looking for a perfectly respectable, cheap linux laptop

[Lennart Sorensen]

On Sun, Apr 25, 2010 at 02:45:01PM -0400, D. Hugh Redelmeier wrote:
> That seems like a bargain.

Doesn't to me.

> Choosing the right laptop very much depends on what you value.  Things
> I value in a laptop, in order (I also have a desktop):
> - working with Linux

I certainly consider that key.  That's why I have a thinkpad SL500.

> - value for money

By which definition of value?

> - portability

That's a tradeoff.  Lighter often means more expensive, or less capable,
or less battery life.  You have to balance it with your other needs.

> - battery life (I probably value it more than it matters)

I certainly don't care very much myself, but I don't travel much with
mine.  I did not get a 9cell battery but instead only a 6 cell, since
it makes it lighter and 2 hours is enough for my needs.  I don't need
3 hours.  I did spend the extra money going from a 35W to a 25W cpu on
mine though and got the 5400rpm HD instead of the 7200, again to save
battery life.

> - pixels

I can't have enough.  1680x1050 on a 15.4" is pretty good for me.

> - price

While price matters, to me spending $500 on a piece of junk is not a
bargain.  Spending $800 on a high quality machine that is perfect for
me is a bargain.  I believe in "Buy it once".  That means buy the right
thing and pay what it costs once rather than buying less than you needed
and having to buy something else again later.  Sometimes it means waiting
until you can afford what you need.  That's probably why I never had a
laptop until last spring.  That's when I could find a decent price laptop
that was good enough.  When I buy a deksktop machine I build it to last
5 to 10 years, not 2 years.  I think a $500 desktop machine is a waste
of money, while a $1500 to $2000 desktop is a great purchase.  You get
much more for your money in the more expensive one.  It is not uncommon
to fund that on the $500 desktop, putting in $100 more would double the
specs on much of the machine.  Low cost machines are cutting every corner
they can including all the once that are never worth cutting (for the
end user).

> - VT (hardware support for virtualization)

I certainly wanted that, and got it.

> - brand rep

Certainly important.

> Generally AMD chips are not as good for notebooks because of their
> higher power.  Unfortunately, this means that the only the cheapest
> notebooks have AMD chips.  On the other hand, if you want VT, Intel
> has historically made you buy a top-of-the-line notebook and AMD does
> not.

No, the laptop makers just choose to use the cheapest chips.  Intel has
plenty of cheap CPUs with VT.

> I'm willing to spend quite a bit on my main system.  Any improvement
> in my day-in-day-out working conditions is worth a fair bit to me.
> Within reason, CPU speed doesn't much matter.  Screen characteristics
> do.  That's why the inordinate cost of my 30" 2560x1600 monitor still
> seems worthwhile to me.

And screens easily should outlast the computer.

> I don't mind refurbs.  Usually you only get a short warranty (not in
> the case of Apple Store refurbs).  Because notebooks are often hard to
> fix, I value a warranty.
> 
> Tiger Direct is really hit or miss as far as I can tell.  You really
> need to know what you are buying from them.  I think that the vast
> majority of their products are "fully priced" (overpriced).  But
> randomly they have what I consider very good prices.  I wrote this
> list about a great netbook deal I found a month or so ago.

I rarely bother going there.  They are often overpriced, and a lot of
what they sell is crap, and I get the impression they are a nightmare
to deal with of there is a problem with something.

> As I said, that looks good.

My experience with gateway has been terrible.  It has ATI video, which
I won't waste my precious time dealing with.  The wifi doesn't have 5ghz
support (something I now consider essential.  The 2.4ghz band has become
useless in many places).

> Asus has a much better reputation than Gateway (an Acer brand).  My
> experience with Acer has been mostly fine.

Asus is certainly a much better build quality than Acer.  Asus also
tends to have amazingly good support/service.

> Both notebooks seem heavy.  6.82 lb for the Gateway, 5.7 lb for the
> Asus.  Probably reasonable for notebooks with 15.6" screens and
> optical drives.

Yeah it is quite reasonable.

> The Core 2 Solo SU3500 does have VT
> <http://ark.intel.com/Product.aspx?id=37133>

Single core?  I didn't know they still made that.  I would think the
performance you loose would make no one want to get that.

> Why do you want a similar notebook?  Would it make sense to get a very
> different one to cover more bases?  Say a really small one that is
> easy to carry?  Or a really big one with a great 17" screen?  Or
> stagger your purchases in time?
> 
> A fine list.  I don't have any notebook with HDMI but I think that
> HDMI is a Good Thing.

My SL500 has HDMI.  I have played with it a few times.  Entertainly it
used to crash windows 7 when you plugged it in (but worked fine when it
finished rebooting).  I haven't run windows on it in many months now so
now idea if that has been fixed yet.

> I always push for more pixels.
> 
> A 7200 RPM disk *might* well make a noticable improvement in
> performance.  I've never had one in a notebook and all my notebooks
> seem slow compared to my desktops.

A 7200 rpm drive also uses a lot more power.  If you care about battery
life, you would avoid it.

> I like pixels.  Sometimes you can find good deals for things with
> high-res screens.
> 
> My daughter only has a notebook so she got one with a 1920x1200 screen
> (years ago).  It added roughly 15% to the price of the notebook but
> notebooks were more expensive then.  That option seems to have almost
> vanished.

On 17" screens that has been an option.  On 15.6" it seems 1920x1080
(FHD or full HD) is sometimes an option although HD (1366x768) or HD+
(1600x900) is more common to find.

> You are talking about adding almost 50% to the price, which seems
> high, at least expressed that way.  Instead of talking about relative
> cost, can you put an actual monetary value to you on the feature?
> Cost and value are too very different things; I, as a bargain
> hunter, don't sufficiently attend to the difference.

-- 
Len Sorensen
--
The Toronto Linux Users Group.      Meetings: http://gtalug.org/
TLUG requests: Linux topics, No HTML, wrap text below 80 columns
How to UNSUBSCRIBE: http://gtalug.org/wiki/Mailing_lists