More Questions re Purchasing An Inexpensive Laptop

[MEXICOWANDERER]

I shop. I see quad-core HP units with 1.7 GHz processors. There are Intel then AMD processors. I realize the more expensive the processor the more likely it is to be faster.

But the low end laptops are awash in variety of CPU types.

This is going to be the last laptop I will ever buy. I am at that age.

Should I just ignore all the hype and assume one processor will work just as fast as the other brand?

I am NOT multi-tasking. I am surfing the internet maybe with 3 or four sites open at the greatest load.

I found out too late the bargain 1.0 GHz C-50 HP with 2Gb RAM Compaq I purchased in 2011, was a real dog. Now I see 1.7 GHz models. Is that speed still too slow for reasonable performance? Most of the low-end jobs have 2Gb RAM. I've never loaded a hard disc with more than 80 GB of data.

Also are all WiFi receiver gizmos the same as far as sensitivity? No "One type will give three bars of power while another is lucky to get one"?

Slowly I absorb and learn this stuff. Thank you.

[MEXICOWANDERER]

I think these rentals are counterfeits. Most have no language or subtitle selection and are rented in plain black boxes with titles scrawled over masking tape. Sorta want to see Return of The King and Hobbit 2 and 3.

No "ping" down here. Just "boink" and it is timed with a sundial (sigh).

[Naio]

Gdetrailer wrote:

MEXICOWANDERER wrote:
Wishful thinking and intuition are now telling me a honest 2.0 GHz dual core processor with a decent video section, maybe 4 GB RAM and a 500 GB storage would be plenty. I wouldn' t mind seeing a movie. But if experts are frustrated with Windows 8 I don't stand a chance. Microsoft screwed up Word So bad it's like grappling with a 300 blade Swiss Army Knife

2.0 ghz dual core with 4 gig of ram will be fine,

Definitely! That is double what I have.

however do be aware that laptops are pretty weak in the video area.. Typically the video will be fine for SD video but typically will be borderline for HD video and most likely will not play H264 AVCHD High Definition files smoothly...
So as a way around that I bought a standalone media player so I can watch my AVCHD camcorder video on my TV without using a PC. HD media players start at $50 and up..

I read this, and I thought 'Why would Mex want to watch HD?!?' And then I realised... maybe if you are renting a movie.

I mostly download movies, and I choose the lowest-definition versions because then the file sizes are smaller. But that requires fast internet, at least once in a while. When I have access I download stuff all day every day until I fill up the harddrive. A 500 gig HDD is about 500 movies, plus your software and whatever.

But if you are renting actual physical discs, then the question becomes: Are they mostly HD or SD or what?

[Gdetrailer]

MEXICOWANDERER wrote:
Wishful thinking and intuition are now telling me a honest 2.0 GHz dual core processor with a decent video section, maybe 4 GB RAM and a 500 GB storage would be plenty. I wouldn' t mind seeing a movie. But if experts are frustrated with Windows 8 I don't stand a chance. Microsoft screwed up Word So bad it's like grappling with a 300 blade Swiss Army Knife

2.0 ghz dual core with 4 gig of ram will be fine, however do be aware that laptops are pretty weak in the video area.. Typically the video will be fine for SD video but typically will be borderline for HD video and most likely will not play H264 AVCHD High Definition files smoothly..

H264 AVCHD High Def video files really tax the video GPU so it takes a video card with a strong GPU to pull that off..

I have been able to get a 1.8 ghz dual core to barely play AVCHD files with on board video card but to do that I have to disable a lot of processes and have nothing else running on that PC.. It would work OK if I bought a $150 video card but I didn't want to spend the extra money on that..

So as a way around that I bought a standalone media player so I can watch my AVCHD camcorder video on my TV without using a PC. HD media players start at $50 and up..

[Gdetrailer]

smkettner wrote:
^^^^^^
Maybe if something was big.... writing a letter should not be an issue.

Otherwise yes you need internet to make it work. Browse internet and email seemed to be the top issues listed as priority so internet is needed anyway. Boot time is under 10 seconds because there is no junk to load. Also no cranky Microsoft updates etc to download EVER. Should save some bandwidth. No virus worry because nothing really to imbed into, nothing saved to steal.

I don't know if best for MEX... just throwing out an option and my experience.

Try running the Chrome book with your internet access disconnected and see just how limited of a machine it is..

You will need Internet access even to run the "apps" you loaded on it since the "apps" are storedd in the cloud not on the machine so even if you had say PDFs stored on a USB drive you will not be able to open them unless you have internet access..

In Mexi's case with his very spotty and very expensive Mexican Internet it would be pretty much a doorstop..

In remote or rural areas anything requiring full uninterrupted internet would be not be usable..

[MEXICOWANDERER]

Wishful thinking and intuition are now telling me a honest 2.0 GHz dual core processor with a decent video section, maybe 4 GB RAM and a 500 GB storage would be plenty. I wouldn' t mind seeing a movie. But if experts are frustrated with Windows 8 I don't stand a chance. Microsoft screwed up Word So bad it's like grappling with a 300 blade Swiss Army Knife

[time2roll]

^^^^^^
Maybe if something was big.... writing a letter should not be an issue.

Otherwise yes you need internet to make it work. Browse internet and email seemed to be the top issues listed as priority so internet is needed anyway. Boot time is under 10 seconds because there is no junk to load. Also no cranky Microsoft updates etc to download EVER. Should save some bandwidth. No virus worry because nothing really to imbed into, nothing saved to steal.

I don't know if best for MEX... just throwing out an option and my experience.

[Gdetrailer]

smkettner wrote:
We have both a Chromebook and a Chromebase computer for basic internet and email.
These don't really download and run programs and you may need a USB hard drive to store your PDFs.
The low tech approach is actually a bit refreshing and the price point is lower.
Need to use Google docs or the cloud to do spread sheets etc and may need a cloud printer.

I still find 8.1 to be awkward and annoying to do any real work or get settings correct. I would wait for Win10 if staying with a regular computer.

Seems to me that would be a real problem for Mexi.. He seems to have rather limited Internet speeds and or connections.. For that to work you would have to have a GOOD Internet connection 100% of the time just to be able to do anything more than powering it up..

[Gdetrailer]

MrWizard wrote:
Assuming that PCI video card goes to an External monitor
This great info for the desktop crowd
But does absolutely nothing to help the OP ...Mexi

I was working on a desktop PC.

Of course a PCI video card would not fit into a laptop..

My comparison was to show that folks are making outlandish "assumptions" that a newer OS can not run on a "lesser" PC..

BUT, as I mentioned, even if Win7 does not "support" drivers for some older video hardware then the GENERIC DEFAULT WINDOWS BASIC video driver is used by Win7.. The downside to that is you lose the crappy "Aereo" themes (useless garbage that wastes resources) and you will have a limited set of screen resolutions to work with..

In my case, I was working on a backoffice PC for my Church, they have limited resources and the PC was failing (blown caps on the system board).. I put a slightly newer used system board and processor that I had laying around and loaded a legally licensed OEM Win7 Pro OS on the PC for them.. They didn't have the budget to spend an extra $200 for a faster dual core processor, system board and memory.. Fixed them up for the cost of the OEM license ($135).

While my comparison my not "help" Mexi it is to show folks that Win7 is not as bloated as older OS versions and as long as the system board is SUPPORTED it IS possible to run Win7 on a slower PC than a "dual core" and be reasonably fast.

[time2roll]

We have both a Chromebook and a Chromebase computer for basic internet and email.
These don't really download and run programs and you may need a USB hard drive to store your PDFs.
The low tech approach is actually a bit refreshing and the price point is lower.
Need to use Google docs or the cloud to do spread sheets etc and may need a cloud printer.

I still find 8.1 to be awkward and annoying to do any real work or get settings correct. I would wait for Win10 if staying with a regular computer.

[MrWizard]

Assuming that PCI video card goes to an External monitor
This great info for the desktop crowd
But does absolutely nothing to help the OP ...Mexi

[Gdetrailer]

donn0128 wrote:
Have you thought about a tablet? While not as cheap as bottom end lap tops, you get something that just works. It has gotten to the point that my lap top might get used maybe evety couple of weeks. My tablet does 95% of what I want. Besides both Android and Apple IOS see far less problems

"Tablets" make for a horrible PC and to get one with a big enough usable display you will end up paying considerably MORE than if you bought a real laptop..

Not to mention to do real work on a tablet you would still need to add a keyboard AND mouse.. with tablets you are often very limited on ports, most only have ONE USB port and no external monitor port not to mention only a WiFi connection (no wired ethernet connection)..

Tablets also have very limited on board storage capacity (16, 32 gig), no hopes for added memory or even upgrading the built in storage..

While you can get tablets in Quad core processors, they are often hobbled to very low speeds (1-1.2 ghz) and only a few have Intel Atom mobile processors.. Most use ARM processors and use Android OS which severely limits you to finding and buying "Apps" from Google Play or Amazon store and all the Windows software you currently own will not load or work on a tablet..

[Gdetrailer]

tatest wrote:
If you want a Windows laptop, the current version of the OS needs two processor cores, 4 GB RAM and a minimalist 3D graphics processor (included on most of Intel's mobile CPU chips now). That's to run to operating system. Most applications need very little more resources. Windows XP was fine with about 1/8th the resources needed by Win 7 or 8, so you can't compare specs old to new to find out what is adequate.

Other operating systems are less demanding, thus a Chromebook or Ubuntu laptop can be less expensive. But to meet that price, laptop manufacturers will sell Windows laptops that are inadequate for Windows 7 or 8, and those can be annoyingly sluggish.

Absolutely not true!

Win7 actually requires LESS "resources" than XP.

MS lightened up Win7 considerably by NOT loading every known hardware driver known to man into memory when booting. The result IS a much faster loading AND running OS..

I have SUCCESSFULLY LOADED AND RUN Win 7 on a Pentium 4 (thats right, PENTIUM FOUR) at 3.2 ghz with hyper threading with only 2 gig of ram..

That PC actually runs better now than when it did with XP!

The only draw back with win7 and older hardware is lack of driver support.. The PC I loaded Win7 on MS did not support the on board video card.. Default Windows generic video driver does work but no "Areo" view.. The fix was to put a PCI video card in that IS supported that I had laying around..

[MEXICOWANDERER]

Also,
Wal-Mart and others have "Refurbished" laptops. Are they a no-no?

[MEXICOWANDERER]

This cell phone (TelMex) I am using sometimes is as fast as Infinitum modem service. Connected to Starbucks courtesy Wi-Fi the old Compaq still was sluggish. The gift-to-me Eenetbook with 1.5 GHz is faster.

I would love to have an ability to spend in excess of 300 dollars but doing so means a food or medicine shortage for the month.

QTLA 9111
Thank you for the head's up. The nearest store to here is 500-miles. 16% IVA plus 330 pesos for ESTAFETA whose office is a 172-mile round-trip makes that option difficult.

[tatest]

If you want a Windows laptop, the current version of the OS needs two processor cores, 4 GB RAM and a minimalist 3D graphics processor (included on most of Intel's mobile CPU chips now). That's to run to operating system. Most applications need very little more resources. Windows XP was fine with about 1/8th the resources needed by Win 7 or 8, so you can't compare specs old to new to find out what is adequate.

Other operating systems are less demanding, thus a Chromebook or Ubuntu laptop can be less expensive. But to meet that price, laptop manufacturers will sell Windows laptops that are inadequate for Windows 7 or 8, and those can be annoyingly sluggish.