laptop comparison

Remove all ads!

Hey guys, my laptop budget isn't going to be as big as I thought it was and my budget is now 800$ which cuts the Macbook out of the picture. I searched on the net and found these 2.

For 800$:

Sony VAIO VGN-N385E/B 15.4" Notebook PC (Intel Core 2 Duo Processor T5300, 1 GB RAM, 120 GB Hard Drive, Vista Premium)

and for $750:

HP Pavilion DV6605US 15.4" Entertainment Notebook PC (AMD Athlon 64 Processor TK-55, 1 GB RAM, 160 GB Hard Drive, Vista Premium)

I think from my previous posts in this thread its pretty clear that I'm techno-illeterate

so what do you guys think? which of these is better? Or do you know of a 3rd option that fits under the 800$ budget constraint? Thanks guys.

 

Get the HP. If I were you, I'd try going to HP's website and customizing the 6600t series laptop. But whatever you do, *don't buy a Sony*

 

I have never tried a Sony but my last couple experiences with HP laptops were decidedly unsatisfactory. That was around 4 to 5 years ago though so HP could have improved their quality since then.

 

Ack, first 2 posts and conflicting already

Kit, any particular reason why I should take the HP and not take the Sony? As I mentioned, I'm techno-illiterate so it appears to me that the HP has 2 advantages already, first is its lower price, 2nd is its larger hard drive.

What about the processor type? iirc, Intel is superior to AMD? Will this be relevant?

 

For what I know of HP, computers yes, printers never. I resently purchased Pavilion dv9000 series laptop myself for 998€. Couldn't be more satisfied (this screen is bigger than my table comps )

From what I've experienced everything you need for gaming is 2Ghz or above processor, as much RAM as you can get (2gigs) and a desent graphic driver. But in the end it all falls to how your graphic driver handles the memory. I had my previous laptop with 2ghz processor and it handled everything like a dream, the dream ended to SiS graphic driver that had hard time running even BG2 effects.

If it's for work purposes, going for processor over graphic of course.

Ps. Personally I like AMD over Intel.

 

Whichever brand you choose, remember that you will get a boat load of completely unnecessary software to slow down your new rig. Worse, you might even get a, hss!, Vista!

So reformatting it right after you get it might be a good idea.

 

ok, looks like the general consensus is shifting over to HP, at least now I have a clear choice

As regards Vista, yup, both of them have it. But wouldn't it be the more practical choice to just try and get used to it (though I've never tried it before) as opposed to paying extra for XP since Vista is going to become the new standard as they phase XP out?

I've heard lots of horror stories of how buggy Vista is, but is that only when you get very tech specific? Or will it affect even a lay-user's (such as myself) actions like using MS Office for homework, navigating the internet (I use Firefox nowadays) and watching movies/burning DVD downloads.

 

Hey, if it's what you want to use during the next ten years, go ahead. It's slower, less reliable, and has all kinds of nasty anti-piracy stuff hidden to it, so I would either stick to XP or switch to Linux. Besides, you need to buy XP only once. Unlike Vista, it doesn't have limited installation permissions.

That's a bold statement, since he same reasons that made XP dominant haven't disappeared anywhere even though Vista is out. Yes, it's possible that Vista becomes the standard, in time, but that's still far off and may not even happen at all. If it doesn't, you're stuck with a useless OS.

 

hmm.. this sucks :/ how much does a new copy of XP cost?

 

Every HP laptop I have ever used or help fix was a champ...the problems were always with software, never hardware.

The first part is true...HP and Sony are the *worst* for adding so much junk to a new system. Also, none of the major brands ship the OEM Vista disk...just a "recovery" disk that probably re-loads all the junk anyway. However, there's a program out there called the pc decrapifier that can get rid of all that useless junk so you don't need to reformat right off the bat.

Oh, and at this point, *not* getting Vista seems like a waste of money to me. SP1 is out, and XP will be taken off the shelves sooner or later...and M$ will eventually stop supporting it, so Vista *will* become the standard.

 

Yeah, as regards Vista, my dad told me the same thing, I'll probably just have to try and get used to it. At this point all I really need in my laptop are MS Office and the ability to watch movies and surf the net.

Also, what free computer anti-virus and other type of protections do you recommend? Something that auto-updates would be better for me I think.

 

Sticks and stones. We are playing on probabilities here, but it is a undeniable fact that Windows XP is the de facto standard of today. I think it is wiser to count on the current realities than fiddle with the possibilities.

But then again: it's not my money. As to the prices, the costs are as follows:
-- Linux (any distribution): 0 €, but hours of work to get it work.
-- Windows XP Professional (full): 361 €.
-- Windows XP Professional (OEM): 75 €.
-- Windows Vista Ultimate (full): 450 €.
-- Windows Vista Ultimate (OEM): 160 €.
(Source: Hintaseuranta.fi, a finnish retail-price tracker found by a recognized computer magazine.)