Jump to content

Recommended Posts

smokey

today i went to cost co to look for a lap top for my wife who likes u tube and just looking at the internet there are 100sss of models.... 4 GB . 6 GB 8 GB.. then comes the 350,,,500,,,750,, HD , etc... and the prices also go from 600 to 1,200 us... if i am only going to use it to look on line and down load u tube which is a good set up ... cost co has a Dell 6 GB memory and 500 GB for 650 dollars and they have a 8 GB and 750 GB also for 620 dollars which is a better unit.. HP unit

Edited by smokey
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 31
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • Cipro

    8

  • KennyF

    5

  • USMC-Retired

    5

  • Mang Kanor

    2

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Any i3 notebook should be fine for your purpose. I suggest getting one with dedicated video memory rather than shared system memory. Interesting to see there are still XP sp3 devotees out there. Ki

I bet there are companies that still need to run CPM. I know there are companies that still use mainframes that use VM, MVS and even TPF. Sometimes a company cannot successfully migrate. Over the y

KennyF

Regular Windows (XP sp3, which is still the best and most stable) can only use 3.6 GB of memory unless you have a 64bit machine and as you'll have no 64bit programs to run you'll go with 32 like the rest of us.

Computer stores have been pushing 64bit computers here in Australia.

You don't need a super fast machine to look at YouTube, the bottle neck is your Internet connection.

That said, steer clear of the really cheap laptops.

 

KonGC

Link to post
Share on other sites
USMC-Retired

any new laptop computer with the smallest configuration will work to accomplish what you want to accomplish. The $600 version is probably more then you need.

Edited by Norseman
Link to post
Share on other sites
Cipro
XP sp3, which is still the best and most stable

 

Based on what? I use a lot of machines and in my experience and every other single person I know who has used both Win7 is better in every way except one; extremely resource starved machines. XP64 was a bad joke.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Cipro

today i went to cost co to look for a lap top for my wife who likes u tube and just looking at the internet there are 100sss of models.... 4 GB . 6 GB 8 GB.. then comes the 350,,,500,,,750,, HD , etc... and the prices also go from 600 to 1,200 us... if i am only going to use it to look on line and down load u tube which is a good set up ... cost co has a Dell 6 GB memory and 500 GB for 650 dollars and they have a 8 GB and 750 GB also for 620 dollars which is a better unit.. HP unit

 

Costco is pretty good about buying in units that will serve typical users well, you probably can't go really wrong.

Link to post
Share on other sites
USMC-Retired

I would have maybe agreed a 2 years ago that XP sp3 was the best and most stable. However current versions of windows 7 are much more efficient with memory and are very stable. I would never ever change back to XP from windows 7.

 

Smokey I would stay away from one version of computer is if it had Windows 7 Starter. It is a real stripped down version of windows 7.

Link to post
Share on other sites
KennyF
Based on what?

 

Windows with a long life because they worked well.

95

98 sp2

XP sp3

 

Windows with a short life because they were problematic.

ME

Vista

7

 

It has been speculated by many industry pundits that if 7 was not supplied with new computers it would not have sold at all.

 

KonGC

Link to post
Share on other sites
Cipro

Windows with a long life because they worked well.

95

98 sp2

XP sp3

 

Windows with a short life because they were problematic.

ME

Vista

7

 

It has been speculated by many industry pundits that if 7 was not supplied with new computers it would not have sold at all.

 

KonGC

 

The fact that Windows 95 is in the list proves that there are reasons far beyond "it works well" for an OS to have a long life cycle. XP has had a long run largely because it was well positioned timewise for large organizations to take it as a 9x replacement. Windows 8 is being released on a short timeline due to market concerns wrt supporting tablets, and further, Vista, 7 and 8 are really all point releases on NT 6, whereas XP was the last NT 5 platform to go to consumers.

Link to post
Share on other sites
KennyF

The fact that Windows 95 is in the list proves that there are reasons far beyond "it works well" for an OS to have a long life cycle. XP has had a long run largely because it was well positioned timewise for large organizations to take it as a 9x replacement. Windows 8 is being released on a short timeline due to market concerns wrt supporting tablets, and further, Vista, 7 and 8 are really all point releases on NT 6, whereas XP was the last NT 5 platform to go to consumers.

 

Yes, I realize that there is more to it than meets the eye.

But the fact remains that MS dumped ME, Vista and soon, 7.

 

Microsofts biggest problem has been and will continue to be that XP, once SP3 was applied, is a stable and eminently usable OS.

If I had an office with 10 PC machines running XP and 10 staff trained in XP, I would be very reluctant to switch.

 

And just for what it's worth, the "8" interface leaves me cold.

It reminds me of a cross between OS2 Warp and Gem.

 

KonGC

Link to post
Share on other sites

Go with Windows 7, it will be supported for a long time and it is not only stable but much more secure. Check out TigerDirect, they have branded laptops from $220.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Cipro
Microsofts biggest problem has been and will continue to be that XP, once SP3 was applied, is a stable and eminently usable OS.

 

I never really understand comments like this; for me ALL NT based platforms from MS have been stable and usable whereas none of the 9x variants were really ever much good, with the exception of 98se which was a gaming platform of choice for a bit. Vista was great for me but I did a little homework to ensure my hardware had drivers before switching, and it was great, certainly Vista 64 was head and shoulders above XP 64.

Link to post
Share on other sites
KennyF

Cipro, you're talking about you personally and your own one or two computers.

I have friends who still claim OS2 is the cats pyjamas.

 

However, look at it from a corporate point of view.

 

Windows prior to Vista were primarily purchased and installed by the user.

Vista and 7 were almost excursively installed by OEM.

 

You can bet Windows 8 will be the same.

When you buy a new machine it will be Window 8 or nothing.

 

KonGC

Link to post
Share on other sites
Cipro

Cipro, you're talking about you personally and your own one or two computers.

 

I have worked in software development for decades, last year I probably used more computers daily than most people will own in a lifetime. Right now in my rented house here in Subic I have running 2x XP systems, 2x Win 64 systems, a RAID box running Linux on Sparc (!), this machine running Linux on Intel, assorted droid and iOS devices. Present but powered off are a Netbook running Win7 32 and another notebook running Win7 64. Also powered down are 2 more Win 7 32 bit machines.

 

I used Win NT since 3.x and most versions since, including every workstation platforma nd most server platforms, as well as a few embedded versions. I used many versions of DOS, had an Amiga, several even older machines, and Wondows 386, 3.0. 3.1, and WfW 3.11 ....

 

In my work I've spend decades daily working with large offices full of other developers, QA, and IT people. I have supported (as in debugged and fixed issues) on all Win32 and 64 platforms that I've listed above, as well as some others like Novell. The things I say are based on ALL those experiences, not just me dicking around with a couple machines over the years.

 

I have written device drivers for every Windows NT version since 3.51.

 

So yes, it's just one mans opinion. But he's seen a LOT in this field of endeavor.

 

 

 

 

Windows prior to Vista were primarily purchased and installed by the user.

Vista and 7 were almost excursively installed by OEM.

 

This is demonstrably false, EVERY version of Windows since 95 has been heavily sold pre-installed on new hardware, I have no idea where you got the idea this was a new practice, if anything courts have forced more options lately. Vista, 7 and 8 are very much similar except in superficial ways. the problem with Vista was that device drivers were scarce and poor for a long time and people were trying to load it on everything on the planet due to MS silly marketing campaign.

 

Now that NT 6 drivers exist all the NT 6 platforms are very solid and stable. Indeed, XP and 2K will continue to be viable only until the hardware it runs on starts to die off, after which it will become harder and harder to get supported hardware, much like NT4. For what it's worth NT4sp6 was nice too.

Link to post
Share on other sites
USMC-Retired

Windows 8 is still a year away from full public release. Additionally they are getting much kick back for the secure boot feature. So that will slow down the overall issue of windows 8.

 

Windows 7 by the time of release will be a 4 or almost 5 year old OS. One thing I have not read about windows 8 is the networking that is required for corporate use.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use, Privacy Policy and Guidelines. We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue..

Capture.JPG

I Understand...