<p>MSI makes great mobos, but I think they only make netbooks. I’m not sure that they make full on notebooks. Definitely need a model number to be sure.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I did a lot research before buying a computer, and I talked to 3 of my coworkers who work in computers, and one of my friends who went to school for computers. They all said that for what I want (basic laptop for word processing, internet, watching movies and music), the laptop I got would be more than enough and that it would last me 3 years or so…and at $500, how could I not get it?</p>
<p>I do hope you’re happy with it, but there are lots of reasons I would not buy that computer if I wanted it to last 4 years. That machine is a classic 2, 3 years max, with last gen tech and some compromises that will be felt out of the box with Vista. The weight, size, and battery life alone would have been worth a bit more investment, IMO, and considering the cost of MS Office, if your school isn’t supplying you with that then the 14z practically pays for the difference with that alone.</p>
<p>I got Office for only $75 including tax and shipping. I love my computer, and as I said, I talked to people they know they’re stuff. I love my computer, and am really happy with it! And seriously $500! I was looking at other computers that were at the very least $150 more.</p>
<p>yeah you don’t need a r. fast computer to run Office and firefox.</p>
<p>it’s kind of silly how people get wrapped up in tech. specs.</p>
<p>Vista is fine. Vista’s going to be supported for at least 4 more years. XP came out in 2001 and is still supported.</p>
<p>I build my own and friends’ computers and I very much know what I’m doing. Personally, I think that even playing Hulu and YouTube HD on a lot of those integrated graphics chips is painful and I think it’s a waste of money to buy technology that’s already 1.5 years old when you’re purchasing a new machine. To last four years, you future proof.</p>
<p>I also don’t believe in buying 1.5" laptops. That’s getting to sacrifice too much portability, which is my number one concern with a laptop.</p>
<p>Exactly. I’m running Office, Firefox, Windows Media Player, iTunes and Napster. The specs I have are absolutely enough for that! I wanted good specs, but I didn’t want to spend a whole lot. And when I need a new computer, I’ll get one. I’m actually kinda hoping that this one will crash after like 2 years so I can get a new one, or even better, get the money I paid for this and use it towards an even better new one.</p>
<p>integrated graphics is fine if you don’t play video games or use CAD programs. My computer has it and I can watch videos on youtube just fine.</p>
<p>Dude, here are the minimum requirements for microsoft office 2007:</p>
<p>Computer and processor 500 megahertz (MHz) processor or higher
Memory 256 megabyte (MB) RAM or higher</p>
<p>firefox 3 :
Pentium 233 MHz (Recommended: Pentium 500MHz or greater)
64 MB RAM (Recommended: 128 MB RAM or greater)</p>
<p>I think any laptop you buy nowadays will do just fine running those programs. There aren’t many reasons for a normal computer user to spend a lot of money on a computer.</p>
<p>If you think as a college student you’ll never have the occasion to download and watch 1080p video full screened, you’re nuts.</p>
<p>To do this, the Intel Integrated stuff barely gets you by (if at all), and craps out pretty quick if you try to do anything more than run a chat client in the background.</p>
<p>With the ramping up of operating system eye-candy and many programs following suit, you’ll find yourself feeling sluggish on integrated systems pretty quick.</p>
<p>I’ve uniformly had a bad experience even doing basic tasks on computers with Intel graphics.</p>
<p>dude you are imagining it. it’s not a big difference.</p>
<p>I can watch shows in HD no problem…well, that is if my internet is working, but that’s a completely different story. I don’t play games. Ever…unless you count spider solitaire and other pre-installed factory games that came on my computer. Yeah. I’ve got more than I need.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I don’t have much knowledge of network or GPU programming or architectures, but it makes a lot of sense to me that the bottleneck in this case would be the internet connection.</p>
<p>whoops my point isn’t clear. prob. the culprit for poor performance with streaming video is the internet connection.</p>
<p>modestmelody, i completely agree with everything you’ve said but there’s no use in convincing these people otherwise. honestly, it’s their loss</p>
<p>eucalyptus2, if your daughter is talking about the msi wind netbook, i highly recommend it. i bought it when it first came out (a little less than a year ago for 430$) but prices have dropped considerably. it’s definitely not my main computer but it’s extremely helpful for doing work on the go when i don’t want to lug around my laptop.</p>
<p>
It depends on your definition of HD, but you’re not watching 1080P on that thing.</p>
<p>That said, my laptop has an intel graphics chip (I paid $600 for a heavily discounted Inspiron a year ago as I also have a desktop) and I can watch plenty of stuff fine, and could do CAD (didn’t try animating though). I even plugged it into my 46" 1080p TV to watch some shows from bittorrent and it didn’t look significantly worse than the same show on demand in HD. On the go, though, I really don’t think you’re going to get a meaningful difference from watching true HD on a screen 17" or under.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The processor is perfectly adequate for what he needs to do. Hell, my netbook’s processor works smoothly for office tasks, and is only bad for HD video.</p>
<p>100mz faster clockspeed is not going to be noticed. DDR2 and DDR3 RAM has very little difference, certainly nothing you will notice. The integrated graphics are also fine for him as he’s not gaming.</p>
<p>And why would you watch HD video on a screen that isn’t HD? You are not going to notice the difference between true HD and 780p or whatever the other one is.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>my netbook runs warcraft 3. It’s on intel graphics and an atom processor. Integrated graphics is optimal for him as the battery life is much better than with a discrete card.</p>
<p>THe biggest differences are really wireless N and no MS office. If you really need those, you can buy them both for less than 250 dollars. MS office for a student is around 50 dollars I think.</p>
<p>Let me stress that my netbook can do all that he wants to do fairly smoothly. That hardware is fine.</p>
<p>Around 600-1000 dollars is the sweetspot for people who need higher spec laptops though. I recommend clevo/sager for gamers.</p>
<p>there is no noticeable difference between DD3 and DD2 ram atm. the only difference is its affect on battery life, which doesn’t usually warrant the cost. the vast majority of places you go to use a laptop have power outlets near by anyways. you’re only kidding yourself if you think that people are missing out by not getting DD3.</p>
<p>i never had trouble watching regular DVDs on my penitum 4 with integrated video, and you can run basic computing software on great. i think its laughable that you’ve “uniformly had a bad experience even doing basic tasks on computers with Intel graphics”. thats either a huge exaggeration or just a misrepresentation of the facts.</p>
<p>that being said, i have no interest in a $500 machine myself. even though there are plenty of opportunities to buy core2duo machines for under $500.</p>
<p>a lot of people here have been drinking the koolaid that the tech magazines and websites serve</p>
<p>As far as HD video and integrated cards go; my old Pentium 4 and Intel Integrated desktop can’t watch 720p videos with major lag. Just saying.</p>