Thinkpad CPU upgrade my 390 from 300Mhz to??

On Fri, 04 Jul 2003 12:43:50 -0400, JK 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 dropped
Intel, and is now exclusively AMD. Now you will probably start making
fun 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.

In article , a?n?g?e?
says...
On Thu, 3 Jul 2003 21:10:57 -0400, Keith R. Williams
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

On Fri, 04 Jul 2003 16:33:11 -0400, JK wrote:



The little lost angel wrote:

On Fri, 04 Jul 2003 12:43:50 -0400, JK 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 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

On Fri, 4 Jul 2003 20:14:32 -0400, Keith R. Williams
wrote:

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.

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 since
people have agreed with me here. ;-)

*laffs* I noticed!

T20s are available *new* for less than a grand. A friend got one
for 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.

On Fri, 04 Jul 2003 16:33:11 -0400, JK wrote:

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?

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.

The little lost angel wrote:

On Fri, 04 Jul 2003 16:33:11 -0400, JK wrote:

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?

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.

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.

The little lost angel wrote:

On Sat, 05 Jul 2003 02:51:29 -0400, JK 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/V...~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/V...~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.

JK wrote:



The little lost angel wrote:

On Fri, 04 Jul 2003 12:43:50 -0400, JK 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 ****ty laptops.


--

Stacey

JK wrote:



The little lost angel wrote:

On Sat, 05 Jul 2003 02:51:29 -0400, JK 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/V...~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 ****ty $2000 laptop is going to make a great $1000
one?

--

Stacey