1) Intel Pentium-M processor speeds: One often-asked question is, “Why on earth are Centrino processors so slow?†Well, they're not really. The advanced mobile-optimized architecture used in Intel's newest notebook chips, the Pentium-M and the lesser Celeron-M, allows the chip to operate much more efficiently than Pentium 4s and Celeron-Ds clock for clock. Here's a rough guide for converting Pentium-M chips to their equivalent Pentium 4 cores. Note that we're assuming that up to 4GHz non-hyperthreading Pentium 4s exist. Celeron-Ms: C-M 1.20GHz - 2.42GHz Celeron-D C-M 1.30GHz - 2.60GHz C-D C-M 1.40GHz - 2.86GHz C-D C-M 1.50GHz - 2.93GHz C-D Ultra-low voltage Pentium-Ms: C-M 0.9GHz ULV - 2.0GHz Celeron-D P-M 1.0GHz ULV - 2.0GHz Pentium 4 P-M 1.1GHz ULV - 2.2GHz P4 P-M 1.2GHz ULV - 2.4GHz P4 Alviso/Sonoma Pentium-Ms: P-M 1.40GHz* - 2.5GHz Pentium 4 P-M 1.50GHz - 2.8GHz Pentium 4 P-M 1.60GHz - 3.0GHz P4 P-M 1.73GHz - 3.2GHz P4 P-M 1.86GHz - 3.4GHz P4 P-M 2.00GHz - 3.6GHz P4 P-M 2.13GHz - 3.8GHz P4 P-M 2.26GHz - 4.0GHz P4 *Not avaialable in an Alviso/Sonoma model; comparison uses older Banias core. Core Solo/Duo Pentuim-Ms: Core Solo 1.50GHz - 2.8GHz P4 Core Solo 1.66GHz - 3.0GHz P4 Core Duo 1.66GHz - 3.2GHz Pentium 4HT Core Duo 1.83Ghz - 3.6GHz P4HT Core Duo 2.00GHz - 3.8GHz P4HT Core Duo 2.16GHz - 4.0GHz P4HT Hopefully you've noticed a pattern that can be applied as the P-M series continues. These are rough equivalences only; much as there is dispute on the P4HT vs. Athlon 64 equivalences, no one is able to agree on an exact standard for converting the Pentium-M's speed to an equivalent P4. 2) Company overviews: Another common question is, "Which is better, company X or company Y?" Usually, the answer is "whichever is more cost effective." But it's not very cost effective if your new computer falls apart in a week, is it? So here are brief overviews of the major companies (I define "major" as "has released several models over the last couple of years"): Acer: Acer makes some good budget computers (namely, the Aspire series) and some hideously overpriced "gaming" models (*cough*Ferrari*cough*). If you need a a good business PC on a budget, Acer is definitely the way to go. Alienware: Alienware makes ridiculously expensive but equally powerful gaming machines. That's the sole point of buying an Alienware: gaming. And they do excel at that. However, their computers are heavy (as much as 12-15 lbs.) and get almost no battery life due to the use of desktop processors. That's okay; they weren't meant to be taken with you anyways, at usually well over $3000. Apple: Apple makes a variety of user-friendly, well-built, compact computers with a moderate level of performance. It's almost impossible to break one, due to the incredibly simple OS and the nigh-indestructible aluminum casing. They're terrific for first time users and know-it-all geeks alike. The downside? They're quite pricey and will run almost nothing due to the Mac OSX operating system. ASUS: ASUS, renowned in the past for initially cheap components (every ASUS component I've owned from before 2003 has broken down or been in dire need of replacement) and later some high-quality motherboards, makes high quality, lightweight, and powerful computers. Of course quality comes at a huge price. ASUS computers tend to be very pricey and are not readily available at retail stores. AVERATEC: AVERATEC makes inexpensive, lightweight computers. The downside is that AVERATECs are poorly constructed and use mainly integrated components. If you need a thin & light to take to school or work, look to AVERATEC. If you want an HD mobile theater or gaming powerhouse, look elsewhere. Dell: Dell offers a wide variety of computers, ranging from very low-end desktops and notebooks to insanely powerful gaming rigs. Not surprisingly, it's these extremes that are the least cost-effective. Their Inspiron 6000 and 9300 series are among some of the most popular notebooks available today. Dells are seemingly very expensive, but be sure to check the coupons at the top of the site; you can get some incredible deals with them. eMachines: eMachines makes a few series of notebooks. The M6000 is based on the same blueprint as the popular Gateway 7000 series, but usually has less RAM. They also have a newer M5000 series with Turion and Mobile Sempron processors that can be found at Wal-Marts nationwide. eMachines computers are cost effective performance-wise but poorly constructed. To add insult to injury, their tech support is atrocious. Note: It would appear eMachines no longer officially acknowledges its notebooks on their website (much as you won't find the 7000 series on Gateway's website). Rest assured, they do exist, and can be found at most major computer retailors. Falcon Northwest: Falcon makes computers even more expensive than Alienwares, though they're basically identical on the inside. Where do you pay the difference? Falcon Northwest has better tech support (Alienware is infamous for ignoring you if you have a problem) and does custom paint jobs. For a mere $5000! Wow, the XPS2 is beginning to look like a bargain. Fujitsu: Fujitsu makes powerful, stylish, lightweight, durable, reliable computers that will run forever. Which is good, because once you pay the exorbitant mortgage-your-house price, you'll never be able to afford another computer. They're also extremely hard to get your hands on, especially in the US. Gateway: Gateway used to be a very respectable company, with quality made-in-the-USA products. Then they bough eMachines and all of their problems. Now Gateways are shoddily constructed, made in Malaysia, and have zero tech support and warranty behind them. Irregardless, they are very cost-effective computers while they last, especially for a casual gamer or professional-on-the-go. The 7000 series is by far their most popular model, and is available at Best Buy at good prices. Watch out for the 90-day warranty, though. Hewlett-Packard/Compaq: HP and and it's subsidiary Compaq maintain separate lines of computers, but they're identical except that Compaq's are silver rather than black and usually are cheaper. (Maybe silver is considered a cheaper color.) Anyway you go about it, HPs are fairly powerful and inexpensive, and they'll also run forever ?€“ unless one of the highly-integrated components dies. Then the whole thing is usually shot. Fortunately they come with good warranties and friendly, knowledgeable tech support. Watch out for desktop processors, though, if battery life means anything to you. HPs are very user-friendly and are perfect for the common user, say that aunt or parent that can barely turn one on without a step-by-step guide and a 100-minute call to tech support. IBM: IBM has been in business since the dawn of the computer age, so you'd think they'd know how to build a computer. And that they do ?€“ but not inexpensively. IBMs are reliable and well-built, using top-quality parts, but the standard T series starts at $1299 for a barebones model. Truly powerful ones can quickly reach prices of nearly $3000. To make matters worse, they have recently sold their computer manufacturing division to Chinese company Lenovo. Time will tell if quality declines significantly. LG: LG, manufacturer of everything from phones to refrigerators to stereos, makes a handful of notebooks. They're high-quality, powerful machines, but they're expensive and almost impossible to get anywhere outside of mythical LG-land. Check eBay. Medion: Medion is a new company, just getting their start in the notebook business. They make very inexpenpensive, light, and decently powerful computers, but the build quality is still questionable. They aren't yet a well-established company, so I'm hesitant to reccomend them, but they seem like a soid choice for those on a tight budget. Panasonic: Panasonic's Toughbook line is among the most rugged of laptop computers. They're designed for use in extreme environments, with ultra durable cases and water-resistant interioirs. They're an expensive, niche-market product, but worthwhile if you need the endurance. Sager: Sager makes high-end gaming machines that bear striking similarities to those of Alienware and Falcon Northwest, with one major exception: Sagers are much cheaper (and slightly ahead on the technology curve, in some cases). Sager is an established company, noted for quality computers. If you need the jaw-dropping power of an Alienware, but haven't got the jaw-dropping budget to go with it (or even if you do - no one should waste money), give Sager a look. Sony: Sony makes high-quality, lightweight and ultra portable laptops. The VAIO series is powerful and reliable, but comes at a high price. Sony's strong suit is their new ultra portable notebooks, weighing less than 4 pounds and equipped with powerful Centrino processors. Toshiba: Toshiba used to be the premier source of quality notebook computers with their Satellite series of laptops. In recent years, however, build quality has declined a bit and the internal components have moved more towards integrated ones for cost reasons. No longer cost effective, newer Satellites and the new Qosmo series leave much to be desired.
Well, it really depends what kind of laptop you are planning to buy. Are you looking for something powerful, or do you prefer a thin and light laptop?
That's actually strange. Here in SA Fujitsu/Siemens laptops are quite common and priced very reasonably when viewed according to specs.
Where exactly did this information come from? Here, perhaps? http://forum.notebookreview.com/showthread.php?t=18483
It depends on what you'll use it for. Regardless, I'd shoot for one with decent video memory. I'm in the market for a new laptop as well.
What are you talking about? toshiba is the way to go. Toshiba makes great stuff. Dell is OK too. The question is, why did that many people vote for sony? Maybe I just have a bad taste in my mouth from the rootkit situation. I will never buy another product from sony as long as I live.
Did not see any Mac in that list... Ok, so if you feel you have to get a PC laptop (sometimes you do)... I guess take a look at a few factors: 1. Price - How much do you want to pay? 2. Durability/reliability - What are you going to use it for? What environment will it be in? 3. Use - What do you intend to run on it? If you are looking for a good durable, cheapy, but powerful machine, I just bought an ACER for around $697 at CompUSA. Nice little machine with the wide screen, built in wireless, as well as external, CDRW/DVD, 1GB RAM, 120GB drive, USB/Firewire, etc... Very nice little machine. Of course I trashed the XP home verion that was on there for a nice version of XP Pro. All and all a nice little machine. I use it outdoors and on roofs, as well as in the car mostly. It seems to hold up nicely. Prior to this I had a Toshiba Sat, another durable machine. Used outdoors, flew all over the country, and probably still is thanx to airport security. The Sony Vaio particularly is nice, if you want a nice compact on the go machine. Anything in your list is just fine IMHO. Just look at those three things you want to do before you decide. You'll likely find you have more options and can go quite crazy buying a Dell. The Acer and the rest are off the shelf machines, which can be found just about anywhere. Right now, I am very happy with my little Acer. Just wish it was running OSX!!!
i bought a sony laptop last year march for £900 and 5 months down the line, the smae laptop was selling for £500, can you believe that.
well i need a laptop which is very powerful. i will use it mainly for web development and some entertainment as i do not have time for other things ,
I have to take issue with the above statements. Not just because I use a Mac a lot, but because the statements are inaccurate. I assume that you have never used a Mac, otherwise you would not have made these statements. Particularly the statement about "run almst nothing due to the Mac OSX operating system." Where did you hear that? Given that OSX is based on BSD, you can acutally run anything. Any BSD/Linux and or UNIX native application, OSX apps, OS9 apps, and yes, even Windows. I've not found a single application I could not run on a Mac running OSX. Also, Macs are not quite as pricey as they once were. I spent less on my iBook than I did on my last Toshiba at around the same time. The iBook had more ram, more space, more computing power, and looked prettier too boot. I think what you probably meant to say was "there is almost nothing you cannot run on a Mac running OSX." Anyway, that is a more accurate statement. YMMV.