Well, if you aren't fixed on these two models, I can help you refine the search if you provide me with some more information.
Firstly, if she's not going to use it for performance-demanding applications, you can go pretty much all the way down with system specs. All laptops made in the last 2-3 years handle most games that don't explicitly demand high graphics performance.
You can instead concentrate on stuff like general ergonomics, battery life, and price. For instance, let's determine the physical dimensions.
If she's going to transport it on her shoulder (rather than using a car or at least a backpack), you should be looking at a weight of below 2 kg (meaning a screen size of no more than 14"). Anything more is going to make it uncomfortable to walk long distances with.
If she's going to type a lot of text, which I suppose she is, she needs to have a fullsize keyboard (meaning a screen size of at least 12").
Is she going to use it to watch movies?
Is she comfortable with Windows?
Warp wrote:
Edit: I think I understand now: It's my avatar, isn't it? It makes me look angry.
Maybe movie, and she prefer using Windows, she have been using linux for the past 2 weeks and doesn't like it.
It mostly for in the house, she won't transport it often. So the weight does not matter in that case.
She needs a full size keyboard.
I'm not stuck on those two models, but I'm stuck with TigerDirect, unless there's a really better deal (I have some kind of rebate with my company)
Weight can also matter if she, say, likes to use the laptop from her lap while lying on a couch as much as I do. :P
But if that is really not an issue, I would concentrate on getting a decent screen size for low price.
These models seem to fit:
MSI A6005-201US ($650)
HP Compaq Presario CQ61-320CA ($500)
The MSI one has some nice powerful hardware to boot.
Warp wrote:
Edit: I think I understand now: It's my avatar, isn't it? It makes me look angry.
Win7 is practically Vista SP3, and it's still basically XP with higher hardware requirements, a polished UI, more eye candy and more restrictions. And XP's excellent sound recording feature, "Stereo Mix", is still absent.
I'm currently using an Acer, and I'm fairly satisfied with it. And between the two options you linked in the initial post, it appears to have the better graphics card, as well as being less expensive.
How fleeting are all human passions compared with the massive continuity of ducks.
Joined: 11/11/2006
Posts: 1235
Location: United Kingdom
Johannes wrote:
Win7 is practically Vista SP3, and it's still basically XP with higher hardware requirements, a polished UI, more eye candy and more restrictions. And XP's excellent sound recording feature, "Stereo Mix", is still absent.
XP (2001):
300MHz Processor
128MB RAM
1.5GB HDD space
800x600 Capable Graphics Card
7 (2009):
1GHz Processor
1GB RAM
16GB HDD Space (though can be installed in just 4GB)
So all in all, 8 years later and suprisingly the requirements have gone up. Shocker. Also, I challenge you to find a new computer in a major store that's less than those specs these days. Hell, my netbook runs it better than XP! Also, what are these "restrictions"?
And as for Stereo Mix; sorry, but you're flat out wrong. It's still in for both Vista and 7:
<adelikat> I am annoyed at my irc statements ending up in forums & sigs
16GB HDD Space (though can be installed in just 4GB)
That's absurd! Win7 does not offer anything new except UI polishments and eye candy.
Raiscan wrote:
I challenge you to find a new computer in a major store that's less than those specs these days.
These specs you listed are absolute minimum, and performance will be horrible.
Raiscan wrote:
what are these "restrictions"?
Digital Restrictions Management (DRM) are technology measures that restrict what people can do with their computers. DRM is built into the heart of Windows 7, and many Microsoft services push DRM on users. In some cases, Microsoft has added these restrictions at the behest of TV companies, Hollywood and the music industry. In other cases, Microsoft DRM goes way beyond these companies' demands, suggesting that Microsoft is using DRM simply to create lock-in. Whether Microsoft is merely a co-conspirator with big media companies or an advocate for DRM in their own right, the result for software users is the same...
Using Windows 7, you give control of your computer to the media.
The monomaniacal fear of big media companies is that people will share digital media with their friends, building a free public library of cultural works. Public libraries are wonderful institutions, and in a digital age they become almost miraculous: we can now provide universal access to human knowledge and culture—or at least anything that's been published—at little or no cost. The amazing thing is that it's almost automatic: once people can share freely with their friends over a global network, you get a digital public library. P2P networks are one example of a digital library, and the web is another. The value of these libraries to the public is historic and immeasurable. But media companies serve shareholders, not the public, and are therefore very ready to destroy in its infancy any public resource that might interfere with their profits. The personal computer is built from the ground up to make sharing information fast and easy, so for media companies to restrict sharing they need the full cooperation of software makers at the deepest level. Enter Microsoft.
In order to completely prevent sharing, media companies needed Microsoft to do two things:
*
First, they had to make sure that any outgoing digital signal is just as locked down as the DRM'ed music or movie file. Otherwise you could simply play a video on your computer out to another device (like your digital camera) and press record. So Windows, when playing a file with DRM, needs to constantly check to make sure any connected device is cooperating with the DRM scheme. This anti-feature is called Protected Media Path. Microsoft introduced it with Vista, and it continues in Windows 7.
*
Second, media companies needed Microsoft to keep other programs from observing the playback process and intercepting the audio and video in unencrypted form. After all, it is still your computer, and (as much as media companies hate this) you can install and run whatever applications you want. Vista and Windows 7 close this "loophole" by monitoring all the applications currently running whenever a media file with DRM is playing. If Vista or Windows 7 detects an unapproved application running in the background, your song or video will simply stop playing. In practice, the encryption on most popular DRM schemes (including DVD and Blu ray) has been cracked, and DRM-free copies of almost any piece of film or music are available on the internet. But users of Windows 7 and Vista still have code running on their computer—at all times—that is trying to limit their basic right to share media with each other and their power to build libraries.
These restrictions have gone beyond what many would expect. For example, at the request of NBC, Microsoft prevented Windows Media Center users from recording television shows that NBC would rather you didn't, even though this kind of recording is an included feature of Windows Media Center. They claimed that they were just following FCC regulations, though the Second Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the FCC has no authority to make such regulations.
Microsoft even adds DRM in contexts where media companies have largely given up on it. This year, after every major online music store went DRM-free, Microsoft launched a DRM-encumbered music store for mobile phones — this music service has one particularly charming limitation: many people switch cellphones every 6 months to a year, but there is no way to transfer songs from one phone to the next.
Windows 7 Media Player and Windows Media Center will block the usage of third party video codecs.
Win7 is not "the wave of the future". At its core (underneath the shiny desktop and the restrictions) Win7 is a 10 years old OS. Also, from x264 benchmarks, threading performance is inferior to XP!
(this is getting rather off-topic, maybe a mod can move these posts to the OS thread)
My 2 cents about XP vs Vista vs 7.
Vista got a bad rap, there are a lot of very good under the hood enhancements to the OS. But it was rushed and incomplete like... well... every other Microsoft OS since Windows 95.
People hated it because it wasn't like Windows XP, people hated it because third party stuff didn't always work. Mostly that's because of the closed source mentality of Windows, they made promises about software and they had to rely on other people to keep those promises for them quickly enough to keep from disappointing their customer base. Of course, Microsoft still hasn't learned their lesson about this, because people are still all too willing to keep their promises for them.
But stepping back and just talking about features and stability in the base operating system, Vista is better than XP. It is a bit of a hog. But whatever.
Windows 7 is yes, basically Vista SP3, with a new GUI and another gimmick (XP Mode, which is only available in Business and higher, and most consumer grade laptops won't even run it.)
People like Windows 7, paradoxically, because it's exactly like Windows Vista. It's the Windows Mojave experiment playing out in real life.
It's still a bit better than Vista. A bit. Not much.
Other choices,
Hackintosh, generally these are unstable and typically have very bad driver support.
Linux, any variety, not as polished in some places, but very functional. More functional than any version of Windows ever. Oh, and you actually get to decide what runs on your computer. Imagine that. (DRM = BLEH)
Build a man a fire, warm him for a day,
Set a man on fire, warm him for the rest of his life.
Using Windows 7 on Acer Aspire 5680WLMI right now.
It is not really meant to run on it probably, but it works great. (Actually says Windows Vista Capable). :)
There are some stuff in Win7 which you need to tweak, such as that fucking paranoid program execution thing. This was new to me since I did not run Vista at all.
Also I noticed that Win7 uses A LOT of RAM.
What also bugs me is that the installed size of the system is ridiculous. About 9.4GB installed. What the hell is that for? I did not even get a choice to remove stuff during the install. That really pissed me off.
Win7 is practically Vista SP3, and it's still basically XP with higher hardware requirements, a polished UI, more eye candy and more restrictions. And XP's excellent sound recording feature, "Stereo Mix", is still absent.
As I understand it, Stereo Mix is a feature of the sound card, not the operating system. I remember way back I had a sound card that had the "What U Hear" recording device, instead of Stereo Mix.
How fleeting are all human passions compared with the massive continuity of ducks.
People like Windows 7, paradoxically, because it's exactly like Windows Vista. It's the Windows Mojave experiment playing out in real life.
I don't think it's as simple as that. Windows 7 is the only Windows release in the last 10 or so years that is unanimously considered better than the previous one. And the people who like it are mostly those who already have switched to Vista prior. Those who are still on XP mostly remain skeptical.
upthorn wrote:
As I understand it, Stereo Mix is a feature of the sound card, not the operating system. I remember way back I had a sound card that had the "What U Hear" recording device, instead of Stereo Mix.
I believe it's even better: it's the feature of a driver of a sound card.
Warp wrote:
Edit: I think I understand now: It's my avatar, isn't it? It makes me look angry.
I believe it's even better: it's the feature of a driver of a sound card.
I loled.
Windows 7 might still be fine, but alternative OSes seem to get more interesting to me with every new Windows version released. It almost has a political touch to it, like Windows is right winged and Linux is left.
On topic, I wouldn't care about specs at all if I was her. I'd buy one that's cheep, looks nice to me, doesn't get too hot and has a long battery life. I made the mistake to only care for the prize when I bought mine. Specs are only important for playing games, encoding videos and other stuff that only nerds do. ;)
Joined: 11/11/2006
Posts: 1235
Location: United Kingdom
Have you tried Windows 7 Johannes? It sounds like you've taken one look at biased information on blogs and taken it in as your own.
Yes, Windows 7 has the capability to play media with DRM. No, it doesn't suddenly lock down all your files and ensure you can never play them again on another PC. If you're ripping from a CD using WMP, you can disable the production of DRM rips, and instead use traditional MP3s. If you aren't using WMP to rip a CD, then you won't have a problem anyway.
As for "nothing new except UI polishments and eye candy", I think you'll find a lot has been added. New network stack, new audio engine. DirectX 10 & 11. A whole plethora of built-in drivers. If you want to trim it down, the image file can be cut up further with vLite. With the price of hard drive space these days though, I wonder why you'd be annoyed about such a thing..
<adelikat> I am annoyed at my irc statements ending up in forums & sigs
Not to denigrate your argument, but I don't think it's fair to use the "price of hard drive space" while bearing in mind that portable devices, where disk space is a much larger issue, are gradually ousting desktops in popularity.
Warp wrote:
Edit: I think I understand now: It's my avatar, isn't it? It makes me look angry.
I'm using Win7 on an old Celeron-based laptop (an Acer, no less) that even XP would tax. 7 seems to be doing a better job of managing resources; mIRC hasn't needed to dump channel backlog to cache (which would always make the program frustratingly slow when XP did this after ~20 minutes of use), I can now play most youtube videos properly (no browser was fast enough to do this in XP, all would stutter while using 100% CPU time), even MPC runs along with significantly less CPU usage. I'm playing a movie file right now that in XP was using up 60-70% of my CPU time on its own. My total usage right now is just under 50%. So yes, Win7 does bring more to the table than a flashier UI. I'm even able to run snes9x at full speed, provided I set its priority to high. XP was not able to accomplish this. Yes, my laptop really is that horrible.
The only performance complaint I have is that start up time has grown exponentially since the initial installation, for no apparent reason. I haven't installed any new software since the day I installed the OS, but every reboot seems to take longer than the one before. If I'm still using this laptop by July, I figure I'll have enough time to make spaghetti during start up.
Complaints with the system itself are complaints I had with Vista that persist. Namely, the search feature in Explorer is completely useless, now. Also, no animated GIF support in photo viewer? Why the hell not? The boot up time fault is also a remnant from Vista, but seems more profound here. I also have a minor complaint with the control panel layout, but I've grown used to it.
