|
| Author |
Message |
    
Freak
Bewarse ke Bewarse!
Username: Freak
Post Number: 4528
Registered: 03-2004
Posted From: 84.178.23.6
| | Posted on Monday, July 31, 2006 - 4:12 am: |    |
idi mottam naa post kaadu maama...  veree forums dii ... chaala informative .. velunnapdu chaduvukoo |
Kingchoudary
Bewarse ke Bewarse!
Username: Kingchoudary
Post Number: 18128
Registered: 03-2004
Posted From: 210.18.109.78
| | Posted on Monday, July 31, 2006 - 4:09 am: | |
peeku gaa intha pedha postaa  ....
Gunapam dinchuthaa nee ayya.... |
Freak
Bewarse ke Bewarse!
Username: Freak
Post Number: 4524
Registered: 03-2004
Posted From: 84.178.23.6
| | Posted on Monday, July 31, 2006 - 3:52 am: | |
idi mottam copy paste from forums in notebookreview.com |
Freak
Bewarse ke Bewarse!
Username: Freak
Post Number: 4523
Registered: 03-2004
Posted From: 84.178.23.6
| | Posted on Monday, July 31, 2006 - 3:51 am: | |
laptop konee mundu faqs
General Questions
1) What is your budget?
2) What size notebook would you prefer?
a. Ultraportable; 12" screen or less
b. Thin and Light; 13" - 14" screen
c. Mainstream; 15" - 16" screen
d. Desktop Replacement; 17"+ screen
3) What tasks will you be performing with the notebook?
4) Will you be taking the notebook with you to different places or leaving it on your desk?
5) Will you be playing games on it; if so, which games?
6) Are there any brands that you prefer or any you really don't like?
7) How many hours of battery life do you need?
8) Do you mind buying online without seeing the notebook in person?
9) Please select your country's flag as a post icon and tell us what country are you buying this in?
Screen Specifics
10) Would you prefer standard or widescreen?
11) From the choices below, what screen resolutions would you prefer?
Standard
a. XGA -1024x768 - Large and easy to read text + graphics icons, but you fit less stuff on the screen.
b. SXGA - 1400x1050 - Compromise resolution between XGA and UXGA.
c. UXGA - 1600x1200 - Very small text and graphics icons, you can fit lots of stuff on the screen.
Widescreen
d. WXGA or WXGA+ - 1280x768/800 or 1440x900; Wider viewing version of XGA, good for movie viewing or spreadsheets.
e. WSXGA+ - 1680x1050; Wider viewing version of SXGA, good for movie viewing or spreadsheets.
f. WUXGA - 1920x1200; Wider viewing version of UXGA, good for movie viewing or spreadsheets.
12) Do you want a glossy/reflective screen or a matte/non-glossy screen?
Build Quality and Design
13) Are the notebook's looks and stylishness important to you?
14) When are you buying this laptop and how long do you want this laptop to last?
Notebook Components
15) How much hard drive space do you want; 40GB to 120GB?
16) Do you need an optical drive? If yes, a DVD-ROM, DVD-CD/RW or DVD-RW drive? |
Freak
Bewarse ke Bewarse!
Username: Freak
Post Number: 4522
Registered: 03-2004
Posted From: 84.178.23.6
| | Posted on Monday, July 31, 2006 - 3:47 am: | |
courtesy:lowlymarine's quick reference guide.(from notebook review)
almost konni months nundi veddamankunna ee thread kaani ippudu teerika dorkindi... veelunnappudu chaduvukondi length ekkuvaina chaaaaala informative..
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 / Lenovo:
IBM (now taken over by Lenovo) 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.
3)Graphics Card comparisons:
Perhaps the most common question, however, is about comparing the multitude of available GPU options. Here I'm only going to cover cards you might actually see in fairly modern laptops, and not old ATI RADEON 8500s or GeForce 4s.
Note: This is based on core performance. Amount of video RAM can affect the placement of your card.
Intel Extreme -> VIA/S3G Unichrome -> SiS Mirage -> Intel Extreme 2 -> SiS Mirage 2 -> Intel GMA 900/915 -> ATI Mobility RADEON 9000/9100 -> nVidia GeForceFX Go5200 -> MR9200 -> GFFX Go5400 -> MR x200M -> GFFX Go5500-> GFFX Go5600 -> GF Go6200 -> MR x300 -> MR9600 -> GFFX Go5700 -> MR x1300 -> MR9700 -> MR x600 -> MR x1400SE -> GFFX Go5900 -> MR x1400 -> MR x700 -> MR9800 -> GF Go6600 -> MR x800 ->GF Go6800 -> MR x1600 -> MR x800XT -> GF Go6800 Ultra -> GF Go7800 -> MR x1800 -> GF Go7800GTX -> MR x1900
If I excluded your cheap integrated SiS card, I apologize. Just put it there at the beginning. Basically, we can see that integrated cards stand no chance against real graphics chips. The Mobility RADEON x200M IGP is the only integrated chip that can deliver acceptable frame rates with full DirectX 9 support.
As a final note here, there may be (as always) some dispute between certain models, especially the "MR x300 -> MR9600" and the nVidia vs. ATI comparisons. And obviously I don't have the capacity to actually test every one of these cards; this list is based on the various 3DMark scores floating around here and the various performance comparisons around the net, as well as clock speeds and memory architecture (NOT amount of VRAM).
4)All about Processors
How do you decide what processor core is right for you? It mostly depends on your budget and intended uses. Here's a quick guide:
Intels:
Intel makes generally more expensive, less efficient processors. Newer innovations such as Hyperthreading have gone a long ways in the race to top AMD, but currently only the Pentium-M can best its AMD equivalent in most respects.
Celeron-M: Similar architecture to a Pentium-M, but with slower clock and bus speeds and smaller caches. The lack of speedstepping also lends itself to exceptionally poor battery life. Only really useful if you're budget-strapped and don't plan to play games.
Pentium 4HT: Merely a desktop processor in a laptop, P4HTs run extremely hot and yield almost no battery life. They also make for very heavy computers. Rarely if ever a wise decision, unless you never want to move your laptop.
Mobile Pentium 4: A cooler running, more optimized version of the P4HT, yielding slightly imrproved battery life with a slight decrease in pereformance. Again, the primary use of this chip is "power on a budget when I can't find an AMD."
Pentium-M: The premier 32-bit notebook processor, the highly efficient Pentium-M yields exceptional performance clock-per-cloeck while maintaining low power usage and a cool temperature. Battery life is excellent (up to 5 hours on a standard battery in some computers) and weight can be as little as 3 pounds.
Core Solo/Core Duo: Intel's latest notebook chip, previously referred to as "Pentium-M Yonah." These chips use a new GM945 chipset, with a 667MHz DDR2 memory bus and Intel's GMA950 provdiding the graphics. The "Solo" models have one processor core, making them essentially Pentium-Ms with faster FSBs. The Duo model is where this new chipset shines, however. As you may have guessed from the name, Core Duos are dual-core processors, along with all of the multi-tasking performance gains that entails. Intel reports increases as high as 80-150% over Pentium-Ms performance-wise, although more conservative (eg, realistic) benchmarks place this difference around 25-40% for typical usage and gaming. It should be noted that Yonah is not, as once predicted, 64-bit; the next generation, code-named "Merom", will be, but not until Q4 2006.
AMDs:
AMD Processors are more efficient clock-per-clock than any Intel (excepting the P-M) and as such tend to be much more cost effective. No AMD can match the portability and battery life of the Pentium-M, though. AMD is currently also the only source of 64-bit processors.
Athlon XP-M: The Athlon XP-M is an older notebook processor still used in some models, notably the AVERATEC C3500. The Athlon XP-M is cool running and efficient, but tends to be slower than most newer processors.
Mobile Sempron: The Mobile Sempron is AMD's new budget mobile processor. The Sempron is failry cool-running and uses less power than Celeron-Ms or Athlon 64s, but overall yields mediochre battery life and power.
Athlon 64 DTR: Basically a desktop processor, Athlon 64 DTRs run warm and use a lot of power. They also have a less efficient architecture than Mobile Athlon 64s, but tend to be cheaper. Still a better option than a Pentium 4.
Mobile Athlon 64: The Mobile version of the Athlon 64 is slightly more efficient, with longer battery life and cooler core temperatures. It is also perhaps the best combination of power and cost, especially for the budget-minded gamer. More powerful than equivalent DTR models due to a larger L2 cache, the Mobile A64 also has the advantage of being one of the three 64-bit notebook processors, all from AMD.
Turion 64: AMD's newest notebook chip, intended to combine the power of 64-bit chips with the mobility and battery life of the Pentium-M. It succeeds on power and mobility but still can't quite meet the battery life of the Pentium-M. The tradeoff is that, like all AMD chips, the Turion 64 is much less expensive than equivalent P-Ms. AMD wants DDR2 memory compatability and dual-core on the Turion by mid 2006.
5) Windows XP: Home vs. Media Center vs. Tablet PC vs. Professional vs. Pro x64
It used to be very simple to choose which operating system you wanted: you wanted an Apple II or an IBM. It's not quite so simple anymore. There's a dizzying array of five different options available for Windows XP alone. And that's granting that you even want Windows XP in the first place. (For now, let's assume you do, because "Windows XP vs. Windows 9x/ME vs. Mac vs. Linux" is a topic I don't feel like handling today.) Let's begin:
Home (included in price on all newer Windows PCs):
Windows XP Home Edition is the most commonly used version of Windows XP simply because it doesn't cost anything extra to the buyer (usually). It delivers most of the basic features you need: Wireless & home networking, compatability with most newer programs, multiple user accounts, and all of the spiffy new GUI enhancements. Home is probably sufficient for the average user, and is much less expensive than other versions.
Media Center (~$50):
WinXP MCE is basically what it sounds like: the standard version used on new "Media Center PCs." These computers have a handful of special features: TV tuners, DVR functionality, even remote controls. Although perhaps useful for someone who plans to use their PC as a home theater, it has no practical application on most notebooks. It is sometimes believed that MCE is a 64-bit OS; I can't find any real evidence of this, but if true, it would make it a worthwhile upgrade if you use an Athlon 64 or Turion 64 processor. Otherwise, it'll just slow the whole thing down to do what cheaper third-party addons can do better.
Tablet PC (included with tablet PCs):
Windows XP Tablet PC Edition is useful only if you have - well, a tablet PC or a convertable, such as the AVERATEC C3500. Installing it on a standard laptop or desktop will only casuse compatability issues and choke performance. Also good to know is that Tablet PC Edition is the same as Windows XP Pro but with the added Tablet OS functionality.
Professional (~$100):
WinXP Pro is the standard version of Windows used in business and government PCs. It features advanced security, better performance (due to fewer graphical frills), and multiple processor support. Professional is a smart upgrade for business professionals, students who need to access their school's network, and hardcore gamers; it isn't really worth the $100 upgrade over XP Home for grandma Ethel to type up her recepies.
Professional x64 (~$200):
Windows XP Professional x64 Edition is the "more power" version of WinXP Pro. This new release is rarely available from the manufacturer on home PCs and personal-use notebooks; however, it features full 64-bit and dual-core processor support, allowing you to get the most out of that shiny new Athlon 64 x2 or Pentium-D. On notebooks, it's slightly more limited in usefulness, but you should look at x64 if you have an Athlon 64 or Turion, a bit of cash to burn, and an insatiable thirst for the best performance possible. As a warning, a lot of hardawre may not have drivers compatable with x64 yet, and the upgrade therefore usually voids your warranty.
6) What to upgrade now?
Another common question is about what upgrades have the biggest impact on performance. There's no hard and fast answer, as what makes the biggest diffference varies depending on what you need to do with you PC.
It is often thought that notebooks are too integrated to be very upgradable, but this is rarely the case. Many parts, such as the RAM, hard drive, optical drive, operating system, and sound card can be upgraded after market, and the GPU, processor, and WiFi card can often be upgraded before you purchase your notebook.
In general, the most cost effective, easy-to-install performance upgrade is RAM. You can usually get 2GB of RAM for under $250, which will improve performance in all aspects of your system. It should be noted that it's usually cheaper to configure your PC with very little RAM and add more yourself.
The most important upgrade if you intend to do gaming is obviously the graphics card. Though rarely upgradable after market, the GPU is often upgradable at least somewhat during configuration, for instance on Dells, HPs, Alienwares, and other configurables.
The processor, on the other hand, is important more for working in Windows and productivity programs, since the GPU will be the bottleneck in almost all games. That's not to say that a 1.2GHz Celeron-M will be acceptable for DooM3, but a 2.13GHz P-M Sonoma is probably overkill these days unless you intend to use many advanced programs at once.
Hard drives don't just have different sizes, they have different speeds, too. An 80GB 4200RPM hard drive may be inexpensive compared to a 40GB 7200RPM, but there's a good reason for that. 7200RPM hard drives access almost 3 times as fast as 4200RPM ones and nearly twice the speed of 5400RPM drives, meaning faster gaming perfmorance and shorter load times for all of your programs. 7200RPM hard drives are expensive, however, and currently aren't available above 60BG (although 100GB models will be coming out later this summer).
There's not a lot of choice in upgrading your OS. For details on the pros and cons of the various versions of Windows XP, just look above. Other operating systems are available for the PC, such as Linux and BeOS, but serve more of a niche market due to their lack of compatability with many common programs.
Finally come the more novelty upgrades: optical drives, sound cards, etc. The fastest, most comprehensive available optical drive is the 8x LightScribe Dual-Layer DVD-RW drive, and is probably only worth the ~$150 if you need to do DVD authoring or need a place to put large data backups. The Sound Blaster Audigy 2 ZS Notebook PCMCIA sound card is currently the premier notebook sound card, and retails for about $130. It's useful for gamers that need the best sound quality and audio perfmorance, as well as those who use their laptop as a mobile theater.
Overall, what to upgrade is often a matter of personal need, but some guidelines can help make the decision easier.
7) The "Hey Stupid!" Guide to Wireless Networking
If you've visited our fine "Wireless and Networking" forum lately, you'll notice it's filled with questions like "I have a wired desktop PC and a wireless notebook. How do I network them?" While setting up a home network may sound daunting, it's really probably one of the easiest things you'll do with your new laptop. Certainly less of a hassle than getting through that packing tape!
To begin, you'll actually have to spend a little bit of moeny, unless you for some reason have a Wireless-G router laying around. I use a D-Link DI524, mainly because it was cheap ($20 after MIR, Best Buy), but they're all pretty much the same, so get whatever floats your boat. A long-range router isn't really necessary unless you have a mansion or plan to acess your network at your neighbors' mansion. Or, well, if you plan to sit outside or some such nonsnese (fresh air, gaah). Long range routers are more expensive (some cost up to $100!), so be sure you really need it. I'm currently sitting on the far side of my humble abode (or about 40 meters) from my router and get 2-3 bars of signal strength.
Next you need to install your router. This consists of: a) taking it out of the box; b) situating it near the computer in your household that is both closest to the high-speed modem and the one you're least likely to be moving around much (most likely a desktop); and c) plugging it in (the router...and, I suppose, the computer and/or modem, if you haven't yet). Now, connect the CAT/5 (ethernet) cable leading from the cable/DSL modem to the "WAN" port (usually the farthest one to the right or left, seperate from the rest) on the router. Now, connect another CAT/5 cable from the computer you won't be moving around (this will be the computer used to set up the network) to the "Computer 1" port on the router (usually nearest the "WAN" port). Now, flip on the router and the computer attached to it. You may have to configure the router before you can acess the internet from it. The instructions for doing this vary depending on the brand of router, but should be included on a small card or booklet in the box.
Once everything is setup correctly, you should be able to connect to the wireless network with your notebook PC!
But if you want to share files, printers, etc., you're not quite done yet. You'll need to set up the network on each PC in your household. Go to Start->My Netork Places and click on "Set up a home or small office network" in the menu to the top left. Simply follow the instructions in the following dialogues. Now repeat this process on every computer you intend to network (that is connected to the router, eaither wired or wirelessly).
You're almost done. To share a fle, folder, printer, drive, etc. on the network, simply right-click its icon, go to the "Sharing" tab, and check "share this folder on the network." You'll need to enter a name for the folder on the network. Whether you wish for network users to able to alter the file(s) is up to you.
Now you're done! If you still have questions, don't hesitate to ask!
8) All about GPUs
Well, I promised I'd do a detailed overview of all the major GPUs, so, finally, here it is. This one's a doozy, so go get a cup of coffee and a doughnut. I'll wait.
Back? Ok, before we go, I'd like to point out a couple of things. The cards aren't listed here in order of power, but rather by type first (integrated or dedicated), then by company, then by series/model number. Check Section 3 for a handy little performance comparison chart.
Integrated Chipsets
Integrated chipsets suffer from the need to share memory with the main system, resulting in slower performance all around. The other downside is that most integrated solutions lack true support for modern 3D extensions such as Pixel Sharder 2, Vertex Shader, and Hardware Transform and Lighting. The upshot is that integrated cards use very little power and produce almost no heat of their own, allowing for longer battery life and more comfortable use.
Intel:
Intel Extreme/Extreme 2: Intel's standard integrated chipset for use with pre-Sonoma Pentium-M processors. The official name for these chipsets are the 845GME (Intel Extreme) and the 855GME (Intel Extreme 2). Both of these are about as slow as slow can get. Even the original Unreal Tournament can bog down an Intel Extreme if you turn the resolution up to high. Mercifully, fewer and fewer computers use these deplorable chipsets as the Sonoma cores become more and more popular. The Extreme is now relegated almost exclusively to ultraportables with ULV processors, which you aren't going to be using for gaming anyways.
Intel Graphics Media Accelerator 900: The GMA 900 is the standard integrated graphics chipset of Dell's new Sonoma core Pentium-M. The GMA 900 is a huge leap over previous integrated graphics processors, with full DirectX9/Pixel Sharder 2.0 hardware support and a PCI-Express interface. The GMA 900 also features the same pitfalls of other IGPs, namely a shared memory architecture and lack of hardware support for advanced features such as Vertex Shader 2. Whereas you may be able to eek out playable framerates from less intensive modern games such as UT2004 or even Half-Life 2 on lowest quality settings, don't expect to play DooM3 or Battlefield 2 on these.
Intel Graphics Media Accellerator 950: The GMA 950 is new for the Napa platform, complimenting the new Core Solo and Core Duo mobile processors. The difference between the GMA 950 and the GMA 900 is trivial, featuring only a slightly faster memory bus as an effect of the increased FSB of Napa. Expect a performance increase only because of this and the faster, dual-core processors accompanying it.
VIA/S3G:
S3G Unichrome Pro/Pro II: The Unichrome is a rare graphics chipset used (thankfully) only in select budget computers by Acer and AVERATEC. The Unicrome is nearly identical to the Intel Extreme chipsets, complete with no DirectX 9 support or hardware support for modern graphics features such as Vertex Shader or T&L.
SiS:
Mirage/Mirage 2: The Mirage chipsets are again rarely used GPUs seen only in budget notebooks. The differences between the Mirage, the Unichrome, and the Intel Extreme are so miniscule it's hardly worth discussing.
ATi:
Mobility RADEON 9000/9100 IGP: The 9000 and 9100 IGPs are the bottom end of ATi's modern graphics cards. Not capable of DirectX9/Pixel Shader 2 features, the 9000/9100 are still capable of outperforming most other integrated graphics chips with ease. These are increasingly rare on modern laptops, however.
Mobility RADEON x200M IGP: The x200M is ATi's newest integrated graphics processor. The x200M uses a 32MB dedicated/96MB shared PCI-E memory architecture and true PS2.0 support to provide the illusion of modern, dedicated video performance. This illusion is easily shattered, however, by throwing a few 3DMark tests at the x200M. Ultimately the x200M just isn't capable of handling demanding 3D games like DooM3 or FarCry. It's a fair card for simple 3D gaming, however, especially if you don't mind cranking down the resolution a notch or two.
nVidia:
GeForce 6200/6400 IGP: nVidia's rarely-seen answer to the x200M is a superioir card in almost all repsects. Using the same 32/96 PCI-E memory architecture, the 6200 has improved hardware support for a full range of DirectX9 features, providing better performance in modern games. The 6200 is still stopped in its tracks by advanced 3D renedering, but it puts up a decent fight.
Dedicated GPUs
There are only two companies currently manufacturing dedicated graphics chipsets: ATi and nVidia. Both companies have their winners (Go6800, x600) and the losers (*cough*entire GFFX line*cough*). These card tend to feature more hardware support for advanced DirectX 9 and OpenGL 1.5 features. Most importantly, dedicated graphics cards get that name from the fact that they use exclusively dedicated Video RAM (VRAM), ensuring smooth and snappy performance. The primary downside is that dedicated video cards use much more power than integrated chipsets, resulting in shorter battery life more heat.
Note: There are a great many available cards, so I'm doing some heavy grouping here for now, because of time constraints, and, hey, my hands hurt from all of this typing. I promise I'll come back and expand this list.
nVidia:
GeForceGO FX Series: Hey, I said I was doing heavy grouping. Besides, just about all FX series cards are the same: loud, inefficient, and power-guzzling, but capable of full Pixel Shader 2 support and hardware-accelerated Vertex Shader and T&L. The major complaint against the FX series is that they produce a lot of heat and cause the fans to run continuously to dissapate that heat, earning them a label as "loud" video cards as well. They also don't offer the room for overclocking that most ATi cards do (due to the heat issues), so what you see is closer to what you get.
GeForce Go6600: nVidia's first major PCI-Express dedicated video card, the 6600 is an impressive card, with true PS2.0 and DirectX 9 support, high memory clock speeds, and a powerful core. The 6600 is capable of tearing through most modern games with ease, but consumes a fair amount of power to do so.
GeForce Go6800/Go6800 Ultra: The Go6800 is the *caluclates* fifth or sixth most powerful currently available notebook graphics card; the Go6800 Ultra is the...um, fourth or so. The primary difference between the two is core clock speed; in fact, the 6800 (with proper added cooling) can be easily overclocked to Ultra levels. These cards provide premium performance in modern 3D games - paired with even a moderately powerful processor and a decent amount of RAM, the Go6800 can handle even the most demanding games such as DooM3, HL2, and Battlefield 2 on maximum settings. The primary drawback of the GF Go6800 is the huge power requirement, resulting in very poor battery life.
GeForce Go7800/Go7800GTX: So wandering where the honor of the two most powerful notebook GPUs right now went to? Here you go! The 7800, used in the Inspiron 9400/e1705, is a beast in it's own right, rivalling and often trumping the Go6800 Ultra. But even it pales next to the Go7800GTX. Available only on a few buotique rigs such as the XPS M170 and Sager 5720 (although the adventurous can fit one in their Inspiron 9300), the 7800GTX is the most powerful notebook card around. Both of these cards feature 256MB of GDDR3 VRAM, a 256-bit memory bus, and 24 pixel pipelines, crushing anything ATi has on the market (so far). The Go7800GTX has even higher clock speeds than the Go6800 Ultra to boot.
ATi:
Mobility RADEON 9200: The most simplistic of ATi's MR series, the 9200 nonetheless features limited DX9 support and a powerful graphics core, combined with low power requirements and low heat output. The MR9200 is used primarily in Apple's iBook and some older notebook computers.
Mobility RADEON 9550/9600/9700/9800: The most common of ATi's GPUs, and indeed some of the most popular notebook graphics cards, are those based on the ATi M10-M12 chipsets. These cards offer a good blend of performance and battery life. Even the modest MR9600 can handle modern 3D games with adequate performance; the MR9700 and 9800 provide excellent perfmorance on standard WXGA resolutions in all but the most demanding games. These chips are found in a wide range of notebooks, from the inexpensive eMachines m6000 and Gateway 7400GX series to the Apple Powerbook to the earlier Acer Ferrari and Dell XPS models. These card are gradually being phased out in favor of the newer PCI-E powered xX00 series cards.
Mobility RADEON x300/x600/x700/x800: These are the newer, PCI-E based cores seen in most newer, higher-end machines, such as the Dell Inspiron 6000, ASUS W3V, and Acer Ferrari 4000. These GPUs are generally slightly less powerful than their 9x00 equivalents and rely on the PCI-Express interface to make up the difference. In practice, this theory doesn't work out so well, but the xX00 series cards are quickly replacing the older M10-M12 cores in high-end machines.
Mobility RADEON x1300/x1400SE/x1400/x1600: These chips are ATi's attempt to maintain a stranglehold on the mid-range notebook GPU market. And they're a darn fine one. The x1300 is nearly comparable to an older x600, and the x1600, available with up to 512MB of GDDR3 VRAM, can hold it's own against nVidia's previous stranglehold on the high-end GPU market, the GeForce Go6800, with a smaller power requirement and heat output to boot. These are chips to look for, and can be seen accompanying Intel's new Core Duo processors in a few notebooks, including the awe-inspiring new MacBook Pro.
Mobility RADEON x1800/x1900: While not yet on the market (the x1900 isn't even to the desktop yet), ATi plans for these beasties to bring down nVidia's dominance on the high-end notebook GPU market once and for all. Featuring 512MB of GDDR3 VRAM and theoretically 48 pixel pipelines on the x1900 side, these cards can trump even "moderate" SLI setups.
That's all for now, but I'll be coming back to expand the listing from time to time. I hope this helps in making your GPU decision.
9) Future-proofing your PC, part I: Roping the rare Washington Longhorn
One topic that seems to be batted around more and more in these forums is the upcoming Windows Longhorn, Microsoft's next major Windows release. If you're worried about whether your computer can handle the upgrade, I frankly can't be sure. I don't work for Microsoft, so I don't have the exact requirements. But here's a list of "safe assumptions" for what type of system will be able to handle Longhorn without having a cow (pun intended):
64-bit Processor, ~800MHz or above
512MB RAM
Fully DriectX 9-compliant, Pixel Shader 2.0-capable video card
A CD-ROM drive (for installation of the OS, duh)
Hard drive with 10+ GB free space and capable of using NTFS file system
Windows 2000/XP (for upgrade version)
This list is compiled from a combination of official information, rumors, and a couple of "educated guesses." The first thing you might notice is the requirement of a 64-bit processor. That's right folks, Longhorn is to be a fully 64-bit operating system. Here's a brief listing of 64-bit processor chips available right now (as supported by Windows XP Professional x64):
AMD:
Athlon 64 (FX)
Mobile Athlon 64
Turion 64
Opteron 64
Athlon 64 X2
Intel:
Xeon
Pentium-D
Pentium 4 6xx series
Pentium 4 Extreme Edition
You may notice a few rather important omissions. Our beloved Pentium-M is not on that list; neihter are the Sempron and most older Pentium 4s. A quick way to check whether or not you have 64-bit capability is CPU-Z. If it doesn't list "X86-64" as an available instruction set on your processor, you're most likely out of luck.
At this time, it's still possible there will be a 32-bit version of Longhorn; however, it won't have the same under-the-hood performance tuning as the 64-bit version, and would basically make the upgrade pointless.
The next somewhat startling revelation is the requirement of a DirectX 9/PS2.0-capable card. This is straight from the horses mouth: Microsoft says that Longhorn's advanced GUIs will require this capability.
As for the amounts of RAM and hard drive space needs, these just seem like logical progressions; most computers have 512MB of RAM or more anyways, which is generally fine for good performance in everday tasks. TPrevious versions of Windows, namely XP, use up over 5GB during installation, so 10 seems like a good goal to shoot for.
Finally, whereas XP can be run an a FAT32 partition, I find this an unlikely possibility for Longhorn, especially with larger and larger hard drives becoming commonplace.
So what can you do if you don't meet one or more of these requirements? To be honest, not much. Most of the components that will cause real problems to most people (CPU and graphics chipset) are not readily upgradable in notebooks. You can't upgrade a non-64-bit processor to a 64-bit in any situation, as to do so requires a different motherboard layout entirely. As for the graphics card, most newer computers are probably ready to go on that front; regrettably, those that aren't can't do much about it. And let's be frank, if you have a Celeron-M and an Intel Extreme 2, unless we're talking about an ultraportable, it's time to upgrade anyways.
So what do you do if your computer can't take tackle this bull? I wouldn't be too worried, frankly; new programs will continue to be available for Windows XP for years to come. New programs have just recently dropped support for Windows 98/ME; and XP shares a lot more in common with Longhorn under the hood than it did with Windows 9x/ME.
Stay tuned for "Future-proofing your PC, part II: Something You Don't Ordinarily Do With a Potato."
10) Future-proofing your PC, part II: Something You Don't Ordinarily Do With a Potato
I told you that would the title of part two, now didn't I? What's something that you don't ordinarily do with a potato? Why, play games, of course! This section is dedicated to the relentless pursuit of a PC that will not only last forever, but will play the latest and greatest games for that long, as well. What do you need for that? As Tim Taylor would say, MORE POWER!
I know that it might seem an impossibility to get a laptop that will be a top-of-the-line gaming rig today, much less four years from now, but it is possible...if your pockets are deep enough. But honestly, if you're that concerned about future-proofing a laptop, money shouldn't be a primary concern to you. So on with the information!
Let's start with some things to look for:
1. A 64-bit processor - Come on, let's face it: 64-bit is the way of the future. As much as you may hate to admit it (I'm talking to you, Intel fanboys), your top-of-the line Pentium-M is going to be as useless as a 1999 Celeron 768MHz in a couple of years. The next version of Windows may not even have 32-bit capability at all, and even today, games are being designed to take advantage of 64-bit technology. It simply provides better performance.
2. A dedicated, slotted, PCI-E graphics card. It should go without saying that getting an Intel Extreme 2 GPU is no way to future-proof your PC; that's not even present-proofing it. And any gamer knows that PCI Express is the way of the future. But you also want to make sure you're getting a slotted GPU that can be replaced as it gets some age on it. Now, I know you aren't going to find any laptops with SLI capability, but you can get some pretty nice, upgradable GPUs. Models of interest? The Dell Inspiron XPS2, of course, as well as the Alienware Area 51-m 770 and the Sager NP9880. These all have top-of-the line graphics cards that can be easily removed and upgraded as their OEMs release updates to the model lines. Sure, it isn't unlimited upgradeability, but neither was that 4x AGP, Socket-A motherboard you got five years ago that you never thought would be outmoded.
3. An ExpressCard54 slot. The next best thing to being able to actually lift out your GPU and put in a new one promises to be ExpressCard54. Already ATi is looking into manufacturing GPUs that can be inserted into this port to give you near-PCI-E bus speeds. Even if you don't need to use it to replace your GPU, all manner of up-and-coming (or even already existant) ports and periferals will be unleashed for this format in the years to come. USB3.0, Firewire800, Wireless-N, Gigabit ethernet...you name it, CardBus can't handle it, but the 50-times-faster ExpressCard54 can, and then some.
4. At least 4-6 USB 2.0 ports. If you're a true gamer, you no doubt have dozens of assorted gaming periferals laying around. Mice, joysticks, gamepads, steering wheels and pedal sets...you've got them all squirreled away somewhere. And you know what they all connect with? USB. You'll need lots of these versatile ports to keep your game going.
5. Internal Bluetooth 2.0. Maybe for right now your generic two-button optical scroll mouse is cutting it for gaming, but if you're a true gamer, you'll soon want more. And since those USB2.0 ports are dropping like flies to gamepads, joysticks, and all manner of other gaming gadetry, cord real estate is at a premium. An internal bluetooth module will allow you to buy the latest and greatest gaming mahince of a rat without wasting any precious USB ports. And someday, all of those preiferals will say good-bye to their cords in favor of Bluetooth. You don't want to be left out when that happens, do you?
6. A swappable optical drive. So you buy all of your games on DVD, because it's the latest and greatest format. But we all know how long it'll stay that way...right until you convert your entire collection. Then you'll want to move up to the newest thing. But you'll need an optical drive to go with you, so you'll need to be able to ditch your old one and replace it. Just keep that in mind.
7. DDR2 RAM compatability, and a FSB to support it. One aspect of gaming performance sometimes overlooked in the battle for the best GPU and most fearsme processor is the simplest one - RAM. And if you want the future open to you, you need DDR2 compatability (ideally, you want GDDR3, but I don't know of any chipset currently supporting it). With support for speed-boosting features such as Dual-Channel, and bus speeds up to 800MHz, you're gauranteed the best performance. But don't forget that if your CPU only has a FSB of 533MHz (*cough*Pentium-M*cough*), you can't take full advantage of this technology.
8. A large 7200RPM hard drive. The final little bits of speed can be squeezed out of your system by improving hard drive speed, cutting down on load times and thus improving the overall gaming experience (although not really affecting your frame rates). Why do I stress "large"? Well, certainly you can see the trend towards massive installation footprints; most notable is Unreal Tournament 2004, weighing in at nearly 6GB, all told. If you skimp out and get only 60 or even 40GB of hard drive space, you'll quickly regret it.
So, now that you've got a list features you want, you're probably cradling your wallet waiting for the link to the Perfect Computer(R) that offers all of these bells and whistles along with the (currently) most powerful everything inside. I hate to break it to you, but that prize just doesn't exist. The real snag is the ExpressCard54 slot; too few computers come with them. The only gaming rig that does have such a slot, along with all of those other nifty features, to my knowledge, is the gargantuan HP zd8000 (or it's Compaq brother, the x6000). The downside? These computers have uninspired ATi Mobility RADEON x700 GPUs, and no upgrade is currently available. They're probably, in all honesty, the most future-proof, but they're less present-proof than a Dell Inpsiron XPS2 (which, it should be noted, also only has a 32-bit processor) or a Sager NP9880. It's a bit of a tradeoff, regrettably.
But don't fear: ExpressCard54, Bluetooth, DDR2, 64-bit - they're all catching on, so it won't be long until all of the top gaming models have them. But don't let a fear of the future obsoleting your machine stop you from buying if you need a PC now; the top models today will be powerful enough to handle just about anything thrown at them for at least a couple of years to come.
One final note: Don't think any of this will be cheap; nor that following this advice will gaurantee you years of gaming bliss. Future-proofing is an exhorbitantly expensive and tricky affair. I can't tell what the future holds any more than you can. The next major advance in GPU technology, for instance, could be years away. Then again, Intel and nVidia could anounce 32x AGP Express w/4-card SLI tomorrow. You just never know. But you can be pretty sure that a top-of-the-line rig today will last you a good couple of years, hands down.
11) Notebook, tablet, or *shudder* desktop?
When people start asking around on the forums about what computer they should buy, it's interesting to note the number of people that may not be best served by a notebook at all. Some would be better off with a more mobile solution, a la a tablet, and some don't have any real use for anything more than a desktop. So here's a brief rundown of your options.
Desktops:
Ah, desktops. The persistantly most common conception of a computer. Every household has one (or two or three or four), right? Well, there aren't any being used in my house any more, and that's becoming more and more commonplace. There are really only two reasons to go with a desktop anymore: a very tight budget or an unquenchable thirst to have the most powerful everything. The complete lack of mobility, the jungle-like tangle of cords and wires, the power-guzzling componenets - desktops just aren't as efficient as notebooks, given the space and power they take up. If you have no desire to ever go anywhere with your PC, and I mean never travel with it (aside from moving to a new residence, obviously), you may be able to get buy with a desktop. They're generally cheaper than notebooks for the power they offer, and they're far more upgradable. Furthermore, there are some important, powerful technologies that just don't fit in a notebook (yet), such as SLI dual graphics cards and dual-core processors. On the other end of the spectrum, grandma Ethel probably won't need to move her computerized recepie book much, so portability isn't usually an issue on the bottom-end of PC usage, either. But unless you're grandma Ethel or Timmy the Power Gamer, you probably want a notebook these days.
Notebooks:
Notebooks serve all manner of purposes from simple word processing and web browsing to high-end 3D gaming. They're far more versatile than desktops for several reasons. First off is the convenience. Ever looked at an Imac and marvelled at how everything's right in one place, no seperate tower and monitor and speakers, and wished a PC like that existed? It does: it's called a notebook. Not only the speakers, monitor, and CPU, but the keyboard, UPS battery, and, to a lesser extent, the mouse, are all together on any notebook PC. No cords, no mess, no need for expensive peripherals. And then there's the portability. Feel like getting some fresh air, but have to write up a report? Just caught word of a big LAN party? Want to watch a DVD on the airplane trip? Just pick up and go. Laptops aren't just a specialty item for businessmen anymore; sure, the Thinkpad and it's clones still exist for the security and durability a business needs, but laptops are also available in more practical configurations: there are models as inexpensive as $400, powered by Sempron or Celeron-M processors and integrated GPUs, with meager amounts of RAM and tiny hard drives; however, there are also god-like gaming rigs, running as high as $3500, with powerful Pentium-M 770 or Athlon 64 processors, dedicated, interchangable GPUs, huge, fast hard drives, and gobs of RAM. Notebooks range from the 3 pound ultraportables to the 10 pound desktop replacement. Just about anything a desktop can do, a laptop can too. There are exceptions, however: Notebooks just don't have the mind-boggling array of performance upgrades desktops do (no SLI for you!), and they generally can't recieve much in the way of major upgrades. You also aren't gong to be picking up a new laptop with 512MB of RAM, an 80GB hard drive, and a Sempron 3000+ for $300; they just plain cost more than desktops. It's the classic tradeoff of convenience versus cost. But trust me, once you get a good notebook, you'll never be able to buy a desktop again.
I should note that "laptop" is merely a slang term for a notebook computer. Whichever one you hear, it means the same thing. The manufacturers prefer the term notebook, however, because 1) many notebooks are either too small or too large to be placed in your lap comfortably, and 2) some notebooks generate large amounts of heat, and prolonged use in you lap could be...unhealthy.
There is one final, somewhat niche-market option left, however: the tablet PC.
Tablets:
Tablets, in their purest form, are the most portable of portable computers. They come in two major varieties: Traditional, or "slate" tablets, and convertable notebooks, in which the screen flips over and lays flat, covering the keyboard. All tablets share one thing in common: the electromagnetic pen-and-touchscreen interface. Tablets can be used without keyboards and mice through the use of an electromagnetic pen that acts like a mouse pointer, providing the ultimate in mobility. Tablets can also recoognize your handwriting and convert into text, using a program like Microsoft's OneNote (stnadard on most tablets). Tablets also have their own version of Windows: Windows XP Tablet PC Edition (Version 2005 is the most current). WinXP Tablet PC is based on Windows XP professional, giving you the power you need as a student or business professional. Wait, you're not a student or business professional? Then, to be honest, you probably don't need a tablet. Tablets offer advantages primarily needsed by those who have to do extensive notetaking, travelling between meetings or classes, presenting, etc; if you just need a machine to work on at home or sitting in an office, or to take to class for simple note taking, a notebook would be a more economical (and more powerful) choice.
Of the two varieties of tablet, originally slates were far more common due to the niche-market use of these products. Slates have the advantage of being lighter, cooler-running, and having longer battery life. The downside is that slate tablets tend to be geared towards these things first and foremost, and therefore pwerformance and port variety suffer substantially, and many features stnadard on most notebooks and converatbles, such as built-in optical drives, bluetooth cards, and flash memory readers, aren't available on slate tablets.
These days, however, convertables are catching up. Convertable tablets/notebooks offer the added convenience of a touchpad and keyboard to use while at your desk, and generally have a better variety of ports and usually come with integrated optical drives and flash memory readers. Convertables can also use dedicated graphcis cards and full-power processors (as opposed to the ULV processor typically used in slates) due to the added room for cooling. The downside to all this is added weight and reduced battery life, reducing the effectiveness of these PCs as all-day workhorses.
So when do you need a tablet rather than a regular notebook? Primarily if you do a lot of travelling between meetings or classes, and need a PC that can be quickly scooped up and carried away, or if you need the ability to stand and use your PC (for instance, demonstrating software to a client). Most average users can get by with a standard notebook, and save a nice chunk of change.
A good source of information on tablets is Tablet PC Review Spot, a sister site to NotebookReview.com.
I hope that this helps you identify your needs a little more specifically. But remember, if you still can't decide which type of PC fits your needs best, just ask; we'll be happy to help you sort it all out.
12) Dual 64-bit Hyper Multi Threaded Core x2-D Extreme Edition?! WHAT?!
One topic of confusion is 64-bit and Dual core processing. What do you need, and what are the advantages (and disadvantages) of each? Here's a rundown of the definitions:
64-bit:
Compatable processors:
AMD Mobile Athlon 64
AMD Athlon 64
AMD Athlon 64 FX
AMD Athlon 64 x2
AMD Turion 64
AMD Sempron Winchester Core (Socket 939)
AMD Opteron 64 (Workstation)
IBM PowerPC G5 (Apple)
IBM PowerPC G5 Dual Core (Apple)
Intel Pentium 4 6xx
Intel Pentium 4 Extreme Edition
Intel Pentium-D
Intel Pentium-M Yonah Core (not yet available)
Intel Xeon (Workstation)
What a list! As you can see, 64-bit technology is all around you (at least on fairly modern computers). The thing to note, however, is that these are mostly desktop processors; few truly mobile processors have 64-bit capability, although the upcoming Yonah Core Pentium-M gives us a glimmer of hope in this department. Another note is that most of these 64-bit chips are from AMD; there's a reason for that: they pioneered the technology, and still are the primary source of 64-bit chips, especially in custom-built machines. Now, what is it good for? Technically speaking, 64-bit chips are more efficient than their 32-bit bretheren, capable of handling more complex calculations with fewer CPU cycles. These CPUs allow for future-proofing your PC without breaking the bank; the next version of Longhorn, for instance, is built for 64-bit processors, and some games are already beginning to take advantage of this technology (through Windows XP Professional x64 Edition). IS 64-bit a necessity, however? That's hard to say. I'd venture to say yes, in most cases, it is these days. However, if you need ultimate portability, you need a Pentium-M, so it may not be an option for you. Is it worth waiting for if you need an ultraportable? Perhaps, but if you need a computer now, don't be scared away; the Pentium-M is a capable processor, 32-bit design notwithstanding.
Dual-Core:
Compatable Processors:
AMD Athlon 64 X2
AMD Opteron 64 (Workstation)
IBM PowerPC G5 Dual Core (Apple)
Intel Pentium-D
Intel Pentium-M Yonah Core (Not yet available)
Dual core processors, as yu can see, are advancements on 64-bit technology. Dual core doesn't mean you're getting two processors; it means that one processor is splitting the load over two different cores, reducing stress on each and freeing up resources for other programs. The purpose of dual core processing is to allow for more efficient multitasking power. The top-of-the-line Athlon 64 x2 4800+ may be outshone by the single core Athlon 64 FX-57 in Doom 3 benchmarks, but open up a few word documents and Firefox windows in the background, and wacth the x2 fly right past the FX. IS dual-core the way of the future? You can bet on it; AMD has even announced intentions for a 4-core processor, and Intel is building a triple core processor for the Xbox 360 (because I suppose they're expecting a lot of people to be multitasking on their Xboxes...) Anyway you slice it, yes dual core is here to stay, but is it worth waiting on? Due to the scarcity of dual core notebooks (approximately 0 exist at the time of writing), expect to wait quite some time if you really want one. If you need a notebook now, however, I again stress that today's processors are still very competant.
So what's this "Hyperthreading" thing, then?
Well, Hyperthreading is Intel's (largely failed) attempt at emulating dual-core processor efficiency on a single core chip. In the end, Hyperthreading had negligible performance impacts, with AMD and IBM processors still showing up Intel's chips for efficiency with ease. However, all modern Pentium 4s have the technology, and it doesn't cost you that much extra, so there's little reason to complain. Just be aware that this IS NOT a substitute for either 64-bit or dual core technology, and just because a CPU has Hyperthreading does NOT necessarily mean it's up to snuff for tomorrow's (or even today's) top-end programs.
13) Vista > You
Well, I guess it's just about time I updated this thing. We have a lot more information about Vista now than we did when I last wrote on the topic (albiet how much of it is correct is debatable), so that seems like a good place to start. You may remember when I last gave system requirements for Vista, which were pure speculation. Well, what better way to start off this topic with some more purely speculatory (but more informed) system requirements.
Processor:
1.8GHz Pentium 4/AMD Athlon XP 1800+ or equivalent
1.0GHz Pentium-M/Celeron-M or equivalent
64-bit Processor reccommended for full benefit
Memory:
512MB Minimum
1024MB (1 GB) reccomended
Video Card:
Fully DirectX 9.0 compliant card w/support for Shader Model 2.0 or above
64MB or higher dedicated video memory reccomended; shared memory increases system RAM requirement.
Hard Drive:
8-10GB free hard drive space
NTFS-capable hard drive (Microsoft reccomends at least 30GB total hard drive space for NTFS formatting)
Internet:
Available braodband internet access during installation reccomended
Now that that's done, breathe. That's not that steep. There are those that doom and gloom about 4GHz minimum processor requirements and no support for Pentium-Ms and so on. Let's be realistic for a second. Not even Microsoft will release an operating system that works on about 1% of machines out there. That's just bad business. I'm going to venture a guess that as long as your system is fairly new, it will run some flavor of Vista.
Speaking of flavors of Vista - there shall be 7 of them (or possibly 14).
I won't go into great depth with each of them, but here's a rundown:
Windows Vista Starter Edition - Crippled version, similar to XP SE
Windows Vista Home Basic Edition - Similar to XP Home
Windows Vista Home Premium Edition - Home Basic with more fluff - similar to XP MCE
Windows Vista Professional Edition - A purely business-oriented version with little fluff.
Windows Vista Small Business Edition - There's a SBE of Office XP. It's like Pro but with Publisher. Extrapolate.
Windows Vista Enterprise Edition - Pro with some more added features. I'm assuming features that are helpful to big businesses.
Windows Vista Ultimate Edition - Think "Special Limited Release Platinum Collectors Edition" of any given game and you've got a good idea of how pointless and overpriced this will be.
A notable absence is a Tablet PC Edition. Is this to say that Tablet support will be native to the basic versions? Or is this just an egregious oversight?
Also, there's no mention yet of seperate 64- and 32-bit versions. I'm hoping this doesn't mean they've scrapped the planned support for full 64-bit environment, seeing as that was the big selling point for Vista. But with all of the other lost features, I'd be watching this very closely.
Well, that's about it. Not the greatest wealth of info, but it's a start. I'll keep adding here as I learn more. You have to realize I don't work for microsft or BargainSpot or anyone else who may have insider information (I'm not saying BargainSpot has insider info, so don't go e-mailing Adrew and Brian begging for info on unnanounced products or anything), so nothing here may be news to you if you've been reading Slashdot. But as long as somebody learns from it, I've done my job. 8) |
|
|
|
