<p>
</p>
<p>I seem to remember mentioning 1080p. You seem to have ignored that.</p>
<p>Antsofthesky seems to be supporting what I’m saying.</p>
<p>conveniently, i’ve never had to play 1080p, so to say that watching 1080p is inevitable is wrong. i guess thats why i ignored it.</p>
<p>i used to watch trailers in 720p whenever i could, and rarely had trouble. i’d be lying if i said it was unheard of, but i certainly did it and it wasn’t enough of a hindrance for me to avoid them. i was on a 2.3 ghz/64mb video for the record.</p>
<p>either way, you dont buy a budget laptop if you expect to want to watch 1080p video. if you’re the kind of person who has any inclination towards knowing what 1080p is, then chances are you’re not in the market for that kind of computer.</p>
<p>in fact here’s a source that proves its perfectly capable.
<a href=“http://www.microsoft.com/windows/windowsmedia/musicandvideo/hdvideo/choosingpc.aspx[/url]”>http://www.microsoft.com/windows/windowsmedia/musicandvideo/hdvideo/choosingpc.aspx</a></p>
<p>i’m just trying to say this: we’ve reached a point in technology where cutting edge is way above and beyond. the minimum that is available brand new from manufacturers suffices for the vast majority of what the average consumer needs. i agree that having a $500 laptop isn’t the greatest idea, but its not at a horrible idea for the majority of people buying computers right now. some computers around that price are indeed below spec and are an exception to all of this, but there are plenty more opportunities to buy very low end machines with core duo processors and 3-4 gb of ram that will satisfy the demands for at least a majority of the people asking for help here.</p>
<p>I have a 256mb card from 4 years ago that benchmarks better than the internal stuff and it has some trouble playing 1080p.</p>
<p>With Blu-Ray increasing, Apple.com Trailers in 1080p (and other videos increasingly in 1080p), mkv being a popular video download format, etc etc…</p>
<p>I have no doubt in the next 4 years people will be regularly watching 1080p material.</p>
<p>I have a 64mb discrete card on my laptop and it does just ok with 720p, barely passable, but it is running a Pentium M 1.5ghz.</p>
<p>A netbook is great for some things, and truly, those $500 laptops are barely more than glorified netbooks that can burn CDs faster. The bottomline is for a machine you expect to use for a long time as your main machine, the $500 stuff is still heavy, thick, and will be under-powered down the line.</p>
<p>If you want to buy a $500 laptop every two years, then you’ll be fine. If you’d rather spend $750 and get something that’ll work perfectly fine for 4, that’s fine, too. I believe in doing the latter, especially since it’s going to be lighter and thinner and often have longer battery life.</p>
<p>My laptop is light, thin, and has like a 3.5 hour battery life while listening to music, surfing the net and other tasks simultaneously.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>yo. check it. </p>
<p>[Tech-no-media:</a> There is a problem playing flash video on a netbook.](<a href=“Tech No Media”>Tech No Media)</p>
<p>this article explains the reason why HD flash video takes so long. It isn’t because of slower GPUs–it is because the software isn’t offloading computations to the GPU in the first place!</p>
<p>Who’s talking about streaming Flash? That’s not where you see 1080p.
And yet, the standard at your laptop’s size right now is 1lb lighter, 20% thinner, and 30% more battery life.</p>
<p>i guess i picked the wrong phrase to quote, but earlier you were talking about watching videos on hulu</p>
<p>the point the article is making is that GPUs aren’t always the cause of poor video performance. it may be the case that you are using an application that doesn’t even take advantage of the GPU.</p>
<p>modestmelody - Not even. I looked at a lot of computers, and this was pretty standard in terms of size, and better in battery life than half of them!</p>
<p>lol i looked up what resolution 1080i was and my laptop’s resolution is way less than that. 1920 x 1080 would look really tiny on a 13" laptop. it’s not exactly a must-have feature.</p>
<p>14" screens these days often come in at what’s called “900p”. HDMI out to a monitor often goes well beyond 1080p, and I output to my TV to watch downloaded video all the time. A lot of my friends do the same thing-- it’s just part of the file sharing culture which increases once you’re in college.</p>
<p>Plus, now a lot of top quality video is 1080p whether your resolution is that high or not. Scaling down doesn’t lower the needs of your machine, it’s not like playing games.</p>
<p>hmmm then getting a nicer laptop is worth it for you i guess</p>
<p>Like I’ve said-- weight, size, and battery life alone would make me spend more right now.</p>
<p>The power issues are not for the general person’s uses right now, per se, but future proofing for the next four year. </p>
<p>For me, the power issues are a now thing.</p>
<p>
- Not virus immune. It’s just that not many people have designed any viruses or malware for Macs because much more people use Windows, and thus it would make much more sense to design a virus or trojan against Windows.
- Nope. That’s just bias on your part.
- Just because it looks sexy doesn’t mean that it’s good.
- That’s correct.
- That’s correct.
- Much more expensive. Not worth it on the price/performance ratio.</p>
<p>
- Much less expensive compared to Mac.
- Most programs are designed for Windows.
- There is good free antivirus software like AVG and Avira. And running an antivirus is very simple.
- Windows is stable as long as you remember to download all your hardware’s drivers.
- That’s wrong. Vista is a good OS, it’s just that on computers with less-than-decent specs, you can encounter problems with Vista. But I, on the other hand, I’ve never encountered a single problem with Vista, and it runs all my programs fine. Anyway… 7 is a much better OS. XP is good too, though I think a lot of people are going to use 7.</p>
<p>Some of that stuff isn’t right, 2wentyeight.</p>
<p>For starters the Unibody Macbook Pros are legitimately as well constructed as any laptop on the market is. Period. They are often lighter and thinner than similarly equipped PCs.</p>
<p>Also, most commercial software isn’t simply ported for OSX, it’s just as designed for OSX as it is for Windows. In fact, because OSX has had more powerful tools to access the GPU than Windows for some time (now it’s closer to par), a lot of professional/graphics software had optimizations that made them ideally run on OSX.</p>
<p>Windows is pretty stable since XP. However, to compare Windows stability to the uptime of Unix or Linux is still wrong.</p>
<p>Vista is a poorly optimized OS. It’s basically 7 beta. Much of what has been added to 7 were part of the original features expected for Vista (and not all of those have been released yet even in 7, IIRC).</p>
<p>I’m aware that unibody Macbooks are some of the most well-designed notebooks on the market. However, my point was that the hardware inside the system isn’t worth it for the price you pay, thus leading up to Macs generally having a poor price/performance ratio. This leads me to think that the reason some people get a Mac is the exterior design only, something which I think isn’t right.</p>
<p>As for Vista, I agree with you that it isn’t one of the best OS out right now, but it still provides for an adequate experience. Anyway, anyone who purchases a Vista system right now can get a free upgrade to Windows 7 when it’s released.</p>
<p>just to be nitpicky, and i do apologize, its not the exterior design. its everything about it that makes it what it is–people buy it because its a mac. if HP put windows on it and shipped it with their logo on the case, it wouldn’t get the attention that it gets as a mac.</p>
<p>performance is rarely the deal breaker when buying anything high end.</p>
<p>i want to point this out because saying people only buy macs for the aesthetics is unfair.</p>
<p>Buying a Mac because it’s a Mac isn’t justified, though. Unless, of course, you’re trying to fit in with the “image” or “reputation” that you would get if you own one maybe. But I’m agreeing with 28 - the price/performance ratio for a Mac is very bad. And when I’m looking for a PC, I look for one that has good specs. I don’t look for one that has a label that will make me cool. I look for one that will give me good performance.</p>
<p>… And everything I can do with a Mac, I can do with Windows. Sure, everything Windows can do a Mac can do, but at a higher price than a Windows machine. ;)</p>
<p>Alright, so I’m not going to college 'til next year (fall of '10), but I just wanted to know what type of laptop I should probably get for college…</p>
<p>I currently have a dell computer, so I work with Windows XP 24/7… (I plan on using either XP or 7 in the future)
I tend to go on gmail, twitter, facebook…I blog…
I watch movies and videos with my computer…
I video chat with a webcam…
I go on AIM and chat with friends a lot…
I use photoshop and do some basic graphic designing…
I’ve been doing some basic web designing…
I listen to music (I have a lot of music saved on my computer)…
I sometimes play games, but not often and not a lot…</p>
<p>I want something that’s light, thin, cheap, and will last me for four years (hopefully).
I’m not too great on the antivirus stuff…but I plan to be with my own laptop (haha)…</p>
<p>Approximately how much should I spend and what types of laptops should I look into?</p>
<p>Thanks :)</p>
<p>Get a [Lenovo</a> ThinkPad](<a href=“http://shop.lenovo.com/SEUILibrary/controller/e/na/LenovoPortal/en_US/catalog.workflow:expandcategory?current-catalog-id=12F0696583E04D86B9B79B0FEC01C087¤t-category-id=8FA114A7D9FF4F38AE8E19B36EC665A7]Lenovo”>http://shop.lenovo.com/SEUILibrary/controller/e/na/LenovoPortal/en_US/catalog.workflow:expandcategory?current-catalog-id=12F0696583E04D86B9B79B0FEC01C087¤t-category-id=8FA114A7D9FF4F38AE8E19B36EC665A7); they’re very sturdy and offer great build quality at affordable prices. Get an R series model if you don’t care about the laptop being a little bulky, or one from the T series if you do, but don’t mind spending a little extra money.</p>
<p>Make sure you add the webcam for your video chatting and upgrade the hard drive if you think you need more space for your music. Unless you’re playing serious games (i.e., ones that you buy and not just free Flash browser games), the Intel graphics card should be enough.</p>
<p>If you want to get Windows 7 when it’s released, make sure you get a version of Vista that comes with a free upgrade (all of them except Home Basic).</p>
<p>Even with a T series laptop, the price should be below $1000.</p>
<p>Look at the Studio 14z. As ModestMelody has been saying, it’s specs make it a pretty nice computer. For a 14" screen, it’s lighter than mac’s most comparable-cost computer (the macbook 13"). For $1000 (my build), you can get an 8600 2.4 mHz dual core (faster than the mac), 300 gb 7200 rpm HD (larger/faster than macs), nvidia 9400 M graphics (same thing that’s in the macs, and though integrated, runs on the DDR3 RAM, and is comparable in performance to last-generation dedicated 256 mb cards), and 3 gigs RAM, which should be enough. The graphics will allow photoshop to be pretty smooth, unlike intel graphics, and though it’s got no external optical drive, you don’t need an optical drive for very much.</p>
<p>And battery life is great (I get 4.5 hours), the sound quality is better than an Inspiron or most laptops (just not great bass, but you need a subwoofer for that), it can multitask well, has a webcam, a VERY comfortable backlit keyboard, a 16:9 aspect ratio (same as movie-theaters), and a 900p screen (about the best you’ll get in a screen smaller than 15").</p>
<p>Plus, if you wait a year, most the kinks will be worked out, the machine will have a better processor and next-year’s graphics card, Win7, and they may make it have dual-channel ram to give you 4 gigs cheaply (though 3 is fine).</p>