performance Dud
>
> http://exo-blog.blogspot.com/2007/11/vista-sp1-performance-dud.html
>
> What Intel Giveth, Microsoft Taketh Away
>
> http://exo-blog.blogspot.com/2007/09/what-intel-giveth-microsoft-taketh-away.html
Heh. This weekend one of our local big box stores ran a full page ad,
half apologizing for selling lap tops with Vista, and letting everyine
know (in very large type) "Honest! We still sell lot's of computers with
XP Pro installed!" The lap tops with XP installed were at the top of the
ad, the ones with Vista were on the bottom...
Rick
krw
@s12g2000prg.googlegroups.com>, write...@gmail.com says...
Actually, they do. They're on the inside though. ;-)
Point taken.
--
Keith
Jon v Leipzig
> On Tue, 04 Dec 2007 07:31:39 -0500, Jon v Leipzig <J...@myday.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Last I heard, this Vista's been such a flop, they even have a service
>> pack 3 in the works, for XP.
>
> XP SP3 is mostly just a roll up of all the security patches and bug
> fixes that have been realeased (through Windows Updates) since SP2.
> All in one convenient package.
>
> Microsoft will continue to support XP for quite some time yet, even
> after they quit selling new XP licenses. They have commited to
> "Mainstream" support until April 2009 and "Extended" support until
> April 2014.
>
> Dennis (evil)
So yer saying it's already out...the SP3??? I've been too busy,
haven't kept up with Windoz. Guess I don't need it then, if I'm doing
the Update thing... I got SP2, works flawlessly.
John Weiss
>
> So yer saying it's already out...the SP3???
Only beta. I read yesterday that RC3 was released for testing. IIRC, it should
be out by Feb.
Dennis
wrote:
>Dennis wrote:
>> On Tue, 04 Dec 2007 07:31:39 -0500, Jon v Leipzig <J...@myday.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Last I heard, this Vista's been such a flop, they even have a service
>>> pack 3 in the works, for XP.
>>
>> XP SP3 is mostly just a roll up of all the security patches and bug
>> fixes that have been realeased (through Windows Updates) since SP2.
>> All in one convenient package.
>>
>> Microsoft will continue to support XP for quite some time yet, even
>> after they quit selling new XP licenses. They have commited to
>> "Mainstream" support until April 2009 and "Extended" support until
>> April 2014.
>>
>> Dennis (evil)
>
>
>So yer saying it's already out...the SP3???
I'm in the biz, so I have a Beta that I've been testing. Just
downloaded RC1 today.
You commoners will just have to wait. :-)
> I've been too busy,
>haven't kept up with Windoz. Guess I don't need it then, if I'm doing
>the Update thing... I got SP2, works flawlessly.
There is a bit of performance boost with SP3 on some PCs, so you may
want to give it a shot.