Thinkpad CPU upgrade my 390 from 300Mhz to??

[mike in vegas]

Looking to upgrade my Thinkpad 390 from Pentium II 300 ( 66Mhz front-side
bus) to 333, 366 or??? CPU is a MMC-1 form factor. I can find the CPU's on
Ebay, but am not clear if the computer will recognize slightly faster cpus.
Intel made MMC-1 format cpu's up to 400mhz, but unclear if it was a 4x100 or
6x66 multiplier.

Any info is appreciated.

Mike

[JK]

mike in vegas wrote:
Looking to upgrade my Thinkpad 390 from Pentium II 300 ( 66Mhz front-side bus) to 333, 366 or???

Why bother? You wouldn't notice the difference. If you don't have plenty of
ram in the notebook, you might want to think about buying more ram.
Otherwise consider buying a new computer if you want better performance.
You can buy a notebook with a mobile Athlon XP processor at a very
reasonable price.

CPU is a MMC-1 form factor. I can find the CPU's on Ebay, but am not clear if the computer will recognize slightly faster cpus. Intel made MMC-1 format cpu's up to 400mhz, but unclear if it was a 4x100 or 6x66 multiplier. Any info is appreciated. Mike

[mike in vegas]

Understand you thoughts on simply buying a new notebook. For various reasons
I would prefer to upgrade the CPU rather than dump this 256mb 14.1" tft
notebook.

Mike
"JK" <JK9821@netcape.net> wrote in message
news:3F009155.C640F4C2@netcape.net... mike in vegas wrote: Looking to upgrade my Thinkpad 390 from Pentium II 300 ( 66Mhz
front-side bus) to 333, 366 or??? Why bother? You wouldn't notice the difference. If you don't have plenty
of ram in the notebook, you might want to think about buying more ram. Otherwise consider buying a new computer if you want better performance. You can buy a notebook with a mobile Athlon XP processor at a very reasonable price. CPU is a MMC-1 form factor. I can find the CPU's on Ebay, but am not clear if the computer will recognize slightly faster
cpus. Intel made MMC-1 format cpu's up to 400mhz, but unclear if it was a
4x100 or 6x66 multiplier. Any info is appreciated. Mike

[Stacey]

JK wrote:
mike in vegas wrote: Looking to upgrade my Thinkpad 390 from Pentium II 300 ( 66Mhz front-side bus) to 333, 366 or???
You can buy a notebook with a mobile Athlon XP processor at a very reasonable price.

Too bad none of the good laptop manufactures use them..

On the OP's question have you looked at IBM's site? there is TONS of info
there, just takes some digging. Might download the repair/parts manual and
see what swaps? I figured out I could swap the sound card from a 760EL to
an ED that way.

--

Stacey

[JK]

Stacey wrote:
JK wrote: mike in vegas wrote: Looking to upgrade my Thinkpad 390 from Pentium II 300 ( 66Mhz front-side bus) to 333, 366 or??? You can buy a notebook with a mobile Athlon XP processor at a very reasonable price. Too bad none of the good laptop manufactures use them..

Just about all the major notebook makers use them, except
Dell, Gateway, and perhaps IBM(they might use them for
markets outside the US)? Most of the better value
notebooks under $1300 use a mobile Athlon XP processor.
It is hard to find notebooks with a mobile Pentium 4 for
under $1300.

On the OP's question have you looked at IBM's site? there is TONS of info there, just takes some digging. Might download the repair/parts manual and see what swaps? I figured out I could swap the sound card from a 760EL to an ED that way. -- Stacey

[JK]

Stacey wrote:
JK wrote: Stacey wrote: JK wrote: > > > mike in vegas wrote: > >> Looking to upgrade my Thinkpad 390 from Pentium II 300 ( 66Mhz >> front-side bus) to 333, 366 or??? > > You can buy a notebook with a mobile Athlon XP processor at a very > reasonable price. > > Too bad none of the good laptop manufactures use them.. Just about all the major notebook makers use them, except Dell, Gateway, and perhaps IBM(they might use them for markets outside the US)? I don't think toshiba uses them either.. Which leave out IBM, toshiba, Dell and Gateway. Who's "major" left? Compaq? WTF wants a compaq!

HP/Compaq, Sony, Acer.
Like I said none of the GOOD laptops use them. Not that they aren't good chips, just that the 2nd tier manufacturers are the only people that use them. Once again you've turned a support question about an Intel product into a "Let me sell some chips for AMD" thread... -- Stacey

[The little lost angel]

On Thu, 03 Jul 2003 17:44:43 -0400, Stacey <fotocord@yahoo.com> wrote:Nope, Sony doesn't use them either or at least none of the laptops on theirsite have them.. So who's left Compaq and Acer?Like I said NONE of the good laptops use them. Compaq laptops are crap.

You forgot to add, Acer are crap too. :PpPP

--
L.Angel: I'm looking for web design work.
If you need basic to med complexity webpages at affordable rates, email me :)
Standard HTML, SHTML, MySQL + PHP or Javascript. No ASP, CF or Frontpage.

[Keith R. Williams]

In article <3f04b03a.741421988@news.pacific.net.sg>, a?n?g?e?
l@lovergirl.lrigrevol.moc.com says... On Thu, 03 Jul 2003 17:44:43 -0400, Stacey <fotocord@yahoo.com> wrote:Nope, Sony doesn't use them either or at least none of the laptops on theirsite have them.. So who's left Compaq and Acer?Like I said NONE of the good laptops use them. Compaq laptops are crap. You forgot to add, Acer are crap too. :PpPP

There are only two laptops: Toshiba and IBM. The rest are crap.
....and I favor the latter.

--
Keith

[Rob Stow]

Keith R. Williams wrote:
In article <3f04b03a.741421988@news.pacific.net.sg>, a?n?g?e? l@lovergirl.lrigrevol.moc.com says...On Thu, 03 Jul 2003 17:44:43 -0400, Stacey <fotocord@yahoo.com> wrote:Nope, Sony doesn't use them either or at least none of the laptops on theirsite have them.. So who's left Compaq and Acer?Like I said NONE of the good laptops use them. Compaq laptops are crap.You forgot to add, Acer are crap too. :PpPP There are only two laptops: Toshiba and IBM. The rest are crap. ...and I favor the latter.

I used to share that opinion.

Then I arranged some laptop purchases several years ago for a
small gov't facility. I purchased 11 IBMs direct from the IBM Canada
and 7 were DOA. The replacements for the DOA's were also all DOA -
and when I checked the serial numbers I discovered that they had just
sent my original DOA's back to me. Sent all 11 back and got Toshibas
instead - all of which were still trouble free last I heard.

[JK]

Stacey wrote:
JK wrote: Stacey wrote: > > Just about all the major notebook makers use them, except > Dell, Gateway, and perhaps IBM(they might use them for > markets outside the US)? I don't think toshiba uses them either.. Which leave out IBM, toshiba, Dell and Gateway. Who's "major" left? Compaq? WTF wants a compaq! HP/Compaq, Sony, Acer. Nope, Sony doesn't use them either or at least none of the laptops on their site have them.. So who's left Compaq and Acer? Like I said NONE of the good laptops use them. Compaq laptops are crap.

What makes you say that? They are in demand and sell well. The Athlon XP
notebooks by Hp/Compaq are very attractively priced. Toshiba and IBM
laptops tend to be expensive. What Toshiba or IBM laptops with a 15"
screen and a DVD/CDRW combo drive can I buy for around $1000?
Can I get one with a mobile Pentium 4? Many people don't want to
pay $1500+ for a notebook.


Take a look at the eMachines website. It looks like eMachine dropped
Intel, and is now exclusively AMD. Now you will probably start making
fun of eMachines?

http://www.emachines.com/products/
-- Stacey

[The little lost angel]

On Fri, 04 Jul 2003 12:43:50 -0400, JK <JK9821@netcape.net> wrote:What makes you say that? They are in demand and sell well. The Athlon XP

In demand and selling well doesn't say anything about it being good.
Many real world cases where the better product don't sell as well.

<snipped>Take a look at the eMachines website. It looks like eMachine droppedIntel, and is now exclusively AMD. Now you will probably start makingfun of eMachines?http://www.emachines.com/products/

I'm going to steal it from Stacey first.
eMachines?!!! *ROFL*

I thot we were talking about quality (read good quality) laptops here?

p.s. I'm more or less pro-AMD but frankly, I wouldn't touch any
AMD-based laptop for my own use at the moment.
--
L.Angel: I'm looking for web design work.
If you need basic to med complexity webpages at affordable rates, email me :)
Standard HTML, SHTML, MySQL + PHP or Javascript. No ASP, CF or Frontpage.

[Keith R. Williams]

In article <3f05d202.815605779@news.pacific.net.sg>, a?n?g?e?
l@lovergirl.lrigrevol.moc.com says... On Thu, 3 Jul 2003 21:10:57 -0400, Keith R. Williams <krw@attglobal.net> wrote:There are only two laptops: Toshiba and IBM. The rest are crap....and I favor the latter. You're biased :P

Indeedey! How could someone make such a comment without being
somehow "biased"?
Personally, I refuse to pack an extra mouse with my laptop so trackpoints are one of the first criteria for me. Only Toshiba, IBM and Dell has it.

Ok. I rather like TrackPoints too, unless a mouse is an option.
I carry a real keyboard and mouse when traveling by land. By
air, the Thinkpad keyboard and TrackPoint is acceptable.
I tried a few Dells and they all felt like if I abused them the way I did my older A20, they will fall apart. Toshiba didn't have trackpoints on the models in my budget range and generally I don't find them as nice :P

Perhaps you're agreeing with me? It's been a long time since
people have agreed with me here. ;-)
Though I wished my A20 died two months later, cos I would had gotten a T40 Centrino instead of a T30 P4M :/

T20s are available *new* for less than a grand. A friend got one
for his grandson for the basic $999.

I really like my A21p though. It's an amazing piece or work.

--
Keith

[SAS]

On Fri, 04 Jul 2003 16:33:11 -0400, JK <JK9821@netcape.net> wrote:
The little lost angel wrote: On Fri, 04 Jul 2003 12:43:50 -0400, JK <JK9821@netcape.net> wrote:What makes you say that? They are in demand and sell well. The Athlon XP In demand and selling well doesn't say anything about it being good. Many real world cases where the better product don't sell as well.Better at what price? Sometimes people only have $800-1000 to spendon a notebook. Can you show me a better alternative than an HP or Compaqnotebook with a mobile Athlon XP processor in that price range? Shouldsomeone buy a notebook with a celeron processor, or pay even morethan $1000 for a notebook with a desktop Pentium 4 process

A lot of these people thought that Compaq was crap.

http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,4149,364590,00.asp

Just one of the reasons that swayed me to get a Toshiba. BTW, Toshiba
does reach down into the <$1000 range, at least at Best Buy with
rebates.

You asked if one should get inferior processors like a Celeron from
reliable brands instead of a superior processor like the mobile Athlon
from unreliable brands. If reliability is important to you, then the
answer is yes.

Steve

[The little lost angel]

On Fri, 4 Jul 2003 20:14:32 -0400, Keith R. Williams
<krw@attglobal.net> wrote:
Ok. I rather like TrackPoints too, unless a mouse is an option.I carry a real keyboard and mouse when traveling by land. Byair, the Thinkpad keyboard and TrackPoint is acceptable.

You guys are big caucausian so an extra keyboard and mouse probably
doesn't feel like much. I'm small, an extra mouse is an ugly budge in
the bad with no good place to put it. And with the FDD now an external
item, I've got more budges in the bag than I care to have already.
Perhaps you're agreeing with me? It's been a long time sincepeople have agreed with me here. ;-)

*laffs* I noticed!
T20s are available *new* for less than a grand. A friend got onefor his grandson for the basic $999.

Not here, only T30 and R30 available when I was shopping. It really
annoys me no end that they (most brands) yanked the FDD out of almost
every model so I end up having to carry either an extra FDD or a stack
of CDR... I know USB is becoming very popular but not everybody I work
has a system that will work right off the bat with a USB storage
device.

--
L.Angel: I'm looking for web design work.
If you need basic to med complexity webpages at affordable rates, email me :)
Standard HTML, SHTML, MySQL + PHP or Javascript. No ASP, CF or Frontpage.

[The little lost angel]

On Fri, 04 Jul 2003 16:33:11 -0400, JK <JK9821@netcape.net> wrote:
on a notebook. Can you show me a better alternative than an HP or Compaqnotebook with a mobile Athlon XP processor in that price range? Shouldsomeone buy a notebook with a celeron processor, or pay even morethan $1000 for a notebook with a desktop Pentium 4 processor?

A laptop is not generally meant to work as a desktop replacement.
Mobility, reliability and battery life are usually the key criteria.
Yes, I'll definitely get a Celeron from a reliable brand like IBM than
pay the same for 'better performance' from a poor reputed brand.

After all, I've seen the problems my friends and colleagues have with
their "faster" but "cheaper" laptops from brands like Acer and Dell.
And half of them leave their laptop lying around at home or at the
office desk.

I run around the country with my IBM (yes it was a CELERON, I had
"faster/cheaper" choices from other brands) and never had any hardware
problems with it. When it finally died out of warranty, it had plenty
of scratches from bangs and a drop or two, as well as blotches where I
had nail polish remover dumped on it.
We should be talking about the best performance and quality available

Erm, I believe the original thrust of this thread was that no quality
manufacturer uses AMD in their laptop that's why nobody here is really
recommending one.


--
L.Angel: I'm looking for web design work.
If you need basic to med complexity webpages at affordable rates, email me :)
Standard HTML, SHTML, MySQL + PHP or Javascript. No ASP, CF or Frontpage.

[JK]

The little lost angel wrote:
On Fri, 04 Jul 2003 16:33:11 -0400, JK <JK9821@netcape.net> wrote:on a notebook. Can you show me a better alternative than an HP or Compaqnotebook with a mobile Athlon XP processor in that price range? Shouldsomeone buy a notebook with a celeron processor, or pay even morethan $1000 for a notebook with a desktop Pentium 4 processor? A laptop is not generally meant to work as a desktop replacement.

Many people use a laptop as a desktop replacement, and only
own one computer.
Mobility, reliability and battery life are usually the key criteria.

Not really. Price and performance are the most important.
After that comes battery life. As for reliability, it varies by product
line, and also by model.Any blanket statement that one brand is
so much better than another doesn't make much sense.
If specific models at the same price are compared, perhaps
some meaningful comparison can be made.
Yes, I'll definitely get a Celeron from a reliable brand like IBM than pay the same for 'better performance' from a poor reputed brand.



Perhaps they were foolish enough to buy a notebook that uses a
desktop Pentium 4 processor? I have not seen any proof that
a $1000 Celeron based notebook from IBM or Toshiba is more
reliable than a $1000 Athlon XP based notebook from HP/Compaq.
Articles that rate brands rather than specific models are of no help,
as many very high priced products may be included in the ratings.
If an article specifically compares $1000 notebooks for their reliability,
then it may begin to have some significance.

It is important to find articles that rate the specific models in question.
I know with other electronics besides computers, there are certain
brands that have some very high quality products at high prices,
then they have some lower product lines which are actually
poor quality and are poor values. Don't assume that if a company
can make a great $2500 notebook, their $1000 Celeron notebooks
will also be high quality, or that their $1000 Celeron notebooks
will be good values.
After all, I've seen the problems my friends and colleagues have with their "faster" but "cheaper" laptops from brands like Acer and Dell. And half of them leave their laptop lying around at home or at the office desk. I run around the country with my IBM (yes it was a CELERON, I had "faster/cheaper" choices from other brands) and never had any hardware problems with it.

Many never have problems with HP or Compaq notebooks with mobile
Athlon processors.
When it finally died out of warranty, it had plenty of scratches from bangs and a drop or two, as well as blotches where I had nail polish remover dumped on it.We should be talking about the best performance and quality available Erm, I believe the original thrust of this thread was that no quality manufacturer uses AMD in their laptop that's why nobody here is really recommending one.

I have still not seen any statistical proof that HP or Compaq notebooks
with mobile Athlon XP processors are any less reliable than notebooks
from IBM or Toshiba when similarly priced notebooks are compared.
If one rates reliability by brand, then the overall ratings for HP and
Compaq might be lower since they make some notebooks that use
desktop P4 processors(which are probably much less reliable than their notebooks
using a mobile processor). If one excludes their notebooks with desktop
processors,then the reliability rating may be quite high.
-- L.Angel: I'm looking for web design work. If you need basic to med complexity webpages at affordable rates, email me :) Standard HTML, SHTML, MySQL + PHP or Javascript. No ASP, CF or Frontpage.

[Rob Stow]

JK wrote:
The little lost angel wrote:Mobility, reliability and battery life are usually the key criteria. Not really. Price and performance are the most important. After that comes battery life.

I disagree. The people I know who have gotten Pentium-M
laptops already have all willingly paid $400 to $700 (Canadian)
price premiums compared to a P4-M with similar features. They
willingly pay more and take a bit of performance hit just so
that they can get 50% more time out of their batteries.
As for reliability,

In the minds of a lot of laptop users, reliability and
battery life are closely tied together. If the battery
dies in the middle of a meeting with a client it isn't
exactly a system you can rely on, is it ?
it varies by product line, and also by model.Any blanket statement that one brand is so much better than another doesn't make much sense. If specific models at the same price are compared, perhaps some meaningful comparison can be made.

[JK]

The little lost angel wrote:
On Sat, 05 Jul 2003 02:51:29 -0400, JK <JK9821@netcape.net> wrote: Mobility, reliability and battery life are usually the key criteria.Not really. Price and performance are the most important.After that comes battery life. As for reliability, it varies by product In other words, you would buy a $800 laptop as long as the price performance is tops, even if the battery lasts 1hr and generally the product typically dies every six month?

LOL! The $800 notebook I would buy would have a mobile Athlon XP
processor, so the battery life would be good.

http://www.amd.com/us-en/Corporate/VirtualPressRoom/0,,51_104_543_544~71941,00.html

http://www.amd.com/us-en/Processors/ProductInformation/0,,30_118_1276_807^6308,00.html

It would also have at least a one year warranty.
You probably don't carry a laptop to do work and meet customers with. I'll trade half my laptop's Mhz for double the battery life. As it is, I already automatically set it for max battery life. 3hrs is just barely enough for a meeting and if you've got another appointment after that, you're screwed.

Do you meet in the middle of a park or other place where there
are no electric outlets? Most people have meetings where there
are electric outlets, and they carry the adapter with them. AMD
makes low voltage Athlon XP processors as well for thin
and light notebooks. Those notebooks are a bit more expensive
though.

http://www.amd.com/us-en/Corporate/VirtualPressRoom/0,,51_104_543_544~71941,00.html


While reliability may vary by product models. But generally speaking a brand with typically better reliability like IBM would have a more reliable $1000 laptop than another $1000 from a brand like Acer.

Do you have any proof that this is true?

It is highly unlikely that a brand that can't make a quality laptop with a price tag of $2000 will be able to do so with a target price of $1000.

Your logic is flawed. Just because a company can make a great $2500
notebook doesn't mean that their $1000 notebook will be more reliable
or a better value than a competators $1000 notebook. My experience
with consumer electronics outside the pc field indicates that the
companies that have high quality high priced product lines, often have
lower priced product lines that are not as reliable and do not perform
as well or provide as good a value as products from companies that
specialize in mid priced products.
-- L.Angel: I'm looking for web design work. If you need basic to med complexity webpages at affordable rates, email me :) Standard HTML, SHTML, MySQL + PHP or Javascript. No ASP, CF or Frontpage.

[Stacey]

JK wrote:
The little lost angel wrote: On Fri, 04 Jul 2003 12:43:50 -0400, JK <JK9821@netcape.net> wrote:What makes you say that? They are in demand and sell well. The Athlon XP In demand and selling well doesn't say anything about it being good. Many real world cases where the better product don't sell as well. Better at what price? Sometimes people only have $800-1000 to spend on a notebook. Can you show me a better alternative than an HP or Compaq notebook with a mobile Athlon XP processor in that price range? Should someone buy a notebook with a celeron processor, or pay even more than $1000 for a notebook with a desktop Pentium 4 processor?


Yep, a fast notebook that won't boot 3 months after you buy it is useless.

We should be talking about the best performance and quality available at each price point, not saying that an $800 notebook(after rebates) is junk compared to a $2000 notebook. That is not constructive.

Sure it is. If that $800 notebook fails in 3 months, what good was it? GOOD
advice is to save up the extra $300 to buy something reliable or buy a good
used one. I'd rather have a celron that works reliably than a crappy laptop
that is faster.
What is the best notebook for $800?

A used IBM or toshiba

We all realize you will ALWAYS argue that AMD products are the best for
anyone no matter what. In this case you are screwing people out of their
money in AMD's defence. There is nothing wrong with the AMD mobile chips,
it's that the manufactures that use them make shitty laptops.


--

Stacey

[Stacey]

JK wrote:
The little lost angel wrote: On Sat, 05 Jul 2003 02:51:29 -0400, JK <JK9821@netcape.net> wrote:> Mobility, reliability and battery life are usually the key criteria.Not really. Price and performance are the most important.After that comes battery life. As for reliability, it varies by product In other words, you would buy a $800 laptop as long as the price performance is tops, even if the battery lasts 1hr and generally the product typically dies every six month? LOL! The $800 notebook I would buy would have a mobile Athlon XP processor,


Oh no really? You'd go with an AMD product? I'm shocked!!!

so the battery life would be good.
http://www.amd.com/us-en/Corporate/VirtualPressRoom/0,,51_104_543_544~71941,00.html
http://www.amd.com/us-en/Processors/ProductInformation/0,,30_118_1276_807^6308,00.html

Did ANYONE say that the AMD chips aren't good? If someone good made laptops
with them, I'd recomend using them as most laptop users don't use SSE2 type
apps on them where the P4 would be faster. But so far only the worst
manufactures are using them.

You probably don't carry a laptop to do work and meet customers with. I'll trade half my laptop's Mhz for double the battery life. As it is, I already automatically set it for max battery life. 3hrs is just barely enough for a meeting and if you've got another appointment after that, you're screwed. Do you meet in the middle of a park or other place where there are no electric outlets? Most people have meetings where there are electric outlets, and they carry the adapter with them.

Yea I'd ask "where is your outlet?" and be tied to a cord trying to sell
products or do estimates. People use laptops so they can be MOBILE. I even
have my old Tpad 133 set to max battey use.

While reliability may vary by product models. But generally speaking a brand with typically better reliability like IBM would have a more reliable $1000 laptop than another $1000 from a brand like Acer. Do you have any proof that this is true?

http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,4149,364590,00.asp


Survey of people who use them.

It is highly unlikely that a brand that can't make a quality laptop with a price tag of $2000 will be able to do so with a target price of $1000. Your logic is flawed.

So a company that makes a shitty $2000 laptop is going to make a great $1000
one?

--

Stacey

[JK]

Stacey wrote:
JK wrote: The little lost angel wrote: On Fri, 04 Jul 2003 12:43:50 -0400, JK <JK9821@netcape.net> wrote: >What makes you say that? They are in demand and sell well. The Athlon XP In demand and selling well doesn't say anything about it being good. Many real world cases where the better product don't sell as well. Better at what price? Sometimes people only have $800-1000 to spend on a notebook. Can you show me a better alternative than an HP or Compaq notebook with a mobile Athlon XP processor in that price range? Should someone buy a notebook with a celeron processor, or pay even more than $1000 for a notebook with a desktop Pentium 4 processor? Yep, a fast notebook that won't boot 3 months after you buy it is useless.

I would only buy one that has at least a one year warranty.
We should be talking about the best performance and quality available at each price point, not saying that an $800 notebook(after rebates) is junk compared to a $2000 notebook. That is not constructive. Sure it is. If that $800 notebook fails in 3 months, what good was it?

If it has a one year warranty, the odds are that it will not fail
in three months. Important data should always be backed up often,
and kept separate from the notebook.It is probably more likely that
a notebook that is carried around often will be stolen rather than
breaking within a year or two.
GOOD advice is to save up the extra $300

Extra $300? Where can I buy a notebook with a mobile Pentium 4 for
$1100? If I want one by IBM or Toshiba, wih a 15" screen, DVD/CDRW
combo drive, a 40 gig or larger hard drive, and 512 meg of ram,
the price will probably be way over $1500, perhaps even $2000 or more?
to buy something reliable or buy a good used one. I'd rather have a celron that works reliably than a crappy laptop that is faster. What is the best notebook for $800? A used IBM or toshiba

Buying a used notebook is probably a bad idea, especially if
someone is emphasizing reliability.

We all realize you will ALWAYS argue that AMD products are the best for anyone no matter what. In this case you are screwing people out of their money in AMD's defence. There is nothing wrong with the AMD mobile chips, it's that the manufactures that use them make shitty laptops.

You still haven't proven that. That old article comparing brands is meaningless.

It does not compare notebooks based on price. Let's see repair statistics
for $1000 notebooks from each of the manufacturers. IBM and Toshiba
make many very expensive laptops, so comparing the average for that
brand to the average for a brand that has a much lower average selling
price doesn't make sense. If someone doesn't plan to buy a notebook with
a desktop processor, then the reliability of those should also be removed
from the survey.
-- Stacey

[Stacey]

The little lost angel wrote:
On Sat, 05 Jul 2003 11:35:27 -0400, JK <JK9821@netcape.net> wrote:http://www.amd.com/us-en/Corporate/VirtualPressRoom/0,,51_104_543_544~71941,00.html Look it's getting more and more obvious you're a AMD salesperson, paid or otherwise,

Yep, looks like M$ has shown AMD how to place shills in the newsgroups to
spread FUD.

I figured this out when he wouldn't even let people using apps that are
known to favor a P4 consider anything but an AMD. He pointed out links on
AMD's "buy our stock" pages about how people are using dual opterons for
video work as a reason to buy an XP2500 (notice how he is constantly
pushing that chip? AMD must have a shitload of them!)

I explained to him long ago that I sell AMD systems to a lot of people and
own both myself. But God forbid anyone tries to point out that an AMD isn't
the right choice for everything.

--

Stacey

[JK]

Stacey wrote:
JK wrote: The little lost angel wrote: Look it's getting more and more obvious you're a AMD salesperson, paid or otherwise, LOL! Why? Because I gave a link to the AMD website? No because EVRYONE has pointed out those laptops are crap yet you continue to PUSH AMD chips no matter what. People who ask about hardware for apps that are known to perform better on a P4

At what price? When I recommend an Athlon Xp2600+ 333, you
usually respond that the XP3200+ doesn't deserve its rating.
You still haven't shown me an Intel processor that performs
better than an XP2600+ 333 at any application and is
priced the same or lower.

and you PUSH AMD's on them.

LOL!

Anytime someone mentions the word Intel (like in this thread) you PUSH AMD chips. You didn't just suggest to buy a newer laptop instead of trying to upgrade, you said they should ONLY look at AMD based laptops which has nothing whatsoever to do with his question.
This is supposed to be a place where people discuss computer related issue, not for people to come to SELL THEIR PRODUCTS.

You are funny! Should they buy a notebook with a desktop Pentium 4 processor
(it is especially unfair when consumers are not alerted to the fact that
the notebook they are interested in does not have a mobile processor),
buy a notebook with a mobile Athlon XP, or spend a large amount
on a notebook with a mobile Pentium 4? If most people knew that
many low priced Pentium 4 notebooks use desktop processors, many
would not choose them. Most people automatically assume that all
notebooks have a mobile processor.
-- Stacey

[JK]

Stacey wrote:
The little lost angel wrote: On Sat, 05 Jul 2003 11:35:27 -0400, JK <JK9821@netcape.net> wrote:http://www.amd.com/us-en/Corporate/VirtualPressRoom/0,,51_104_543_544~71941,00.html Look it's getting more and more obvious you're a AMD salesperson, paid or otherwise, Yep, looks like M$ has shown AMD how to place shills in the newsgroups to spread FUD. I figured this out when he wouldn't even let people using apps that are known to favor a P4 consider anything but an AMD. He pointed out links on AMD's "buy our stock" pages about how people are using dual opterons for video work as a reason to buy an XP2500 (notice how he is constantly pushing that chip? AMD must have a shitload of them!)

LOL! I posted links to those pages and suggested that a dual
MP2600+ might be a better idea than a high end Pentium 4
system for video editing and encoding. It was in response
to your no one uses AMD processors for video work remarks.

http://search.amd.com/amd_query.html?col=spec1&col=a4&col=a2&col=a3&col=a1&col=a5&charset=utf-8&ht=0&qp=url%3A%2Fus-en%2F+url%3A%2Fgb-uk%2F+url%3A%2Fepd%2F&qt=+Athlon+MP+movie&qs=+%7C+language%3Aen&qc=&pw=100%25&ws=1&la=en&qm=0&st=1&nh=10&lk=1&rf=0&oq=&rq=0&si=0

I had remembered reading earlier about AMD based systems being used in
major motion picture production.

I usually recommended the XP2600+ 333, although not the XP2700+
is starting to look attractively priced. The XP3000+ 400 at around $260
is also starting to look very interesting for those who want a high end
gaming system.
I explained to him long ago that I sell AMD systems to a lot of people and own both myself. But God forbid anyone tries to point out that an AMD isn't the right choice for everything.

It depends at what price, and for what application. You always seem to
use video editing to prove the argument for buying an Intel processor,
even if video editing will be done a very small percentage of the time.

-- Stacey

[jack]

"JK" <JK9821@netcape.net> wrote in message
news:3F07B927.FDD8AC88@netcape.net...
:
<snip crap>

I didn't think it was possible, or that I would see it on THIS NG, but
you lamer-boy are the "anti-matter" version of John Corse. You're a
fricken AMD shill, through and through. You can go back to your room
now, mommie's waiting to have a little chat with you. Loser!

J.

[George Macdonald]

On Sat, 05 Jul 2003 06:08:29 GMT, a?n?g?e?l@lovergirl.lrigrevol.moc.com
(The little lost angel) wrote:
On Fri, 4 Jul 2003 20:14:32 -0400, Keith R. Williams<krw@attglobal.net> wrote:Ok. I rather like TrackPoints too, unless a mouse is an option.I carry a real keyboard and mouse when traveling by land. Byair, the Thinkpad keyboard and TrackPoint is acceptable.You guys are big caucausian so an extra keyboard and mouse probablydoesn't feel like much. I'm small, an extra mouse is an ugly budge inthe bad with no good place to put it. And with the FDD now an externalitem, I've got more budges in the bag than I care to have already.

"budges"?... You mean bulges?;-) Bulges in the bag are bad news for air
travel - we've had a couple of broken screens from the bulge being pressed
into the case in the overhead. It doesn't help that the airlines allow all
the bozos to bring their main baggage in-cabin and squeeze it into the
overhead. I advise people that if they have to put their laptop in the
overhead to put it upside down in the bottom and watch for the creeps who
insist on rearranging other folks' stuff to accomodate their oversized
bags.

Rgds, George Macdonald

"Just because they're paranoid doesn't mean you're not psychotic" - Who, me??

[George Macdonald]

On Sat, 05 Jul 2003 02:44:39 -0600, Rob Stow <rob.stow@sasktel.net> wrote:
JK wrote: The little lost angel wrote:Mobility, reliability and battery life are usually the key criteria. Not really. Price and performance are the most important. After that comes battery life.I disagree. The people I know who have gotten Pentium-Mlaptops already have all willingly paid $400 to $700 (Canadian)price premiums compared to a P4-M with similar features. Theywillingly pay more and take a bit of performance hit just sothat they can get 50% more time out of their batteries.

Huh? In the reviews I've seen, there is *no* performance hit for a
Pentium-M over a P4-M - in fact in overall performance the Pentium-M always
scores higher... sometimes by a large amount when comparing the fastest in
both categories.

Rgds, George Macdonald

"Just because they're paranoid doesn't mean you're not psychotic" - Who, me??

[The little lost angel]

On Sun, 06 Jul 2003 09:37:02 GMT, fammacd=!SPAM^nothanks@tellurian.com
(George Macdonald) wrote:
"budges"?... You mean bulges?;-) Bulges in the bag are bad news for air

Yesh, I realized I made quite a few typos that night. Including "bad"
for "bag" but usenet doesn't allow "edit post" until web forums :P

Fortunately, I never had to deal with air travel. Too poor to afford
it :P

--
L.Angel: I'm looking for web design work.
If you need basic to med complexity webpages at affordable rates, email me :)
Standard HTML, SHTML, MySQL + PHP or Javascript. No ASP, CF or Frontpage.

[Stacey]

JK wrote:

If it has a one year warranty, the odds are that it will not fail in three months. ??? What kind of logic is that? By that logic those pep boys alternators with a "lifetime warranty" shouldn't puke in 3 months but they do.. I don't know anything about alternators,

And you don't seem to know anything about laptops either.
however I do know that if a large percentage of notebooks failed within a year, the manufacturer could not afford to guaranty them for a year.


No one would buy them if they didn't warranty them for a year. The warranty
period has no direct reflection on the quality of a product. A Kia has a
longer warranty than a Honda but I know which one of those is going to hold
up better.

ots of celron based QUALITY laptops for under $1100. For most mobile users they have more than enough power. LOL! Perhaps now you will tell us how great video editing is on a Celeron notebook? Or perhaps you are admitting that most users don't do video editing on a pc?

??? How many people would buy a laptop to use for video editing and if they
did need one for mobile editing would expect an $800 one to do it? Most
laptops users buy them for school/bussiness apps which even a pentium II or
III would be plenty. Again NO ONE has said there is anything wrong with the
AMDS chips, just that no known reliable laptop manufacturers are using them
right now.
--

Stacey

[Stacey]

JK wrote:

This is supposed to be a place where people discuss computer related issue, not for people to come to SELL THEIR PRODUCTS. You are funny! Should they buy a notebook with a desktop Pentium 4 processor (it is especially unfair when consumers are not alerted to the fact that the notebook they are interested in does not have a mobile processor), buy a notebook with a mobile Athlon XP, or spend a large amount on a notebook with a mobile Pentium 4?


None of the above. A good answer to their question would have been: They
should buy a faster laptop than the one they have rather than trying to
upgrade.

There was no reason to try to sell them either platform. You never
mentioned any models, comented on battery life, reliability etc just than
they SHOULD buy an AMD based notebook. To support AMD of course..
--

Stacey

[George Macdonald]

On Mon, 07 Jul 2003 11:17:32 -0600, Rob Stow <rob.stow@sasktel.net> wrote:
JK wrote: Rob Stow wrote:JK wrote:>The little lost angel wrote:>>>>>Mobility, reliability and battery life are usually the key criteria.>>>Not really. Price and performance are the most important.>After that comes battery life.I disagree. The people I know who have gotten Pentium-Mlaptops already have all willingly paid $400 to $700 (Canadian)price premiums compared to a P4-M with similar features. Theywillingly pay more and take a bit of performance hit just sothat they can get 50% more time out of their batteries. AMD makes low voltage mobile Athlon XP processors for that purpose.1.) The reviews I've seen show that battery times for systems usingthe Athlon XP-M are a little better than the P4-M but still wellbehind the P-M.2.) The only laptop manufacturers putting Athlon XP-Ms into theirproducts all have a reputation for producing crappy laptops. TheXP-M sounds like a great chip, but it brings to mind an old T-Shirtslogan: "Its hard to soar like and eagle when you're tied down byturkeys.".

Given that there's only two mfrs I'd consider for a laptop purchase, as
already mentioned, that's hardly a recommendation against the Athlon given
all the other crap that people are buying.:-) IOW if you're going to buy
crap, you can freely choose Athlon crap as much as P4-M or P-M crap.

BTW it seems that Fujitsu, who make one Athlon XP-M system (Lifebook S2000
?) for N. America, is getting an improved reputation - dunno how much their
collaboration with Siemens counts here - but they have a weird marketing
strategy where different markets receive completely different models.

Rgds, George Macdonald

"Just because they're paranoid doesn't mean you're not psychotic" - Who, me??

[Tony Hill]

On Sat, 05 Jul 2003 17:15:42 -0400, Stacey <fotocord@yahoo.com> wrote: While reliability may vary by product models. But generally speaking a brand with typically better reliability like IBM would have a more reliable $1000 laptop than another $1000 from a brand like Acer. Do you have any proof that this is true?http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,4149,364590,00.aspSurvey of people who use them.

Well, according to that survey, HP is one of the four companies
sharing the top overall ranking, and they sell AthlonXP-M based
notebooks in US markets. Of course, whether they are a "good" company
or not depends very much on the person you ask, so this may or may not
be a "good" company producing AMD-based notebooks. If you ask me,
there are no good companies producing notebooks, only varying degrees
of bad. I've found laptops from all manufacturers to be extremely
poor with regards to quality, performance and reliability. Mind you,
I haven't found the desktop systems from manufacturers have been all
that good either.

[Stacey]

Tony Hill wrote:
On Sat, 05 Jul 2003 17:15:42 -0400, Stacey <fotocord@yahoo.com> wrote:> While reliability may vary by product models. But generally speaking a> brand with typically better reliability like IBM would have a more> reliable $1000 laptop than another $1000 from a brand like Acer. Do you have any proof that this is true?http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,4149,364590,00.aspSurvey of people who use them. Well, according to that survey, HP is one of the four companies sharing the top overall ranking, and they sell AthlonXP-M based notebooks in US markets.

Might be worth looking at? Like I said nothing wrong with AMD chips, just
that IMHO no good company uses them. That is just my opinion (I hate
touchpads) and sure isn't written in stone that I'm right 8-)
--

Stacey

[George Macdonald]

On Mon, 07 Jul 2003 22:17:41 -0600, Rob Stow <rob.stow@sasktel.net> wrote:
Tony Hill wrote: On Sat, 05 Jul 2003 17:15:42 -0400, Stacey <fotocord@yahoo.com> wrote:>>While reliability may vary by product models. But generally speaking a>>brand with typically better reliability like IBM would have a more>>reliable $1000 laptop than another $1000 from a brand like Acer.>>Do you have any proof that this is true?http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,4149,364590,00.aspSurvey of people who use them. Well, according to that survey, HP is one of the four companies sharing the top overall ranking, and they sell AthlonXP-M based notebooks in US markets. Of course, whether they are a "good" company or not depends very much on the person you ask, so this may or may not be a "good" company producing AMD-based notebooks. If you ask me, there are no good companies producing notebooks, only varying degrees of bad. I've found laptops from all manufacturers to be extremely poor with regards to quality, performance and reliability. Mind you, I haven't found the desktop systems from manufacturers have been all that good either.For me, a "good company producing AMD-based notebooks" isn'tsufficient for me to consider buying an AMD-based notebook.The qualifications have to be changed a bit: "... producing *good* AMD-based notebooks".For a "good company" example, in my opinion Sony qualifies.However, I would not buy an AMD-based notebook - or any othernotebook - from Sony. I like their desktop computers, theirTVs and their other entertainment products, but I don't thinkthey make good notebooks. Ditto for HP: thumbs up ontheir desktops but thumbs down on their notebooks.

Well we all form our opinions based on *some* balance of personal
experience, personal survey and "expert" based "analysis". My experience
with Sony, observing friends' experiences and feedback from complaints to
retail clerks (yeah I know but they responded to my complaint), etc. etc.
is that they still make a pretty good TV and that's where it ends for me.

The Sony VCR I have is about the worst POS I've owned in a home
entertainment appliance; the SDT-7000 DAT tape drive I got for the office
was worse: happily wrote gobs of "backup data", supposedly write/read
on-the-fly checked and hardly a single tape was of any value at all. From
what I read about their notebooks they are near the bottom of the heap
among major brands.
If Toshiba made AMD-based notebooks, they'd get my vote. IfIBM did, I'd think about it but my last experience with IBM wasnot good. I even starting to see enough happy Dell laptopowners that I would give Dell some thought also.

I've never had a bad experience with IBM yet on notebooks... but I'll take
yours FWIW and do some careful "surveying" before any future purchases. As
for Dell, from what I've seen they are still crap and they do *not* respond
with satisfactory fixes/replacements - in some of our remote offices, I
advised IBM or Toshiba but no... they had to make their own choice with
Dells and they have been a PITA. Apart from the cases which are just junk
- they flex like a sheet of plastic - the drifting mouse cursor has never
been repaired on any system and Dell's only response seems to be: <SHRUG>

A couple of years back, after some frustration with Winbooks - probably one
of the better 3rd tier vendors - I did my own survey. I visited all the
local computer "superstores" and checked out keyboard, case integrity,
video screen, mouse response/useability and came away quite surprised. In
the $2000.-$2500. range I was interested in, IBM and Toshiba were clear
winners - the others weren't even close. I'm thinking it may be time for
another such "survey" but I don't think IBM sells retail any more. I'm
always open to new options but certainly the IBM A2x Series we bought have
been solid performers and are built to stand up to a bit of (accidental)
abuse.

Rgds, George Macdonald

"Just because they're paranoid doesn't mean you're not psychotic" - Who, me??

[JK]

George Macdonald wrote:
On Mon, 07 Jul 2003 22:17:41 -0600, Rob Stow <rob.stow@sasktel.net> wrote:Tony Hill wrote: On Sat, 05 Jul 2003 17:15:42 -0400, Stacey <fotocord@yahoo.com> wrote:>>>While reliability may vary by product models. But generally speaking a>>>brand with typically better reliability like IBM would have a more>>>reliable $1000 laptop than another $1000 from a brand like Acer.>>>>Do you have any proof that this is true?>>http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,4149,364590,00.asp>>>Survey of people who use them. Well, according to that survey, HP is one of the four companies sharing the top overall ranking, and they sell AthlonXP-M based notebooks in US markets. Of course, whether they are a "good" company or not depends very much on the person you ask, so this may or may not be a "good" company producing AMD-based notebooks. If you ask me, there are no good companies producing notebooks, only varying degrees of bad. I've found laptops from all manufacturers to be extremely poor with regards to quality, performance and reliability. Mind you, I haven't found the desktop systems from manufacturers have been all that good either.For me, a "good company producing AMD-based notebooks" isn'tsufficient for me to consider buying an AMD-based notebook.The qualifications have to be changed a bit: "... producing *good* AMD-based notebooks".For a "good company" example, in my opinion Sony qualifies.However, I would not buy an AMD-based notebook - or any othernotebook - from Sony. I like their desktop computers, theirTVs and their other entertainment products, but I don't thinkthey make good notebooks. Ditto for HP: thumbs up ontheir desktops but thumbs down on their notebooks. Well we all form our opinions based on *some* balance of personal experience, personal survey and "expert" based "analysis". My experience with Sony, observing friends' experiences and feedback from complaints to retail clerks (yeah I know but they responded to my complaint), etc. etc. is that they still make a pretty good TV and that's where it ends for me. The Sony VCR I have is about the worst POS I've owned in a home entertainment appliance; the SDT-7000 DAT tape drive I got for the office was worse: happily wrote gobs of "backup data", supposedly write/read on-the-fly checked and hardly a single tape was of any value at all. From what I read about their notebooks they are near the bottom of the heap among major brands.If Toshiba made AMD-based notebooks, they'd get my vote. IfIBM did, I'd think about it but my last experience with IBM wasnot good. I even starting to see enough happy Dell laptopowners that I would give Dell some thought also. I've never had a bad experience with IBM yet on notebooks... but I'll take yours FWIW and do some careful "surveying" before any future purchases. As for Dell, from what I've seen they are still crap and they do *not* respond with satisfactory fixes/replacements - in some of our remote offices, I advised IBM or Toshiba but no... they had to make their own choice with Dells and they have been a PITA. Apart from the cases which are just junk - they flex like a sheet of plastic - the drifting mouse cursor has never been repaired on any system and Dell's only response seems to be: <SHRUG> A couple of years back, after some frustration with Winbooks - probably one of the better 3rd tier vendors - I did my own survey. I visited all the local computer "superstores" and checked out keyboard, case integrity, video screen, mouse response/useability and came away quite surprised. In the $2000.-$2500. range I was interested in, IBM and Toshiba were clear winners - the others weren't even close.

Most people don't want to spend around $2500+ for a notebook. There
is very large demand for notebooks priced around $1000 or even lower.
This is especially true for the student market. Is a $2500+ notebook
really worth more than three times the best mobile Athlon XP $800
notebook? Is it that much faster or that much more reliable? I doubt it.
For those with tremendous budgets, paying more than three times
the price for a small increment in speed or reliability may not be an
issue. Most people don't have such huge budgets though, and would
not consider spending more than three times the price for a small
increment in performance or reliability.
I'm thinking it may be time for another such "survey"

Yes. New surveys not just based on brand, but on price point as well.
An article such as what is the best $1000 notebook, or what
is the best $800 notebook would be very helpful to many.
One cold also have artilcles for the $1200 price point, and
the $1500 price point, and a summary article showing exactly
how much extra people should expect from a $1500 notebook
than from a $1000 notebook.
but I don't think IBM sells retail any more. I'm always open to new options but certainly the IBM A2x Series we bought have been solid performers and are built to stand up to a bit of (accidental) abuse. Rgds, George Macdonald "Just because they're paranoid doesn't mean you're not psychotic" - Who, me??

[Rob Stow]

JK wrote: George Macdonald wrote:A couple of years back, after some frustration with Winbooks - probably oneof the better 3rd tier vendors - I did my own survey. I visited all thelocal computer "superstores" and checked out keyboard, case integrity,video screen, mouse response/useability and came away quite surprised. Inthe $2000.-$2500. range I was interested in, IBM and Toshiba were clearwinners - the others weren't even close. Most people don't want to spend around $2500+ for a notebook. There is very large demand for notebooks priced around $1000 or even lower. This is especially true for the student market. Is a $2500+ notebook really worth more than three times the best mobile Athlon XP $800 notebook?

What it is worth is determined largely by how well it fills your needs.
Most business users need at least a 14" screen, a 40 GB hard drive,
a DVD drive - there's $800 gone right there. Battery life is important
to a lot of people, so Pentium-M is what you get them and you are looking
at another $800 just for the cpu, motherboard, and chipset: Intel
is taking buyers to the cleaners for Centrino-type solutions, but they
are by far the best game in town for long battery life. Throw in some
RAM, a CD-RW drive, a couple of batteries, an AC adapter, a floppy
drive, the OS, ... yeah, it is easy to hit $2500 for a good laptop.
Is it that much faster or that much more reliable?

More reliable ? That is determined by things other than cost.
There are reliable $2500 laptops (eg., Toshiba) and there are
crappy $2500 laptops (eg., Sony, Acer, Compaq).

Faster ? Almost irrelevant. It has to be *fast enough*, reliable,
and come with everything you might need when you are on a plane or
in the client's office. "Faster" is what we use to help sell the
laptop to our superiors who have to approve the purchases - it is
*not* the primary or even a major concern in terms of picking
something that will fill the needs of the actual end user.

[JK]

Rob Stow wrote:
JK wrote: George Macdonald wrote:A couple of years back, after some frustration with Winbooks - probably oneof the better 3rd tier vendors - I did my own survey. I visited all thelocal computer "superstores" and checked out keyboard, case integrity,video screen, mouse response/useability and came away quite surprised. Inthe $2000.-$2500. range I was interested in, IBM and Toshiba were clearwinners - the others weren't even close. Most people don't want to spend around $2500+ for a notebook. There is very large demand for notebooks priced around $1000 or even lower. This is especially true for the student market. Is a $2500+ notebook really worth more than three times the best mobile Athlon XP $800 notebook? What it is worth is determined largely by how well it fills your needs. Most business users need at least a 14" screen, a 40 GB hard drive, a DVD drive - there's $800 gone right there.

No. There are mobile Athlon XP notebooks with 15" screens, DVD/CDRW
combo drives and 20 gig hard drives for around $800 after rebate. For
a 40 gig hard drive, figure another $50-75.
Battery life is important to a lot of people, so Pentium-M is what you get them

The low voltage mobile Athlon XP chips are also very power efficient.
They are more expensive than the regular mobile Athlon XP chips though.
and you are looking at another $800 just for the cpu, motherboard, and chipset: Intel is taking buyers to the cleaners for Centrino-type solutions, but they are by far the best game in town for long battery life.

Do you have proof of that? Do you have any battery life comparisons
with the low voltage mobile Athlon XP processors?
Throw in some RAM, a CD-RW drive, a couple of batteries, an AC adapter, a floppy drive, the OS, ... yeah, it is easy to hit $2500 for a good laptop.

One can get a mobile Athlon XP based notebook for far less.

Is it that much faster or that much more reliable? More reliable ? That is determined by things other than cost. There are reliable $2500 laptops (eg., Toshiba) and there are crappy $2500 laptops (eg., Sony, Acer, Compaq). Faster ? Almost irrelevant. It has to be *fast enough*, reliable, and come with everything you might need when you are on a plane or in the client's office. "Faster" is what we use to help sell the laptop to our superiors who have to approve the purchases - it is *not* the primary or even a major concern in terms of picking something that will fill the needs of the actual end user.

It depends what he is running.

[George Macdonald]

On Tue, 08 Jul 2003 10:43:28 -0400, JK <JK9821@netcape.net> wrote:
George Macdonald wrote: On Mon, 07 Jul 2003 22:17:41 -0600, Rob Stow <rob.stow@sasktel.net> wrote:Tony Hill wrote:> On Sat, 05 Jul 2003 17:15:42 -0400, Stacey <fotocord@yahoo.com> wrote:>>>>>While reliability may vary by product models. But generally speaking a>>>>brand with typically better reliability like IBM would have a more>>>>reliable $1000 laptop than another $1000 from a brand like Acer.>>>>>>Do you have any proof that this is true?>>>>http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,4149,364590,00.asp>>>>>>Survey of people who use them.>>> Well, according to that survey, HP is one of the four companies> sharing the top overall ranking, and they sell AthlonXP-M based> notebooks in US markets. Of course, whether they are a "good" company> or not depends very much on the person you ask, so this may or may not> be a "good" company producing AMD-based notebooks. If you ask me,> there are no good companies producing notebooks, only varying degrees> of bad. I've found laptops from all manufacturers to be extremely> poor with regards to quality, performance and reliability. Mind you,> I haven't found the desktop systems from manufacturers have been all> that good either.>For me, a "good company producing AMD-based notebooks" isn'tsufficient for me to consider buying an AMD-based notebook.The qualifications have to be changed a bit: "... producing *good* AMD-based notebooks".For a "good company" example, in my opinion Sony qualifies.However, I would not buy an AMD-based notebook - or any othernotebook - from Sony. I like their desktop computers, theirTVs and their other entertainment products, but I don't thinkthey make good notebooks. Ditto for HP: thumbs up ontheir desktops but thumbs down on their notebooks. Well we all form our opinions based on *some* balance of personal experience, personal survey and "expert" based "analysis". My experience with Sony, observing friends' experiences and feedback from complaints to retail clerks (yeah I know but they responded to my complaint), etc. etc. is that they still make a pretty good TV and that's where it ends for me. The Sony VCR I have is about the worst POS I've owned in a home entertainment appliance; the SDT-7000 DAT tape drive I got for the office was worse: happily wrote gobs of "backup data", supposedly write/read on-the-fly checked and hardly a single tape was of any value at all. From what I read about their notebooks they are near the bottom of the heap among major brands.If Toshiba made AMD-based notebooks, they'd get my vote. IfIBM did, I'd think about it but my last experience with IBM wasnot good. I even starting to see enough happy Dell laptopowners that I would give Dell some thought also. I've never had a bad experience with IBM yet on notebooks... but I'll take yours FWIW and do some careful "surveying" before any future purchases. As for Dell, from what I've seen they are still crap and they do *not* respond with satisfactory fixes/replacements - in some of our remote offices, I advised IBM or Toshiba but no... they had to make their own choice with Dells and they have been a PITA. Apart from the cases which are just junk - they flex like a sheet of plastic - the drifting mouse cursor has never been repaired on any system and Dell's only response seems to be: <SHRUG> A couple of years back, after some frustration with Winbooks - probably one of the better 3rd tier vendors - I did my own survey. I visited all the local computer "superstores" and checked out keyboard, case integrity, video screen, mouse response/useability and came away quite surprised. In the $2000.-$2500. range I was interested in, IBM and Toshiba were clear winners - the others weren't even close.Most people don't want to spend around $2500+ for a notebook.

If you want a business notebook for its primary purpose - portability - you
need to be looking at $2000.
Thereis very large demand for notebooks priced around $1000 or even lower.This is especially true for the student market. Is a $2500+ notebookreally worth more than three times the best mobile Athlon XP $800notebook? Is it that much faster or that much more reliable? I doubt it.

I don't care about your doubts I have my personal experiences - not
prejudices - to depend on, with multiple purchases for our office and also
observing the junk that others have turned up to meetings with
For those with tremendous budgets, paying more than three timesthe price for a small increment in speed or reliability may not be anissue. Most people don't have such huge budgets though, and wouldnot consider spending more than three times the price for a smallincrement in performance or reliability.

Like I said, it's more than speed... and reliability is strongly dependent
on case design... where the $1000. units really show up their deficiency.
People who use them as part of their jobs do *not* want compromise keyboard
designs and crappy mouse devices.
I'm thinking it may be time for another such "survey"Yes. New surveys not just based on brand, but on price point as well.An article such as what is the best $1000 notebook, or whatis the best $800 notebook would be very helpful to many.One cold also have artilcles for the $1200 price point, andthe $1500 price point, and a summary article showing exactlyhow much extra people should expect from a $1500 notebookthan from a $1000 notebook.

Nope - you get pretty much what you pay for. It's like buying cheap tools
- they look as good in the store... they always turn into junk.

Rgds, George Macdonald

"Just because they're paranoid doesn't mean you're not psychotic" - Who, me??

[JK]

George Macdonald wrote:
On Tue, 08 Jul 2003 10:43:28 -0400, JK <JK9821@netcape.net> wrote:George Macdonald wrote: On Mon, 07 Jul 2003 22:17:41 -0600, Rob Stow <rob.stow@sasktel.net> wrote: >Tony Hill wrote: >> On Sat, 05 Jul 2003 17:15:42 -0400, Stacey <fotocord@yahoo.com> wrote: >> >>>>>While reliability may vary by product models. But generally speaking a >>>>>brand with typically better reliability like IBM would have a more >>>>>reliable $1000 laptop than another $1000 from a brand like Acer. >>>> >>>>Do you have any proof that this is true? >>> >>>http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,4149,364590,00.asp >>> >>> >>>Survey of people who use them. >> >> >> Well, according to that survey, HP is one of the four companies >> sharing the top overall ranking, and they sell AthlonXP-M based >> notebooks in US markets. Of course, whether they are a "good" company >> or not depends very much on the person you ask, so this may or may not >> be a "good" company producing AMD-based notebooks. If you ask me, >> there are no good companies producing notebooks, only varying degrees >> of bad. I've found laptops from all manufacturers to be extremely >> poor with regards to quality, performance and reliability. Mind you, >> I haven't found the desktop systems from manufacturers have been all >> that good either. >> > >For me, a "good company producing AMD-based notebooks" isn't >sufficient for me to consider buying an AMD-based notebook. >The qualifications have to be changed a bit: > "... producing *good* AMD-based notebooks". > >For a "good company" example, in my opinion Sony qualifies. >However, I would not buy an AMD-based notebook - or any other >notebook - from Sony. I like their desktop computers, their >TVs and their other entertainment products, but I don't think >they make good notebooks. Ditto for HP: thumbs up on >their desktops but thumbs down on their notebooks. Well we all form our opinions based on *some* balance of personal experience, personal survey and "expert" based "analysis". My experience with Sony, observing friends' experiences and feedback from complaints to retail clerks (yeah I know but they responded to my complaint), etc. etc. is that they still make a pretty good TV and that's where it ends for me. The Sony VCR I have is about the worst POS I've owned in a home entertainment appliance; the SDT-7000 DAT tape drive I got for the office was worse: happily wrote gobs of "backup data", supposedly write/read on-the-fly checked and hardly a single tape was of any value at all. From what I read about their notebooks they are near the bottom of the heap among major brands. >If Toshiba made AMD-based notebooks, they'd get my vote. If >IBM did, I'd think about it but my last experience with IBM was >not good. I even starting to see enough happy Dell laptop >owners that I would give Dell some thought also. I've never had a bad experience with IBM yet on notebooks... but I'll take yours FWIW and do some careful "surveying" before any future purchases. As for Dell, from what I've seen they are still crap and they do *not* respond with satisfactory fixes/replacements - in some of our remote offices, I advised IBM or Toshiba but no... they had to make their own choice with Dells and they have been a PITA. Apart from the cases which are just junk - they flex like a sheet of plastic - the drifting mouse cursor has never been repaired on any system and Dell's only response seems to be: <SHRUG> A couple of years back, after some frustration with Winbooks - probably one of the better 3rd tier vendors - I did my own survey. I visited all the local computer "superstores" and checked out keyboard, case integrity, video screen, mouse response/useability and came away quite surprised. In the $2000.-$2500. range I was interested in, IBM and Toshiba were clear winners - the others weren't even close.Most people don't want to spend around $2500+ for a notebook. If you want a business notebook for its primary purpose - portability - you need to be looking at $2000. Thereis very large demand for notebooks priced around $1000 or even lower.This is especially true for the student market. Is a $2500+ notebookreally worth more than three times the best mobile Athlon XP $800notebook? Is it that much faster or that much more reliable? I doubt it. I don't care about your doubts I have my personal experiences - not prejudices - to depend on, with multiple purchases for our office and also observing the junk that others have turned up to meetings withFor those with tremendous budgets, paying more than three timesthe price for a small increment in speed or reliability may not be anissue. Most people don't have such huge budgets though, and wouldnot consider spending more than three times the price for a smallincrement in performance or reliability. Like I said, it's more than speed... and reliability is strongly dependent on case design... where the $1000. units really show up their deficiency. People who use them as part of their jobs do *not* want compromise keyboard designs and crappy mouse devices. I'm thinking it may be time for another such "survey"Yes. New surveys not just based on brand, but on price point as well.An article such as what is the best $1000 notebook, or whatis the best $800 notebook would be very helpful to many.One cold also have artilcles for the $1200 price point, andthe $1500 price point, and a summary article showing exactlyhow much extra people should expect from a $1500 notebookthan from a $1000 notebook. Nope - you get pretty much what you pay for. It's like buying cheap tools - they look as good in the store... they always turn into junk.

It depends at what price. Paying three times the price for something
a bit better may not be wise, especially if the tools are often misplaced
or stolen. There will always be a few people willing to pay ridiculously
high prices for slight increases in quality, while most people would prefer
extra quality only if the price increase is slight.


Rgds, George Macdonald "Just because they're paranoid doesn't mean you're not psychotic" - Who, me??

[Tony Hill]

On Tue, 08 Jul 2003 10:43:28 -0400, JK <JK9821@netcape.net> wrote:Most people don't want to spend around $2500+ for a notebook. Thereis very large demand for notebooks priced around $1000 or even lower.This is especially true for the student market. Is a $2500+ notebookreally worth more than three times the best mobile Athlon XP $800notebook? Is it that much faster or that much more reliable? I doubt it.

When it comes to prices for computer systems, and especially laptops,
the initial purchase price is a VERY small portion of the total cost
for business purchases. Typically you're looking at no more than 1/3
to 1/4 of the total cost of ownership being the purchase price. When
you add up the software that you run on the system and the cost of
support, the difference in price between an "$800" laptop and a
"$2500" laptop would probably only be 20-25% assuming identical
support costs. If the "$800" laptop costs more to support, than it
doesn't take much before it's a more expensive system to buy then a
"$2500" laptop.

Needless to say, this is quite different from the perspective of the
home-user, where purchase cost is the dominant factor of price.
Different products for different markets. Unfortunately for AMD, they
have a perceived lack of reliability that keeps them in the low-cost
market that is dominated by the lower-margin home-user systems.
Whether this reputation is deserved or not is not really as important
as the fact that the reputation exists. Interestingly, Intel seems to
have developed a similar reputation for their Celeron line, despite
the fact that these chips are often nearly identical to their Pentium
line.

[Stacey]

JK wrote:
George Macdonald wrote:
Nope - you get pretty much what you pay for. It's like buying cheap tools - they look as good in the store... they always turn into junk. It depends at what price. Paying three times the price for something a bit better may not be wise, especially if the tools are often misplaced or stolen. There will always be a few people willing to pay ridiculously high prices for slight increases in quality, while most people would prefer extra quality only if the price increase is slight.


And "most people" are stupid..
--

Stacey

[Keith R. Williams]

In article <vtsmgv8vfcen92ii1nsrie6l2u39sd21t3@4ax.com>,
hilla@uoguelph.ca says... On Tue, 08 Jul 2003 10:43:28 -0400, JK <JK9821@netcape.net> wrote:Most people don't want to spend around $2500+ for a notebook. Thereis very large demand for notebooks priced around $1000 or even lower.This is especially true for the student market. Is a $2500+ notebookreally worth more than three times the best mobile Athlon XP $800notebook? Is it that much faster or that much more reliable? I doubt it. When it comes to prices for computer systems, and especially laptops, the initial purchase price is a VERY small portion of the total cost for business purchases. Typically you're looking at no more than 1/3 to 1/4 of the total cost of ownership being the purchase price. When you add up the software that you run on the system and the cost of support, the difference in price between an "$800" laptop and a "$2500" laptop would probably only be 20-25% assuming identical support costs. If the "$800" laptop costs more to support, than it doesn't take much before it's a more expensive system to buy then a "$2500" laptop.

Yep! That's how I justified my ThinkPad A21p 2.5 years ago. "Gee
boss, this software is $80K per node-locked license, the ThinkPad's
$4.5K is nothing next to that, and I can use it in the office, lab, or
on the road without needing another license." It was such a "good
deal", I bought two in case one failed (and I gave the other to the
team leader ;-).

--
Keith

[George Macdonald]

On Tue, 08 Jul 2003 17:16:27 -0400, JK <JK9821@netcape.net> wrote:
George Macdonald wrote: Nope - you get pretty much what you pay for. It's like buying cheap tools - they look as good in the store... they always turn into junk.It depends at what price. Paying three times the price for somethinga bit better may not be wise, especially if the tools are often misplacedor stolen. There will always be a few people willing to pay ridiculouslyhigh prices for slight increases in quality, while most people would preferextra quality only if the price increase is slight.

Ummm, yer a persistent bugger if nothing else.:-) A cheap tool is the one
which breaks just as you're toquing down the last few bolts in the car at
about the time the stores close on a Sunday. Uhh, that's when you get to
measure quality.;-)

Rgds, George Macdonald

"Just because they're paranoid doesn't mean you're not psychotic" - Who, me??

[Keith R. Williams]

In article <3f066a91.854661057@news.pacific.net.sg>, a?n?g?e?
l@lovergirl.lrigrevol.moc.com says... On Fri, 4 Jul 2003 20:14:32 -0400, Keith R. Williams <krw@attglobal.net> wrote:Ok. I rather like TrackPoints too, unless a mouse is an option.I carry a real keyboard and mouse when traveling by land. Byair, the Thinkpad keyboard and TrackPoint is acceptable. You guys are big caucausian

Hmm, that's the first time male Caucasians have been called
"big". ;-)

so an extra keyboard and mouse probably doesn't feel like much.


NOte that I said "when traveling by land", I.e. by automobile. I
can always find a way of hiding a "model-M" and a mouse somewhere
in the car. By air? no.
I'm small, an extra mouse is an ugly budge in the bad with no good place to put it. And with the FDD now an external item, I've got more budges in the bag than I care to have already.

Dunno, I think some women could use some extra bulges. ;-)
Seriously, laptop mice can be about an inch-cube. We're not
talking about a desktop mouse here.Perhaps you're agreeing with me? It's been a long time sincepeople have agreed with me here. ;-) *laffs* I noticed!

Well... I've gone to the dark side. I wish I could afford an
Apple G5. ;-)
T20s are available *new* for less than a grand. A friend got onefor his grandson for the basic $999. Not here, only T30 and R30 available when I was shopping.

"HERE" is a big deal. I can get a few "R30" models for <$1000
today. Note that the 'R' series are desktop replacements, not
"thin-n-lites". AIUI, the 'R' series is the replacement for the
'A' series.
It really annoys me no end that they (most brands) yanked the FDD out of almost every model so I end up having to carry either an extra FDD or a stack of CDR...

Well, if you want small, you don't get the FDD. That's one
reason I like the 'A' series. ...though I don't think I've used
the FDD for at least a year. Networks work far more reliably.
I know USB is becoming very popular but not everybody I work has a system that will work right off the bat with a USB storage device.

I've never used the USB port. The Ethernet port works just fine.

--
Keith

[The little lost angel]

On Thu, 10 Jul 2003 21:34:48 -0400, Keith R. Williams
<krw@attglobal.net> wrote:
NOte that I said "when traveling by land", I.e. by automobile. Ican always find a way of hiding a "model-M" and a mouse somewherein the car. By air? no.

Hee, you guys and your Model-M :P
When I travel, it's by land too, except it's public transport, so
extra budges are hard to manage. As it is, carrying a laptop bag gets
me annoyed looks when I have to basically ram folks with it since they
refuse to inch sideways to let me pass on crowded buses. :/
Dunno, I think some women could use some extra bulges. ;-)

*laff* No thanks, I have all the bulges I need on myself, though maybe
just starting to get a little extra around the waist :P
Seriously, laptop mice can be about an inch-cube. We're nottalking about a desktop mouse here.

Argh, I hate those tennie mouses. Too big or too small are no good.
Okie, I'm one of those sold on the trackpoint :P

"HERE" is a big deal. I can get a few "R30" models for <$1000today. Note that the 'R' series are desktop replacements, not"thin-n-lites". AIUI, the 'R' series is the replacement for the'A' series.

Yesh, I know tat... I almost wanted to get the 'R' series actually
since it was well within my budget. But in the end, the longer
warranty on the T series tilt the lever.
I've never used the USB port. The Ethernet port works just fine.

It's still not that common here to find everybody with a Ethernet
port... not to mention the reconfiguring needed :/

--
L.Angel: I'm looking for web design work.
If you need basic to med complexity webpages at affordable rates, email me :)
Standard HTML, SHTML, MySQL + PHP or Javascript. No ASP, CF or Frontpage.