Crap selection of laptops

DVI does absolutely everything I, or anyone else I have ever met, have ever wanted a connection standard to do. Why do these morons have to keep changing good stuff that works well? It drives people spare. I cannot think of one single good reason to use Display Port OR HDMI.
 
1: Audio? Who could care less about audio?
2: Too big a plug? WTF? Decent sized plugs (like DVI) are more robust, more reliable, easier to use, easier to tell apart, and (unlike piddly little plugs) difficult to break.
3: But if they wanted something that wasn't DVI (HDMI for example) why could the morons not have gone with that standard in the first place? All three standards came out at about the same time (certainly in practice, paper-only "start" times may be different, but even if so this is not relevant).

Never mind the frustration and inconvenience, the sheer, senseless waste of using scare natural resources to manufacture one sort of interface and then throw all that away only to replace it with a different item to do exactly the same job is mind boggling. Add up all the useless throw-away cables I've seen and I'd have enough length to reach from here all the way to your house and probably back again.
 
Chewy509 said:
According to VESA (to standards body), DisplayPort supersedes/replaces DVI.

PS. For those are not aware DisplayPort is defined by VESA, but HDMI is defined by a loose collection of companies... One of the reasons for HDMI was HDCP and audio as default and not as optional implementation extra.
Click to expand...
DVI was put together by the DDWG all the way back in 1999. HDMI was developed in 2002. Displayport was cooked up in 2006.

You make it sound like a group of rogue companies got together to with the intention of screwing everyone with their shiny new HDMI spec. They wanted an AV version of DVI. They created a standard that was backward compatible with DVI no less, and the industry got behind it. That's how standards get established. Like the CAN bus in car. Bosch cooked it up, companies got behind it and implemented it and it ended up an ISO standard. ISO didn't invent it or develop it. The SD card standard is the same way. A loose collection of companies got together and created a standard that ultimately got widespread adoption. Just because VESA blessed the DP standard after a few disgruntled companies decided to disrupt the marketplace doesn't make it any more legitimate.
 
Handruin said:
DVI is bulky and annoying. It also has several formats and can be limiting in resolution. I view DP as an improvement to DVI with respect to the connector and also increased bandwidth in future revisions. Are there newer revisions of DVI? I feel like it's a dead end connector at this point. I compare DP to HDMI because both allow audio. DVI as far as I'm aware doesn't allow audio.
Click to expand...
Well, up until this year what hasn't DVI been able to do that it should? For connecting a monitor to a PC it's done very well. 4k resolution at 60Hz is the first thing it hasn't been able to do. Not too bad for a standard created 14 years ago. A simple revision increasing the bandwidth of each differential pair and it'll do 4k at 60Hz too.
 
Stereodude said:
DVI was put together by the DDWG all the way back in 1999. HDMI was developed in 2002. Displayport was cooked up in 2006.
Click to expand...

Useful info. Thankyou. Of course the in practice, real-world entrances of the three systems onto the mainstream market were much closer together than than these dates would suggest. I'd have to look up old invoices to get the exact dates, but it would have been around about 2006 or 2007 when we first started seeing DVI on anything other than weirdo bleeding-edge stuff, and both of the other two were around within about a year of that time. (The Display Port people must have been very quick to move, 'cause we saw DP on Thinkpads and the like quite promptly.)
 
Not sure I agree with you there. DVI was definitely widespread on products in the marketplace in by 2001-2002. LCD monitors, projectors, graphics cards, etc.
 
It would be nice to fit multiple video ports on the back of smaller devices like laptops. Doing so with DVI is bulky and takes up considerable real estate. Using DP or HDMI makes this possible, especially with the mini versions of those connectors.
 
Not all notebooks are thick enough to physically have a DVI plug. I say standardize by tethering the DVI socket to the back of the display or on the bottom so it can't lay flat (Sarcasm to all those (Tannin) that say there is no reason for a smaller plug).

HDMI was not even developed for computer usage. It was designed as a generic AV cabling system between devices with the specific goal of implementing HDCP (copyright protection) so that people wouldn't be able to do unauthorized copying of digital content. Significant computer usage came much later because of significant HDCP issues.
 
Stereodude said:
DVI was definitely widespread on products in the marketplace in by 2001-2002. LCD monitors, projectors, graphics cards, etc.
Click to expand...
nVidia GeForce4 cards back in '02 had DVI on all but the entry level models. IIRC, All Quadro's based on the nv2x GPU had DVI as standard.
Also here is a pic of a GeForce 3 Ti 500 with DVI (circa '01): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:GeForce3_Ti_500.jpg
Stereodude said:
You make it sound like a group of rogue companies got together to with the intention of screwing everyone with their shiny new HDMI spec.
Click to expand...
Apologies, that wasn't my intention. Simply that DP didn't have audio as standard, and all the companies wanted a standard that included audio. I would have done the same thing. (In retrospect, it was an oversight on VESA's part to not include audio as default in DP).
 
I must have been out of the loopy. Back then I was all anal log with Matron video cards.
 
I was not into digital displays until around 2004-2005 and cannot remember what video card was utilized. Perhaps it was still the Matrox VGA card. I'm still using VGA on the old corporate laptop now.
 
Tannin said:
2: Too big a plug? WTF? Decent sized plugs (like DVI) are more robust, more reliable, easier to use, easier to tell apart, and (unlike piddly little plugs) difficult to break.
Click to expand...

Not sure about this. DVI plugs still use pins - albeit more robust than a VGA plug - but still something that a ham-fisted user can bend if provoked enough.

Whereas HDMI and DP are all "ribbon" style connectors - reminiscent of the legendary Centronics printer plugs. Personally, I think these are more likely to survive user stupidity.
 
Blast from the past: PC specs for 2004. Good fun to read what some of us thought 9.5 years ago. ;)

I think Pradeep was a gold award contender for foresight with his comments about HDMI. The rest of you can just feel embarrassed. :)
 
time said:
Whereas HDMI and DP are all "ribbon" style connectors - reminiscent of the legendary Centronics printer plugs. Personally, I think these are more likely to survive user stupidity.
Click to expand...

... and just to be contrary, I've had users break USB and displayport connectors by pulling up or down on them as if they were handles, something that I never experienced with anything that used a D-shell style connector. I like the ribbon types better as well but they're definitely delicate
.
 
Stereodude said:
You make it sound like a group of rogue companies got together to with the intention of screwing everyone with their shiny new HDMI spec.
Click to expand...
Actually... most of the same companies are behind both DP and HDMI. The key difference in my opinion is that HDMI is closed and requires fees; DP is open and free.

Do not doubt the power of the almighty dollar.
 
Crappy laptop sounds like the description for what I have, the Ultrabork. :cry: Basically it has no ports, the not blue U
The lid is almost impossible to open with fingers, but one has to do that every time because there is no external power button. :wall:
 
My sister's 3-yr old Dell laptop is getting flaky (she lives 600 miles away). The Dell store guy has tempted her with a buyback offer, offering a decent amount for the current laptop if she buys a new one. The new ones look crappy to me: see here. She mainly uses it for email, some web surfing and occasionally printing something out.

He's priced the second one from left (Core i3-3217U 1.8 GHz with 1x4GB RAM). If these re worth buying, I would rather she buy the 4th one from the left (Core i5-3337U 2.7 GHz with 1x4GB + 1x2GB). What's this with non matching DIM sizes? They both come with shitty 6-cell batteries.

Thanks.

Opinions, comments please. Budget is a constraint.
 
mubs said:
My sister's 3-yr old Dell laptop is getting flaky (she lives 600 miles away). The Dell store guy has tempted her with a buyback offer, offering a decent amount for the current laptop if she buys a new one. The new ones look crappy to me: see here. She mainly uses it for email, some web surfing and occasionally printing something out.

He's priced the second one from left (Core i3-3217U 1.8 GHz with 1x4GB RAM). If these re worth buying, I would rather she buy the 4th one from the left (Core i5-3337U 2.7 GHz with 1x4GB + 1x2GB). What's this with non matching DIM sizes? They both come with shitty 6-cell batteries.

Thanks.

Opinions, comments please. Budget is a constraint.
Click to expand...

That i3 is rather weak, but it might work for the purpose. However, I'd rather have the i5 if the laptop will be used for a number of years. If you go by Passmark that i5 is about 50% faster.
 
I think CPU spec might be a silly criteria for purchasing a laptop at this point. There's really very little difference between a modest C2D and an i7. The issue here is how the device will be used, but assuming adequate RAM and a fast storage device, they aren't that far apart for the vast majority of computing work. I think the biggest thing to look for at this point is weight vs. external I/O options, battery lifespan and display resolution. Decent new machines really should have at least a 1600x900 option. But CPU is something that largely only matters to people who are going to want to use a desktop to do work anyway.
 
Mercutio said:
I think CPU spec might be a silly criteria for purchasing a laptop at this point. There's really very little difference between a modest C2D and an i7. The issue here is how the device will be used, but assuming adequate RAM and a fast storage device, they aren't that far apart for the vast majority of computing work. I think the biggest thing to look for at this point is weight vs. external I/O options, battery lifespan and display resolution. Decent new machines really should have at least a 1600x900 option. But CPU is something that largely only matters to people who are going to want to use a desktop to do work anyway.
Click to expand...

Well, an SSD would help more, but that was not the question either. What does a higher resolution screen do unless you are watching the videos?
 
Working on spreedsheets on a 1366x768 is counter-productive. Anything involving text is limitative too. It's a resolution reserved for near-sighted elders.
 
Well, sis is on the wrong side of 50 :), and she's no hawk-eye like good ole Pradeep or our other gent from Chicago, Fushigi.

And this machine will pretty much be used like a desktop - parked in one place while being used, then put away on a shelf. Except that the whole thing is much smaller than a desktop, so they prefer a laptop. It is also plugged in all the time, so the battery only comes into play when the power goes off now and then.

I am more concerned about the reliability and general speed. Reviews on Dell's own web site say this series of laptops have crappy speed even for web browsing, and the Wi-fi has issues. I'd want it to work without crapping out in a couple of years.

The current laptop is a Dell, barely 3 years old. It kind of died - no display, blinking cursor, etc. She had it repaired by them without checking with me. They charged quite a bit and said the display chip needed to be replaced. Chip replacement ain't a joke if it's not in a socket, and I doubt the morons have the skill of jtr to replace a chip soldered on the motherboard. It died again within a day after she brought it home, and she had to take it back. I had coached her this time, so they fixed it without charge saying the BIOS was dead - whatever that means. They offered a decent trade-in value and suggested she buy a new model. That's how all this came up. It has crashed once now after she brought it home the second time, and the battery is kaput. It used to be my niece's when she was it college, and has a ton of Adobe stuff (Photoshop, illustrator) etc. which they want to uninstall before it dies again. So sis is not turning it on for fear it'll die forever.

Also checking out the Lenovo G580 (59-355396) and IdeaPad Z580 (59-347604). The former needs an extra 2GB RAM added, the latter is ready for use as is.
 
mubs said:
Well, sis is on the wrong side of 50 :), and she's no hawk-eye like good ole Pradeep or our other gent from Chicago, Fushigi.

And this machine will pretty much be used like a desktop - parked in one place while being used, then put away on a shelf. Except that the whole thing is much smaller than a desktop, so they prefer a laptop. It is also plugged in all the time, so the battery only comes into play when the power goes off now and then.
Click to expand...

If the battery is not needed often, you can remove it and use a UPS instead. A half charged battery will last for years longer in the fridge.
 
Tea said:
Yes, but they don't taste the same now that they don't have any mercury in them them. The old Ni-Cd sort was the best, none of the modern ones have the same sort of crunch.
Click to expand...

NiCd cells were also nice to fast charge. I had my first eruption around 1970. :lol:
Inhaling the vapor cloud was quite special.
 
How good or bad are Intel Pentium 2127U processors in laptops? I'm helping someone buy a new laptop and there are plenty of models (different brands) with Pentium processors. After the core series came out, I have lost touch with the Pentiums and am at a loss as to their merits / demerits. Buyer is price sensitive, but obviously doesn't want a lemon. Any suggestions as to models are also most welcome!

TIA.
 
Pentium < Celeron < i3 < i5 < i7

FYI, The new top end Atoms will be rebadged as the new Pentium range...

But the Pentium 2127U is a dual core Ivy Bridge clocked at 1.9GHz. (Half the clock speed of a i7-4770, Half the cores, no Hyperthreading and 2MB of cache - so about 20% the performance of an i7-4770). (So look at the CPU benchmarks for a i7-4770 and divide by 5).

Admittedly, perfectly fine for web/email given enough RAM in the system.
 
Celeron are typically below the Pentium branded chips. For instance, a Pentium G630 is slightly faster than a Celeron G540. I follow that segment less than I used to when I owned a shop, but I remember that.

Chewy is right regarding the upcoming Atom-derived Pentium though.
 
Chewy509 said:
Pentium < Celeron < i3 < i5 < i7
Click to expand...

Coug has already corrected this to: Celeron < Pentium < i3 < i5 < i7.

But the Pentium 2127U is a dual core Ivy Bridge clocked at 1.9GHz. (Half the clock speed of a i7-4770, Half the cores, no Hyperthreading and 2MB of cache - so about 20% the performance of an i7-4770). (So look at the CPU benchmarks for a i7-4770 and divide by 5).
Click to expand...

Bullshit. Most people aren't running Folding@Home and I don't know of *any* everyday applications that can max out a 4-core CPU - most can only fully use a single core anyway. And 2MB cache might cost you 10% performance if you're unlucky. Similarly, hyperthreading has near-zero subjective value in commonly used applications.

And then there's the aspect that makes CPU "performance" pale into comparison: storage drive speed. Unless you can guarantee an SSD-equipped laptop (highly unlikely in this case), the user will struggle to tell the difference between a mobile i7 and a mobile Pentium (without A-B testing ;)).

Just talking about the CPU, I think you could say between 20 and 50% of a 3.8GHz i7, and still faster than most 5-year old PCs. I'll admit I'd be slightly happier with a 2020M.

Admittedly, perfectly fine for web/email given enough RAM in the system.
Click to expand...

And for many other applications as well. For the record, I'm typing this on a 2.4GHz Sandy Bridge Celeron, which I also use to run VMs and compile program code. However, the storage drive *is* an SSD. This config blitzes the 4-core+hyperthreading 12MB cache Xeon I use at my day job - because that only has spinning disks. ;)

FYI, The new top end Atoms will be rebadged as the new Pentium range...
Click to expand...
That sounds more like the Intel we know and love. The "Bridge" Pentiums have been an excellent bargain, so that must not be allowed to continue.
 
Pentium G630 is a perfectly decent little chip. I have one in my desktop system - Pentium G630 CPU, 8GB DDR3, 1 x 2GB Samsung boot drive, 1 x 3GB and 2 x 4GB Seagate data drives. Works very nicely. I have a spare i5 chip at the office which would plug straight in, but I can't see any good reason to waste a couple of hundred dollars for no benefit.
 
My go-to CPU for just about everything right now is the $66 Pentium G2120. It's a Sandy Bridge CPU, so it works on anything LGA1155. It's essentially an i3 without hyperthreading, but paired with a Samsung 840, it's unlikely that anyone will have any complaints. Which is what everyone else is saying. They're perfect for every day office use and fairly credible for most gaming purposes when paired with a decent video card.

Which goes a long way to explain exactly how ridiculous i7s really are, actually.
 
time said:
Bullshit.
Click to expand...

Finding some benchmarks depending on the application between 20% and 40% performance of a desktop i7... (20% being for multi-threaded, and 40% for single threaded tasks).
http://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu.php?cpu=Intel+Pentium+2127U+@+1.90GHz
http://www.notebookcheck.net/Intel-Pentium-2127U-Notebook-Processor.91282.0.html

So yes, with the right code/environment, this CPU could reach 50% of the performance of a desktop i7... but the world is moving to heavily threaded code, and extremely bloated code that will fill that 2MB cache very, very quickly...

The benchmarks place this CPU at the same/similar level as the Pentium B940.
PS. I like to deal with worst case, so there are no surprises... ;)
 
I finally got to mess with a Chromebook. Wow are they stupid. No local app support at all and too stupid to even open an .apk. They do Chrome. Nothing but Chrome. If it's not Chrome, they don't do it. There is also no concept of a multi-window interface, though the UI does for some reason allow the Chrome window to be resized.

I had been thinking of them as touchscreen-less Android laptops, but they're not even that. And the one I played with had an Atom CPU, so battery life wasn't even that great. I guess one would make a good alternative to giving a kid or idiot a real computer, or to act as a tertiary computing device, but even a Kindle Fire or iPad is ultimately a lot more functional.
 
The Dell Lattitude D531 my previous employer allowed me to keep seems to have gone tits-up. 6 years and 4 months old. Won't post, can't go into BIOS. When the power button is pressed, the power on light comes on then goes off after half a sec. Battery fully charged, does same thing when plugged into the mains. I can handle a desktop, not sure I'll be able to close it up if I open it. Besides, I wouldn't know how to debug it.

Dell service is supposed to be working today, but they never answered the phone and I didn't want to drive an hour each way unless I was sure they were willing to look at an old machine that is out of warranty.

Looking at new options.

Are Dell Vostros any good or just vomit? Another Lattitude (probably a better way to go) will cost ~ $1k including 3-year extended warranty and accidental damage protection which I really want. Looks like Dell offers this even here, and Lenovo may be offering it here. Still to check HP's website.

What should I look for in a CPU? Are Pentium / Celeron types ok or too weak? AMD options?

Suggestions please?

Thanks.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top