laptop reccomendation
andrew
a laptop wwith my current lcd screen. Will a laptop still work with its
screen removed? What recommendations for a reasonably fast laptop with good
grahics and support for Kubuntu, pereferably around GBP500?
AJH
Alec Ross
<ne...@sylva.icuklive.co.uk> writes
>I'm trying to reduce my desktop energy consumption and am thinking of using
>a laptop wwith my current lcd screen. Will a laptop still work with its
>screen removed?
Removal will probably not be necessary. For some time all the laptops
I've used have had (function key) toggling of display to (at least)
laptop screen | external monitor | both.
HTH
Alec
--
Alec Ross
unruh
No idea if it will work with its screen removed, but you could tell it
to switch off its screen and use the external one.
Laptops tend not to be the fastest either process or or graphics. Their
main committment is to low power consumption, not speed. Thus you will
never find a laptop with as good a speed or graphics as a desktop. But
do you play games? Do you do intensive scientific visualisation? You
need to tell us what you want to run to get the best recommendations.
> AJH
andrew
> Laptops tend not to be the fastest either process or or graphics. Their
> main committment is to low power consumption, not speed. Thus you will
> never find a laptop with as good a speed or graphics as a desktop. But
> do you play games? Do you do intensive scientific visualisation? You
> need to tell us what you want to run to get the best recommendations.
No games but I do some mapping which uses big images, however this p4 2GHz
seems to cope, this is a windows application which doen't run well under
wine.
I would like to run some cameras with zoneminder.
Alternatively I could use one permanently on low power device for background
work and only use a more powerful pc when I need?
AJH
Chris Whelan
500 quid pays for an awful lot of electricity! A device that is on
27/7/365 costs a tiny bit more than a pound per watt each year. Your
laptop may only have a life of two years in an always-on mode, so you
need to be saving 250 watts just to break even.
Chris
--
Remove prejudice to reply.
andrew
> On Sat, 16 Jul 2011 19:36:57 +0100, andrew wrote:
>
>> I'm trying to reduce my desktop energy consumption and am thinking of
>> using a laptop wwith my current lcd screen. Will a laptop still work
>> with its screen removed? What recommendations for a reasonably fast
>> laptop with good grahics and support for Kubuntu, pereferably around
>> GBP500?
>>
>> AJH
>
> 500 quid pays for an awful lot of electricity! A device that is on
> 27/7/365 costs a tiny bit more than a pound per watt each year.
Well thought through but it neglects the fact my current desktop is over 8
years old, doesn't have usb2 and can be a bit slow on graphics. I'm still
on kubuntu hardy because I'm not sure the box will cope with later versions
of KDE. I'd like a laptop for mobility.
> Your
> laptop may only have a life of two years in an always-on mode, so you
> need to be saving 250 watts just to break even.
Why such a short life? I understood that laptops halted the disk if unused?
I can understand 2.5" disks having a shorter life. I wouls plan to run on
mains with the battery out.
Anyway no suggestions for a linux friendly make seem to be coming forward?
AJH
Andrzej Adam Filip
> Chris Whelan wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 16 Jul 2011 19:36:57 +0100, andrew wrote:
>>
>>> I'm trying to reduce my desktop energy consumption and am thinking of
>>> using a laptop wwith my current lcd screen. Will a laptop still work
>>> with its screen removed? What recommendations for a reasonably fast
>>> laptop with good grahics and support for Kubuntu, pereferably around
>>> GBP500?
>>
>> 27/7/365 costs a tiny bit more than a pound per watt each year.
>
> Well thought through but it neglects the fact my current desktop is
> over 8 years old, doesn't have usb2 and can be a bit slow on
> graphics. I'm still on kubuntu hardy because I'm not sure the box will
> cope with later versions of KDE. I'd like a laptop for mobility.
Have you considered switching (e.g.) to lxde?
IMHO it does make sense to keep replaced comp/laptop as *separate*
"high security" system e.g. for Internet banking.
--
[pl>en Andrew] Andrzej A. Filip : an...@onet.eu : Andrze...@gmail.com
Having children is like having a bowling alley installed in your brain.
-- Martin Mull
alexd
the tried and tested strategy of:
> Anyway no suggestions for a linux friendly make seem to be coming forward?
Because Linux's hardware support has got to the point where laptops that
just don't work are few and far between.
I've got an Acer 7736Z. I had to install a PPA package to get sound working
in older versions of Ubuntu [but not the the current one]. The backlight
required futzing with GRUB command line options before I could adjust it
downwards. These really are minor issues, and if I had to spend my own money
on a laptop, then I would be happy to buy this model.
--
<http://ale.cx/> (AIM:troffasky) (UnSoEs...@ale.cx)
10:25:20 up 25 days, 12:07, 7 users, load average: 1.28, 1.41, 1.14
"People believe any quote they read on the internet
if it fits their preconceived notions." - Martin Luther King
Chris Whelan
[...]
> Anyway no suggestions for a linux friendly make seem to be coming
> forward?
>
> AJH
I've not found one I can't get one distro or another running on.
I would be inclined to see what's currently available on Dell Outlet;
I've got some good machines at very reasonable prices that way.
grinch
I dont use Kubuntu but I have a Lenovo 3000 n200 which works just fine with
SUSE 11.4 KDE 4.6
There are only 2 things that don't work "out of the box" and they are the
fingerprint reader and the built in modem. Everything else works from the
installation disk.
It is not the latest model but it is quick enough for most jobs. Build
quality is not bad either.Price is within in your range.
I can run the latest 802.11n wifi with aes wpa2/psk encryption with no
issues.
I found it cheaper to buy one with windows and then remove it, rather that
try and get one with linux installed . I dual booted it until the warranty
had run out just in case it went faulty, to stop them blaming Linux.
--
Output certified Microsoft free
Checked with OpenSUSE 11.4
Daniel James
> I'm trying to reduce my desktop energy consumption and am thinking
> of using a laptop wwith my current lcd screen. Will a laptop still
> work with its screen removed?
Removed? Removing the built-in screen from a typical laptop would be
quite major surgery ... possibly worth trying if you can get hold of a
reasonable second-hand laptop with a broken screen ... but not
otherwise, IMHO.
You can, of course, run most laptops with the built-in screen
/disabled/ and an external monitor connected ... but you would still
have the original screen getting in the way.
> What recommendations for a reasonably fast laptop with good
> grahics and support for Kubuntu, pereferably around GBP500?
GBP500 will buy you quite a lot of PC, especially if you already have a
monitor. You shouldn't have any difficulty finding some mainstream
Linux distro that runs without any trouble on just about anything that
isn't absolutely bleeding edge.
Depending on how fast you mean by "reasonably fast" I might suggest
that you take a look at something like the Acer Aspire Revo which comes
with a 1.8GHz dual-core (2 cores, 4 threads) Atom CPU and won't use
more than about 40W.
http://www.ebuyer.com/product/261508
That comes with Linpus linux, which is crap, but other distros will run
fine ... or you can pay a bit more and get it with Windows.
The Atom 525 is about as fast as Atoms get, but it's not the fastest
CPU on earth, and the Revo can only take a maximum of 4GB of RAM, but
it's an absolute bargain if you can live with those limitations.
I see elsethread that you're using an 8-year-old 2GHz P4, and the Revo
will comfortably outperform that.
Another option would be to build (or buy) a conventional desktop system
with onboard graphics (consumes less power than a discrete graphics
card) and a low-power CPU chip ... such as an energy-efficient version
of one of the AMD Athlon II chips.
These options make much more sense than butchering a laptop, IMHO.
Cheers,
Daniel.
Neil Ellwood
Why would you remove its screen? Just plug it in.
Try fedora with your laptop before buying another.If you have to but
another laptop it would be cheaper to just keep your current desktop.
Work out what you would save in energy compared to the cost of the new
laptop.
--
Neil
Linux counter 335851
delete ‘l’ and reverse ‘r’ and’a’
Tony Houghton
Daniel James <dan...@me.invalid> wrote:
> Depending on how fast you mean by "reasonably fast" I might suggest
> that you take a look at something like the Acer Aspire Revo which comes
> with a 1.8GHz dual-core (2 cores, 4 threads) Atom CPU and won't use
> more than about 40W.
>
> http://www.ebuyer.com/product/261508
>
> That comes with Linpus linux, which is crap, but other distros will run
> fine ... or you can pay a bit more and get it with Windows.
>
> The Atom 525 is about as fast as Atoms get, but it's not the fastest
> CPU on earth, and the Revo can only take a maximum of 4GB of RAM, but
> it's an absolute bargain if you can live with those limitations.
>
> I see elsethread that you're using an 8-year-old 2GHz P4, and the Revo
> will comfortably outperform that.
I was thinking of the Revo, but I think you've underestimated how slow
Atoms are. If you get all 4 cores working together it would probably
outperform the P4, but I'm pretty sure each Atom core on its own would
be significantly slower than the P4.
Another alternative is the HP Microserver. It can be had for something
like £130 with cashback offers. On the downside its AMD Neo isn't much
faster than an Atom and it only has a VGA socket so you'll have to add a
graphics card if you want DVI or HDMI, and a sound "card" (I'd suggest
USB) if you don't fit a graphics card with HDMI audio.
--
TH * http://www.realh.co.uk
Neil Ellwood
> Chris Whelan wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 16 Jul 2011 19:36:57 +0100, andrew wrote:
>>
>>> I'm trying to reduce my desktop energy consumption and am thinking of
>>> using a laptop wwith my current lcd screen. Will a laptop still work
>>> with its screen removed? What recommendations for a reasonably fast
>>> laptop with good grahics and support for Kubuntu, pereferably around
>>> GBP500?
>>>
>>> AJH
>>
>> 500 quid pays for an awful lot of electricity! A device that is on
>> 27/7/365 costs a tiny bit more than a pound per watt each year.
>
> Well thought through but it neglects the fact my current desktop is over
> 8 years old, doesn't have usb2 and can be a bit slow on graphics. I'm
> still on kubuntu hardy because I'm not sure the box will cope with later
> versions of KDE. I'd like a laptop for mobility.
Have you tried it with LXDE or Enlightenment as the window manager - I
like both. I am using enlightenment at this moment on this 2 year old pc.
>
>
>
>> Your
>> laptop may only have a life of two years in an always-on mode, so you
>> need to be saving 250 watts just to break even.
>
> Why such a short life? I understood that laptops halted the disk if
> unused? I can understand 2.5" disks having a shorter life. I wouls plan
> to run on mains with the battery out.
>
>
> Anyway no suggestions for a linux friendly make seem to be coming
> forward?
>
> AJH
My laptop is an Acer which happily runs Fedora 15 using LXDE and is quite
quick. I often download the raw files from my Canon 350d onto it and
process them with rawtherapee and even though I have gimp on it and like
it I very rarely need to use it.
unruh
Many are linux friendly. Take along a cd of a linux distro and try it
out on the machine.
>
> AJH
Nix
> Another option would be to build (or buy) a conventional desktop system
> with onboard graphics (consumes less power than a discrete graphics
> card) and a low-power CPU chip ... such as an energy-efficient version
> of one of the AMD Athlon II chips.
If you only care about low power when idle, I'd be inclined to simply
buy a Nehalem, any Nehalem (which means pretty much any CPU Intel are
still marketing). Modern Nehalems are very efficient when idle,
consuming under a watt. Saving power in the disks is quite easy too (go
for one that spins itself some of the way down when not in use, and the
disk power consumption can be <4W when idle). The hard part is saving
power in the chipset, because a lot of non-laptop motherboard vendors
are power pigs and do not document their idle power :(
--
NULL && (void)
Alec Ross
>You can, of course, run most laptops with the built-in screen
>/disabled/ and an external monitor connected ... but you would still
>have the original screen getting in the way.
>
A potential issue, but not necessarily an insurmountable one. Typically,
I use a separate (full-size) keyboard for desktop use of a laptop. This
obviously allows the laptop with its keyboard to be placed anywhere
convenient. When this is in front of the external monitor, then almost
closing the laptop - just short of activating the switch that detects
closure - and raising the main external monitor allows full visibility
of the latter, without its being obscured by the former.
Cheers,
Alec
--
Alec Ross
Tom Anderson
The OP's main concern seemed to be to reduce power consumption, and whilst
i imagine nettops have low power consumption, it's not clear that a small
conventional-technology machine like the Microserver does. The fact that
it ships with a 150 or 200 watt PSU (i see references to both on the web)
makes me suspect that it uses a conventionally large amount of power.
However, according to their specs (for some version of that machine):
http://h18000.www1.hp.com/products/quickspecs/13716_div/13716_div.html#System%20Specifications
My suspicions are ill-founded. 72.3 W peak load is less than my MacBook
Pro!
tom
--
In-jokes for out-casts
Folderol
As a matter of interest linITX do a range of low power boxes intended primarily
for embedded work. I don't know if they still do it but at work we have a very
nice *silent* little unit that has 1x vga, 1x rs232, 6x usb, audio i/o and
built in dvd writer - been happily running ubuntu for a couple of years now.
I'm sure there are other similar suppliers.
--
Will J G
Daniel James
> I think you've underestimated how slow Atoms are. If you get all 4
> cores working together it would probably outperform the P4, but I'm
> pretty sure each Atom core on its own would be significantly slower
> than the P4.
Oh, I do know how fast Atoms aren't ... but we're comparing this with
the OP's 8-year-old 2GHz P4 ... that's going to be Willamette or
Northwood and certainly S478, and so not very fast at all.
Even with its relatively slow memory bus (for today) small cache and
slower clock I think the Revo should run rings around it (albeit quite
small rings).
Oh, and that's 2 cores plus hyperthreading (so maybe three cores-worth)
for the Revo, and one core for the P4, plus HT if it's a Northwood. If
the P4 is a Willamette the Revo will feel significantly more responsive
whatever their relative speeds.
Cpubenchmark is as nice a piece of fiction as any, when comparing CPUs,
and these:
http://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu_lookup.php?cpu=Intel+Pentium+4+2.00GHz
http://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu_lookup.php?cpu=Intel+Atom+D525+%
40+1.80GHz
.. suggest the Revo would be 715/247 times as fast.
> Another alternative is the HP Microserver. It can be had for
> something like £130 with cashback offers. On the downside its AMD
> Neo isn't much faster than an Atom ...
http://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu_lookup.php?
cpu=AMD+Athlon+Neo+X2+Dual+Core+L325
A bit quicker, yes. 824/715. It certainly seems a bit nippier than my
Revo (which is the older one with the Atom 330).
> ... and it only has a VGA socket so you'll have to add a graphics
> card if you want DVI or HDMI, and a sound "card" (I'd suggest
> USB) if you don't fit a graphics card with HDMI audio.
True enough ... though the OP didn't mention wanting sound or 3D
graphics.
I'm not sure I'd choose a Microserver as a GP PC, though, too much
space is taken up by the drive cage for an application in which only
one disk is likely to be needed.
Cheers,
Daniel.
Daniel James
> The OP's main concern seemed to be to reduce power consumption, and
> whilst i imagine nettops have low power consumption, it's not clear
> that a small conventional-technology machine like the Microserver
> does.
The Athlon Neo isn't all that conventional ... in fact my Microserver
uses about 40W with 4GB (2x2) RAM, a DVD-writer, and two hard drives.
In comparison, my desktop machine with an energy-efficient 2.3GHz
Athlon 64 X2 (not Athlon II) idles at around 65W with 6GB (2x1 and
2x2), a DVD-writer, and a single hard drive.
Both of these figures measured at the mains with a £5 meter from Maplin
so take with a pinch of salt. I haven't measured the Revo.
> The fact that it ships with a 150 or 200 watt PSU (i see references
> to both on the web) makes me suspect that it uses a conventionally
> large amount of power.
I think it just indicates that HP have used a standard PSU (a rack-
mount model, I believe).
> However, according to their specs (for some version of that machine):
>
>
http://h18000.www1.hp.com/products/quickspecs/13716_div/13716_div.html#
System%20Specifications
>
> My suspicions are ill-founded. 72.3 W peak load is less than my
> MacBook Pro!
In that document "some version of that machine" is explicitly stated to
have 2 DIMMs, 4HDDs, one DVD-ROM, and two expansion cards fitted! 73W
is quite good.
Cheers,
Daniel.
Tony Houghton
Tom Anderson <tw...@urchin.earth.li> wrote:
> The OP's main concern seemed to be to reduce power consumption, and whilst
> i imagine nettops have low power consumption, it's not clear that a small
> conventional-technology machine like the Microserver does. The fact that
> it ships with a 150 or 200 watt PSU (i see references to both on the web)
> makes me suspect that it uses a conventionally large amount of power.
>
> However, according to their specs (for some version of that machine):
>
> http://h18000.www1.hp.com/products/quickspecs/13716_div/13716_div.html#System%20Specifications
>
> My suspicions are ill-founded. 72.3 W peak load is less than my MacBook
> Pro!
Yes, the Microserver isn't really a "conventional" PC; the Neo is a low
power processor intended for laptops or even netbooks so I think the
whole thing must have been designed with low power in mind. But being a
server it has room for 4 HDs despite the small case, so the extra
headroom in the PSU is probably to make sure it can run them all
reliably, and presumably at the same time as the hottest graphics card
that will physically fit, and a number of USB gadgets etc etc.
Daniel James
> ... and presumably at the same time as the hottest graphics card
> that will physically fit ...
There's a 25W current limitation as well as a space limitation on the
PCIe slots in the Microserver.
Still, 4xHDD all spinning up at the same time could draw 120W ... in
this case I can see the point in having a 150W PSU in a machine that
idles at <50W.
Cheers,
Daniel.
chris
> In<VA.000003e...@me.invalid>,
> like £130 with cashback offers. On the downside its AMD Neo isn't much
> faster than an Atom
Not true. On Tom's Hardware the cpu performance is similar to an intel
core 2 duo. Plus, a colleague has bought one and uses it as a home media
server with no complaints regarding performance.
Tony Houghton
chris <ithi...@gmail.com> wrote:
What I meant was the *fastest* Atom (although that should be "least
slow" Atom), not an Atom with a similar clock speed. According to
<http://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu_lookup.php?cpu=AMD+Athlon+II+Neo+N36L+Dual-Core>
they have passmarks of 801 vs 714, which I wouldn't call a big
difference. However, if that benchmark makes efficient use of the Atom's
HyperThreading that is rather more damning for it (the Atom). I'm quite
surprised the Core 2s fare so badly. Presumably these are low power
models? In comparison, a U3400 (low power, cut down Core i3 @ 1.07GHz)
which is deemed feeble enough by Intel to be called a "Celeron", scores
885. These are all 2-3x slower than the sort of CPU I'd be considering
for a mid-range desktop these days.
For a file server the CPU performance isn't as important as IO
performance. HD and/or Ethernet are more likely to be the bottlenecks.