Laptops are much cheaper to use. 59 watt batter instead of 600 watt power supply. Doesn’t require half the fans and cooling technology. Doesn’t need a batter back up system. Has internal speakers so you don’t need power guzziling speaker systems. And they take up a lot less room then 5.1 surround sound speakers + battery back up + surge protector + keyboard + mouse + mouse pad + 17" monitor (CRT or LCD). Not to mention the average computer I’ve owned, needed roughly 7 or 8 outlets to run everything, a laptop needs 1 for the laptop and 1 for the wireless cable router, that’s it! And, like icing on the cake, a laptop can be unplugged and moved with ease.
Laptops are much cheaper to use. 59 watt batter instead of 600 watt power supply. Doesn’t require half the fans and cooling technology. Doesn’t need a batter back up system. Has internal speakers so you don’t need power guzziling speaker systems. And they take up a lot less room then 5.1 surround sound speakers + battery back up + surge protector + keyboard + mouse + mouse pad + 17" monitor (CRT or LCD). Not to mention the average computer I’ve owned, needed roughly 7 or 8 outlets to run everything, a laptop needs 1 for the laptop and 1 for the wireless cable router, that’s it! And, like icing on the cake, a laptop can be unplugged and moved with ease.
Well maybe a laptop would be good for you since you are always on the go. Me on the other hand, need a desktop PC for gaming and music/movies (mainly gaming). I need extra room to have extra HDD (I have a crap load of games I play and all of them take up like 4 GB of space each.) As for the speakers, I do agree with you on that. I dont give a a crap about how my games sound, as long as they have audio. My friends on the other hand would beg to differ, buying themselves soundblaster sound cards and buying huge sound systems. However, if I ever did want a sweet sound system, I know for a fact that I have a PCI slot ready for it. Thats also another reason why I love desktops, all the space I have to put extra stuff on it. Right now I have a TV tuner, modem (im on dial up weep), and my graphics card taking up my motherboard. If I wanted to I can add a wireless modem, a sound card, a 2nd tv tuner, or an even better Network card then my onboard one. Also I have room for two DVD drives so I can do easy DVD to DVD burning……and on top of that I have two HDD. You cant pack that much hardware into a little laptop. Also Quad SLI might be popular in the future, and a laptop might not be able to do it just yet (at least for cheap). It is a power guzzler but I love all the stuff I can do with it. :wink:
You can get an awesome gaming laptop though. Twice as much as what I’m spending on myself…then again, I am going from 512MB graphics, 2GB DDR1 ram, 2 USB 1.0 ports and 620 GB HDD (4 drives) to 240GB Hdd, 128MB Graphics, 1 GB DDR2, ram and 4 USB 2.0 ports…
Laptops & Desktops each have their places.
Laptops - More expensive, less powerful than desktop counterparts (expect 25% less performance than a comparative desktop model), easier to damage, shorter lifespan, limited upgrades & reconfiguration (if any). However, they are mobile and becoming more prominent. As far as I know, you can’t build one of these yourself.
Desktops - Cheaper, more powerful than laptop counterparts, highly configurable & allow for upgrades, longer lifespan, can be built from case up.
What it really comes down to is whether you need the mobility and how much money you have. Most people would be better off with a desktop.
Laptops & Desktops each have their places.
Laptops - More expensive, less powerful than desktop counterparts (expect 25% less performance than a comparative desktop model), easier to damage, shorter lifespan, limited upgrades & reconfiguration (if any). However, they are mobile and becoming more prominent. As far as I know, you can’t build one of these yourself.
Desktops - Cheaper, more powerful than laptop counterparts, highly configurable & allow for upgrades, longer lifespan, can be built from case up.
What it really comes down to is whether you need the mobility and how much money you have. Most people would be better off with a desktop.
Actually, you can configure them yourself with major name brands now. Sony, HP, Gateway, Dell and Toshiba all offer configurators for their laptops.
As far as upgradability, you can upgrade optical drives, hard drives and memory only, as far as I know. You can add on peripherials but that reduces the mobility of the unit. (Now you’re packing up a laptop, printer, extrenal number pad, external mouse, scanner, camera, PDA, etc….)
Laptops & Desktops each have their places.
Laptops - More expensive, less powerful than desktop counterparts (expect 25% less performance than a comparative desktop model), easier to damage, shorter lifespan, limited upgrades & reconfiguration (if any). However, they are mobile and becoming more prominent. As far as I know, you can’t build one of these yourself.
Desktops - Cheaper, more powerful than laptop counterparts, highly configurable & allow for upgrades, longer lifespan, can be built from case up.
What it really comes down to is whether you need the mobility and how much money you have. Most people would be better off with a desktop.
I guess thats the best way to sum up the differences of laptops and desktops. To me computers are meant to be at your house to be enjoyed with the huge wide screen monitor and the kick ass sound system. Laptops are pretty good for buisness people that are always traveling from city to city. Like I said, if you are a person on the go, then you need a laptop thats on the go too. As long as you dont get a MAC for a laptop then its cool.
Yea, well this will be my first ever non-work related laptop. Just wish I had the full 3500 for a REALLY good laptop!
The kicker with spending money on PC’s…
No matter how high end you go, you are still outdated in less than 2 years, obsolete in 3, and just about SOL in 4; unless you are able to do some major upgrades along the way, but even then it is a brief extension.
And to be honest, other than high end gaming or video editting, you really do nto need a super powerful system. For Office type applictions, you can actually go bargain basement.
For example. that Celeron system I just replaced… 4 1/2 years old. Was low-end when I bought it, but still was completely viable as an office machine. Had I not had 2 major viral induced crashes over the years, I probably would not have even replaced it now. Except for Games, and that it was slower than you can imagine emptying the digital cam…
And with laptops, you have to add one other factor in… theft.
So, rather than go for all the bells and whistles on a laptop, get a viable one, and replace it in 2 years with another viable unit. You’ll save a few thousand dollars, and not really be out any functionality, except at the highest end apps.
Exactly, Switch. But then again, I’m not doing high end gaming anymore. No more World of Warcraft, no more Everquest, no more FFXI, no more Dark Ages of Camelot or any other high end games. I play Ceasar, I play Axis and Allies and I do message forums…not like I need SLI 512MB cards with Quad-Core Processors, if you know what I mean.
I’m a little worried about the quick depreciation/obsolescence of computer components, especially as I’m thinking of building my own system (for the first time!) pretty soon. So, I’ve got two questions:
1. Anyone know when DirectX3D (aka DirectX 10) compatible graphics cards will be coming out? I’ve heard late this year, like October or November, but I was wondering if anyone knew of anything more specific. Also, any estimations on pricing?
2. I was all set to go with an AMD 939 processor, something like a AMD 64 3800+. But then Conroe hit the market, and I’m wondering if I should go for that instead. It’s dual core and seems to have a much better price to performance ratio. But, I’d be looking at the lower end of their processors, the 6400 or 6300. Anyone know of any reviews? I’ve checked CNET and Tom’s Hardware, but nothing so far.
Thanks!
Intel “Conroe” Duo Core processors did 17% better on the benchmark tests, use less power, run cooler and are thus easier to over-clock without damaging the hardware.
PC Magazine, PC World, Computer Shopper
Thanks, Jen. I’m still waiting for Tom’s Hardware to update their CPU chart, but my understanding was that Intel initially released only its two top Core 2 Duo processors for testing. I understand that the other 3-4 lower end processors were also being tested, but I wasn’t sure which if anyone had done it yet.
I probably should just be patient, though, since DirectX 10 cards haven’t even come out. :-D
@Chengora:
Thanks, Jen. I’m still waiting for Tom’s Hardware to update their CPU chart, but my understanding was that Intel initially released only its two top Core 2 Duo processors for testing. I understand that the other 3-4 lower end processors were also being tested, but I wasn’t sure which if anyone had done it yet.
I probably should just be patient, though, since DirectX 10 cards haven’t even come out. :-D
I’m going with the 1.83 Ghz Duo in my laptop. Should be good enough.
