Choosing the right Hardware

  • Thread starter Thread starter Steven Hook
  • Start date Start date
S

Steven Hook

Hey...
I'm due for an upgrade, but it's been a long time since I've actually
chosen hardware, to me a 2.1GHZ processor is rubbish, but with core 2
duo, it'a all I can afford.
I've never been one for laptops, cos of the cost / performance ratio,
but I'm finding myself using a work laptop more and more, so I think a
Tablet might not be such a bad idea.
So my question is, with Vista here, I'm looking at no less than 2GB
Ram?
2.1GHZ core 2 duo OK? how much difference is will I get from a 2.4
(compared with a 2.13?)
will the 64dit XP be better? or Vista ultimate? I usually don't like
to buy a Windows OS untill the 1st SP.
What's the diff between a E6400 and a T7200?
why is the LG tablet with a CoreDuoU2500(1.2GHz), more expensive than
the Toshiba tablet with the Intel Core 2 Duo T7200?
Steven
 
Steven said:
.... snip ...
will the 64dit XP be better? or Vista ultimate? I usually don't
like to buy a Windows OS untill the 1st SP.
What's the diff between a E6400 and a T7200?
why is the LG tablet with a CoreDuoU2500(1.2GHz), more expensive
than the Toshiba tablet with the Intel Core 2 Duo T7200?
Click to expand...

Avoid Vista. Read the following links.
 
Steven Hook said:
Hey...
I'm due for an upgrade, but it's been a long time since I've actually
chosen hardware, to me a 2.1GHZ processor is rubbish, but with core 2
duo, it'a all I can afford.
Click to expand...

Rubbish?!? They're faster than 3 GHz P4s for most uses!

I've never been one for laptops, cos of the cost / performance ratio,
but I'm finding myself using a work laptop more and more, so I think a
Tablet might not be such a bad idea.
Click to expand...

But you'll pay a premium for the tablet configuration. Why do you think
you need it?

So my question is, with Vista here, I'm looking at no less than 2GB
Ram?
Click to expand...

Probably. Also, a good Gfx card to run Aero. Otherwise, stick with XP
Pro.

2.1GHZ core 2 duo OK? how much difference is will I get from a 2.4
(compared with a 2.13?)
Click to expand...

Likely little perceivable difference. What will you use it for?

will the 64dit XP be better? or Vista ultimate? I usually don't like
to buy a Windows OS untill the 1st SP.
Click to expand...

64-bit will run you into driver problems, and likely take you out of the
tablet game...

What's the diff between a E6400 and a T7200?
Click to expand...

Check the Intel web site for the specs. You want a low-voltage mobile CPU
for a laptop, for battery life and heat considerations.
 
CBFalconer said:
Avoid Vista. Read the following links.
Click to expand...

What rubbish. Just two things to remember when building for Vista.
1) Get 1.5GB or 2GB of RAM (you should do this anyway!)
2) Be sure to buy a DVD burner with Nero 7 Essentials, as this is the only
DVD burning package (that doesn't cost an arm and a leg) that is said to
work on Vista, last I checked. This won't cost extra, you just need to be
careful choosing your DVD burner.

So basically, building for Vista is just like building for XP. -Dave
 
Hey...
I'm due for an upgrade, but it's been a long time since I've actually
chosen hardware, to me a 2.1GHZ processor is rubbish, but with core 2
duo, it'a all I can afford.
Click to expand...

Then don't upgrade.


I've never been one for laptops, cos of the cost / performance ratio,
but I'm finding myself using a work laptop more and more, so I think a
Tablet might not be such a bad idea.
Click to expand...

So you get an even slower CPU than you "thought" you would
get with a 2.1GHz Core2Duo?

You use a laptop but then you don't think "laptop", you
think "tablet"? Makes no sense.
You might just buy the product instead of trying to judge.


So my question is, with Vista here, I'm looking at no less than 2GB
Ram?
Click to expand...

Incorrect. Amount still depends on the jobs ran, and
budget.


2.1GHZ core 2 duo OK?
Click to expand...

Apparently it's rubbish.
Your choices are quite simple. Buy it or spend more.

how much difference is will I get from a 2.4
(compared with a 2.13?)
Click to expand...

2.4/2.13 = difference, roughly speaking. If you want more
specifics then it'll depend on the task. For a laptop or
tablet the hard drive (or sometimes flash memory today) will
be a more significant bottleneck for many common uses, as
might Vista be.

will the 64dit XP be better? or Vista ultimate? I usually don't like
to buy a Windows OS untill the 1st SP.
Click to expand...

It is wise to wait unless you feel like being a beta tester.
Only you can decide how long it would be till you buy
another OS or upgrade the OS if you feel you need Vista at
some point.

What's the diff between a E6400 and a T7200?
why is the LG tablet with a CoreDuoU2500(1.2GHz), more expensive than
the Toshiba tablet with the Intel Core 2 Duo T7200?
Steven
Click to expand...

Because it's not just a CPU in a free cardboard box?
 
Steven said:
I'm due for an upgrade, but it's been a long time since I've actually
chosen hardware, to me a 2.1GHZ processor is rubbish, but with core 2
duo, it'a all I can afford.
Click to expand...
I've never been one for laptops, cos of the cost / performance ratio,
but I'm finding myself using a work laptop more and more, so I think a
Tablet might not be such a bad idea.
Click to expand...

2.1 GHz is rubbish? I just upgraded to a slightly slower Pentium 4. :
(

If you're tight on money, why are you considering anything but a
desktop, especially if you want speed? The Core2 Duos, like the
Athlon64s, are pretty fast for any given clock speed, more so than any
Pentium 4, and they're supposed to be very overclockable, with many
1.8 GHz E4300s able to run reliably at double that rate.

But is your CPU really slowing you down? If you're a gamer it may be
better to get a faster graphics card, and for some other applications
the best solution can be more memory.
 
What rubbish. Just two things to remember when building for Vista.
1) Get 1.5GB or 2GB of RAM (you should do this anyway!)
2) Be sure to buy a DVD burner with Nero 7 Essentials, as this is the only
DVD burning package (that doesn't cost an arm and a leg) that is said to
work on Vista, last I checked. This won't cost extra, you just need to be
careful choosing your DVD burner.

So basically, building for Vista is just like building for XP. -Dave
Click to expand...


Hardly, the moment one starts talking about a difference in
expense it has to be recognized that you will have to pay
more for the CPU and memory just to run at the same
performance level with Vista as XP. With a higher end
system it may not matter so much, but we're talking about
budgetized notebooks or tablets, where it's quite
applicable.
 
Conor said:
Which means they're faster.
Click to expand...

No...

How long with it take you to move 3 cubic yards of earth with a 2007 Ford
F150 pickup truck? Now the same load with a 2007 Corvette?

Put the 2.1Ghz Core2 PC next to the P4 3Ghz Northwood and run a simple
assembler counting loop. The Northwood will win every time.
 
How long with it take you to move 3 cubic yards of earth with a 2007 Ford
F150 pickup truck? Now the same load with a 2007 Corvette?

Put the 2.1Ghz Core2 PC next to the P4 3Ghz Northwood and run a simple
assembler counting loop. The Northwood will win every time.
Click to expand...
Dumbass....
 
Hardly, the moment one starts talking about a difference in
expense it has to be recognized that you will have to pay
more for the CPU and memory just to run at the same
performance level with Vista as XP.
Click to expand...

You're not comparing apples to apples. Any decent mid-range system built
today will run xp or vista just fine. Most low-end systems built today will
also run both operating systems. And no, neither will suffer a performance
hit. -Dave
 
Noozer said:
Uhm... they AREN'T faster. They ARE better optimized.
Click to expand...

So, for those who refuse to face reality, they run mainstream applications
faster than the old CPUs with the faster clock speed.
 
In alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt "John Weiss"
So, for those who refuse to face reality, they run mainstream applications
faster than the old CPUs with the faster clock speed.
Click to expand...
I would suspect that depends *greatly* on the application.
 
Hey...
No...

How long with it take you to move 3 cubic yards of earth with a 2007 Ford
F150 pickup truck? Now the same load with a 2007 Corvette?
Click to expand...

So the vehicle more designed to that task is better! No surprise there. In
fact, the Corvette would probably run out of fuel and maybe overheat.
Put the 2.1Ghz Core2 PC next to the P4 3Ghz Northwood and run a simple
assembler counting loop. The Northwood will win every time.
Click to expand...

If that is all you do on your PC, then you stick with your P4. Just hope it
doesn't overheat! The rest of the people in this group run Windows (sorry, I
generalise) and 'real' applications which do much more than loop all day and
the CPU more designed to these 'real' tasks (about 4 years more R&D) is the
Core 2 Duo.
 
You're not comparing apples to apples.
Click to expand...

Yes I am, because the apples are the applications and user
GUI for basic tasks. The OS is merely a means to that end.


Any decent mid-range system built
today will run xp or vista just fine.
Click to expand...

Sufficiently vague to be a worthless statement.

"Decent" means you have to pay more to get an equivalent
performance, or would have higher performance with XP.

"Fine" means you don't get a popup that you can't run "X"?

I'm comparing apples to apples. Vista runs worse than XP
performancewise. If one is willing to sacrifice this for
some OTHER perceived need from Vista, that's the buyer's
call to make.


Most low-end systems built today will
also run both operating systems. And no, neither will suffer a performance
hit. -Dave
Click to expand...

If only you were right but these things have been well known
for quite some time now.
 
GT said:
So the vehicle more designed to that task is better! No surprise there. In
fact, the Corvette would probably run out of fuel and maybe overheat.


If that is all you do on your PC, then you stick with your P4. Just hope
it doesn't overheat! The rest of the people in this group run Windows
(sorry, I generalise) and 'real' applications which do much more than loop
all day and the CPU more designed to these 'real' tasks (about 4 years
more R&D) is the Core 2 Duo.
Click to expand...

My point is that a Northwood chip running at 3Ghz IS faster than a Core2Duo
2.1Ghz chip. The 2.1Ghz chip IS slower, but more efficient.

So a computer, running average tasks and using a 2Ghz Core2Duo chip, works
better; is more efficient; is more responsive than a computer running the
3Ghz Northwood, BUT THE CORE2DUO CHIP IS *NOT* RUNNING FASTER THAN THE
NORTHWOOD.
 
Back
Top