Getting a Laptop.

[That_wolf]

I'm getting a laptop for school. I'm going to use it for Word(To take notes), and also use it to browse the internet/play games. The games I plan on playing are old n64 games(via emulator) And Valve games like TF2, and Portal. The only other computer I've ever had is an old '04 PC, and I've used a Mac about 7 times in my life. I was going to decide just get a PC, until I heard A) Macs never(Edit: Actually it's only rare) getviruses/break and B) Valve has released games on Mac now. So now I'm lost, and need guidance on what I should look for from a laptop, and if I should go PC, or Mac. Please, help me in any way you can.

Edit: For gaming, I'm not going to be mainly playing on my laptop. I'm a council gamer, who wants to play tf2, and with emulators. That's about it.

Edit #2: I doubt price will be a factor(I'm looking for the better bang, not better bang for my buck.) Also, I don't plan on gaming without hooking in the charger first(Minus emulators).

[Reese Tora]

well, I can't really say which you should pick, but I will point out:

A) Macs never getviruses/break
This is simply not true.
Macs get fewer virii, but there are virii for macs (this is mainly because macs have so little market share there's less incentive to write virii for them)
Macs have fewer issues because they use pre-determined hardware, trading a freedom to upgrade for better compatibility between components.
Badly written software can still crash a mac.

B) Valve has released games on Mac now.
Steam works on the Mac now, the individual games may or may not be mac compatible, so you should determine if the games you want to play are among those that have been ported to mac.
Alongside this, you should determine if the emulator you plan to use for your old games will work on a mac, or if there is a mac compatible emulator that will work with your games.

[VAE]

Now, danman here probably reccomends a PC.
They are cheaper, especially if you get a non-brand one like i did, that's just assembled from components in the warehouse.
What i would reccomend, which is especially likely to work since you haven't much computer experience, is to dual-boot
Have some nice linux distribution for work, and a windows installation for games.
I personally would reccomend SuSE  as a quite newb-friendly, sane and consistent one - that's what i learned the ropes on back in 2004.
That way you are less likely to get viri (from straight gaming you don't tend to do so, and linux, for various reasons just doesn't seem to have them - it's 2010 now and i haven't had any ever ^^) and for standard office work (emails, writing, browsing) linux these days is just as usable as windows - even my family in slovakia use it since when the win 98 installation died.

Have fun!


EDIT: among other newb friendly distributions, Drayco84 seems to have good experiences with PCLinuxOS . if i aren't mistaken

[Suwako]

I have little to add to this. I take it that a desktop is simply out of the question.

On the topic of viruses, there are free virusscanners like AVG ( free edition )
So normal use (as in not downloading random shit.) and an up to date virusscanner / spywareprogram and firewall will keep shit out most of the time. These days laptops come with backup software installed on a protected petition, so even if you catch a virus chances are that a system-restore will get rid of it even when your anti-spy/virus cannot.

Mac's are more friendly toward casual usage than laptops, but to be like that are basically locked down. So you cannot do specifically fancy stuff to your MAC like a (windows)PC. However if your only using word and such that hardly matters. If you want to use MS Word; your going to have to buy a PC. However openoffice works fine for me, unless you include the powerpoint-alternative.

If you are going to play portal and such on the laptop it needs to have a external graphics-card. This however will limit your mileage on the battery in most cases.

For the newest games you need a fast processor too, however I doubt you want to play that on a laptop.  

( Graphics cards like: Nvidia 8000+, Nvidia 120+ or Ati 4400+  )

Additional: I advice against buying any laptop that doesn't have a LED monitor, simply because it means they are aged.

[RobbieThe1st]

While not a fan of OSX, it is not as "locked down" as you might think - You can access a console and do whatever you want, just like on Linux. Stuff via GUI however -may- be more locked down, and having used OSX myself, I find that its not nearly as useful when multitasking than -either- Windows or Linux.

Laptop wise, I'd get a PC. If you intend to game, thats your best bet - On a mac, you'd still have to install windows to get decent performance out of many games as the Mac drivers aren't nearly as good(see comparisons between Windows and Mac running the same steam game on the same hardware. Windows is significantly faster), and with a laptop which already has an underpowered card(compared to desktops), that difference is easily noticeable.


Brand wise, I'd look around. Lenovo's ThinkPad line are excellent laptops in terms of build quality and power, but are -not- sold for gaming, and so have a bit lower end 3d card(which will run TF2, but perhaps not Crysis).
Some manufacturers, including Lenovo, have whats called "switchable graphics": They have an Intel integrated card, and a discrete ATI or Nvidia card. When you aren't gaming, Vista/7 can switch to the Intel card(giving better battery life), and switch to the discrete card for power.
On non Vista/7, you have to select which you want to use in the bios.


Also, contrary to what Tytaj says, I'd get one -with- an LCD and NOT an LED screen. Why? even a really nice LCD screen will be a lot cheaper, and the technology has been around a lot longer. You will use a bit more power with an LED, but you'd probably be better off using the money you saved from -NOT- getting the LED screen and get a bigger battery instead, and still have money left over for an upgraded processor or more memory.

[ShadesFox]

Meh, recent driver updates has fixed a lot of that.  Mac has a lot of great development and debugging and profiling tools.  Mostly pulled from Solaris.  The big source of restrictions is in iTunes.  I'm getting a new laptop and it will be a Mac, but that is mostly because I need something with a POSIX file system and hardware accelerated X11 servers and the ability to suspend and resume properly.  Things like DTrace is nice too. 

Based on your wants, I would say give up on gaming on a laptop and get the most dirt cheap thing with a 13" screen you can.  I've never seen any good come from trying to game on a laptop.  Gaming hardware gets too old too quickly and laptops are too static in their hardware.  Plus when you do game you have to be plugged in and have the machine on a good desk, so your gaming laptop is just a really expensive under performing desktop. 

[RobbieThe1st]

Based on your wants, I would say give up on gaming on a laptop and get the most dirt cheap thing with a 13" screen you can.  I've never seen any good come from trying to game on a laptop.  Gaming hardware gets too old too quickly and laptops are too static in their hardware.  Plus when you do game you have to be plugged in and have the machine on a good desk, so your gaming laptop is just a really expensive under performing desktop. 

That I will agree on, to some extent. Trying to play current games == bad idea. But, if you are someone who likes playing lighter games or older ones, its OK. The OP doesn't sound like he wants to run excessive stuff; TF2 and Portal will run on most decent laptops(my T500 with its acceptable ATI Radeon HD3650 can run TF2 at 1680X1050, mid settings at about 45FPS), and the other thing he mentioned, N64 emulation will only use CPU power, and I don't think it takes that much.

[Suwako]

Also, contrary to what Tytaj says, I'd get one -with- an LCD and NOT an LED screen. Why? even a really nice LCD screen will be a lot cheaper, and the technology has been around a lot longer. You will use a bit more power with an LED, but you'd probably be better off using the money you saved from -NOT- getting the LED screen and get a bigger battery instead, and still have money left over for an upgraded processor or more memory.

LED laptops and LCD laptops cost the same in my country and come with the same ( 6 cell ) batteries. In other words, you'd not be saving money and in those cases you'd only get less battery live. LED ones also tend to have an additional guaranty on the screens. Notably most laptops are LED unless they are rather aged currently and that was what I was getting at the most. LED has been around for almost 2 years now, that's the average lifespan of a lot of laptops.  

I agree that gaming laptops are pretty useless unless you are playing older games and going to lan-parties a lot.

[Tapewolf]

Also, contrary to what Tytaj says, I'd get one -with- an LCD and NOT an LED screen. Why? even a really nice LCD screen will be a lot cheaper, and the technology has been around a lot longer.

Er, unless I've missed something big - and I would love to be corrected here - laptop screens are all LCD because it's still too expensive to create an OLED screen that size (see the XEL-1, £2500 for an 11" TV).

What you're probably thinking of is the backlight technology.  Traditionally this was done using a cold-cathode tube and an inverter board, since the CCFL needs 500v or more to operate.  LED ones use just a bank of white LEDs to create the backlight.

If it were me I'd try to go for an LED backlight simply because the tube and the inverter are rather prone to failure.  In fact, I have seen laptops where the warranty excludes the backlight...  IMHO the LED is just simpler and more robust technology.

That aside, I can't really make a suggestion.  If money is no object, I'd look at a Mac.  They are quite nice, but there are better options in terms of value for money.  I'm not sure what the Apple stance is on changing the battery and disk these days.  That would probably be a big deciding factor for me.

[Darkmoon]

As far as a good, workhorse machine is concerned, I trust Toshibas. I bought a cheapish Satellite and am able to do just about anything on it except play games requiring 3D graphics -- such as the Sims 2, even, which chugs something awful. On the flip side, I'm able to have the entire Adobe suite open and can bounce in and around between them on multiple documents at will -- something even my work machine at my jobs can't easily do.

[Mao]

My little Samsung R580 has been a pretty solid laptop in terms of both running games and most software you can throw at it, though the battery is pretty short lived( 3 hours tops).  Though I do love them, as the Dell XPS series also treated me well (though I'm told the Dell US tech support is balls, as well as whoever serves the UK, the Canada one was very responsive and well educated), I'd say not to get a Dell at this point as it's likely a bit more pricey and not going to necessarily be the best for you.

As for a Mac, I'd have to go with Tape's opinion in that: if money is no concern, go for it.  I will say though, that if you have particular games that you like, check to make sure they're compatible first (as has been mentioned).  Support for games on Mac has been improving steadily, but there's still a lot out there that do not support it.

[Tapewolf]

Oh, one thing.  I misread the original post, thinking you'd used a Mac for seven years, not seven times.  Be aware that switching to a Mac can be a frustrating experience if you've been using Windows / Linux / other up to that point.  
The Mac is quite nice, and I definitely prefer it to Windows, but it's expensive and it takes some getting used to if you've used anything else before.  It's not a panacea, and while it does have some distinct advantages, it has a bit of a learning curve.  Just something to consider.

It is of course possible to buy a Mac and frig it to run Windows instead, but to my mind that's a bit like buying an expensive painting and then spraying graffiti all over it.

Anyway, in case it helps make up your mind, here are some differences and gotchas that I had to face:

* Obviously, the hotkeys are different.  Apple-Q instead of ALT-F4, things like that.

* There is one menubar at the top of the screen, not per-window.  The menu bar changes depending which application has focus.  This saves space on the screen but can be annoying at times.  It takes some getting used to.

* The apple key replaces CTRL.  However, it is physically placed where ALT would be on a regular keyboard and there are also CTRL and ALT keys.   This will cause endless frustration for the first few months if you use CTRL-left-arrow to go back a link in Firefox.  Fortunately you can use ALT-arrow on a PC, and Apple-arrow will work on the mac.  If you can get into that habit the same physical key will work for Firefox on both systems.

* The OS and documentation refer constantly to an 'Option key'.  For some Apple have chosen not to label the Option key, presumably for ease of use (yes, this is an Apple keyboard).  For future reference, it's the ALT key.

* Wifi can be very flakey on MacOS 10.6.  This is a widely-reported problem that Apple either can't or won't fix.  10.5 is more stable in that regard.

* I'm not sure what country you're from.  On a UK keyboard, there is no # key.  You have to press ALT-3, which as usual is undocumented.  The UK Apple keyboard has " in the same place as the US one, which will be confusing if it's not what you're used to.

* Some programs - typically those ported from Windows or Linux, like GIMP - run inside an X11 window instead of using the usual MacOS interface.  This drives some people nuts, but I don't mind it myself.

* The file pick dialogues and Finder in general mix the directories and files.  There is no way I'm aware of to make it display all the folders first in the list like with Windows, KDE, Gnome and nearly every other GUI on the planet.  When people ask about this, the answer usually seems to be "Don't put files there, put them in a subdirectory".  I still find this annoying three years later.

[Mao]

...

It is of course possible to buy a Mac and frig it to run Windows instead, but to my mind that's a bit like buying an expensive painting and then spraying graffiti all over it.
...

[Darkmoon]

I'm of the opinions is more like being an "expensive" piece of graffiti and painting a masterpiece on top.

EDIT: Except for the part where Windows is a masterpiece...

[Tapewolf]

Okay, I recant.  "It is possible to frig it to run Windows, but to my mind that defeats the point."  Is that better?

[VAE]

I'm of the opinions is more like being an "expensive" piece of graffiti and painting a masterpiece on top.

EDIT: Except for the part where Windows is a masterpiece...

Edit three:
It's more like taking one expensive grafitti, and spraying another expensive grafitti on top, the type that tends to wear off due to low paint weather res.

[ShadesFox]

So far the only problem I've seen with macs is that any mention of a Mac tends to derail whole conversations from the original topic while egos fly high for no good reason. They're all just computers.

[Darkmoon]

I used a Mac all through college -- being a Graphic Designer, it was expected. I went dutifully through the whole year with my Powerbook. But, when the laptop finally died, I didn't get another Mac. Nothing about the experience (all four years) sold me on:

a) Macs being a better (or, for my needs, as comparable) a system.
b) Macs being a necessity for graphic design  -- Windows has caught up on that front.

Unless you are truly worried about viruses (to the point of needing the obscurity Macs provides), there's no good reason (from my lengthy experience) to get a Mac.

[Drayco84]

Dang... I didn't notice this until a few minutes ago...

If you're going for a laptop, then you really only have two options... Work or Play. If you intend on taking it to school and REALLY intend on using to take notes and... y'know... WORK, I'd highly recommend a netbook. (Ten hour battery life if you throttle the CPU and disable wireless/bluetooth. Most also offer the ability to purchase a second battery.) Plus, since netbooks are smaller, they have better portability. (Personally, I also recommend Asus netbooks. Plus, their HDDs usually come pre-formatted into two partitions making a Linux install MUCH easier.)

If you want to play, then a Mac is essentially out of the question to begin with. (Yeah, I love PCLOS, but if you want to play any kind of mainstream game, you'll NEED Windows.) And gaming laptops absoultely SUCK when it comes to battery life. (Those high-end CPUs and Video Cards usually require a lot of electricity. NOT something you'd want when you want your battery to last as long as possible.) Although, nVidia is making a ton of headway with it's ION series...

If you want to use emulators, almost anything will do the job. (Hell, I'm pretty sure the DS is close to the N64 in terms of power... If it's not greater...) But, if you want to run Team Fortress 2, take a look at these: http://www.freakygaming.com/pc/action/team_fortress_2/system_requirements.html. So, if you want a laptop that can run it, go to Newegg and DO YOUR RESEARCH. That CPU and Vid card are gonna put out loads of heat, which will go into your lap/table. Unlike a desktop, a laptop is compact and has less air circulation. So personally, I feel gaming laptops are a bad idea all around. (Besides, taking it to school and letting in that it has pretty good gaming potential? Bad idea. Letting it slip that your laptop can't run major games worth beans? Acceptable. I'm paranoid, but it's a good idea to factor in the possibility of something getting stolen. Besides, netbooks are MUCH cheaper. Price 'em on Newegg if you don't believe me.)

If you want as second OS, I'd HIGHLY recommend PCLOS, as it's already been mentioned. PCLOS has excellent driver support and is pretty damn stable. You'll still have access to all the files in your Windows Partition, which is always a plus in case it gets nailed by malware. It's also usually recommended as an "introduction" to the world of Linux.

All in all, it's your call, though...

[RobbieThe1st]

Also, contrary to what Tytaj says, I'd get one -with- an LCD and NOT an LED screen. Why? even a really nice LCD screen will be a lot cheaper, and the technology has been around a lot longer.

Er, unless I've missed something big - and I would love to be corrected here - laptop screens are all LCD because it's still too expensive to create an OLED screen that size (see the XEL-1, £2500 for an 11" TV).

What you're probably thinking of is the backlight technology.  Traditionally this was done using a cold-cathode tube and an inverter board, since the CCFL needs 500v or more to operate.  LED ones use just a bank of white LEDs to create the backlight.

If it were me I'd try to go for an LED backlight simply because the tube and the inverter are rather prone to failure.  In fact, I have seen laptops where the warranty excludes the backlight...  IMHO the LED is just simpler and more robust technology.

You are right on the OLED thing; I sort of confused myself there.
I have to say though that I've had a number of laptops which I've used for 3-4 years and I haven't had any trouble with the backlight dying.
I have had one desktop screen's inverter die, but I've had two desktop screens who's backlight works and nothing else. :\
Still, when I was looking for my own laptop less than 6 months ago, I had a choice between LED and normal CCFL backlight. the LED screen was over $100US more!
If they are close to the same cost, yes, a LED backlight is probably the way to go.

But, if you want to run Team Fortress 2, take a look at these: http://www.freakygaming.com/pc/action/team_fortress_2/system_requirements.html. So, if you want a laptop that can run it, go to Newegg and DO YOUR RESEARCH. That CPU and Vid card are gonna put out loads of heat, which will go into your lap/table.

Eh, so long as you are willing to run it in DX8 mode, a -decent- dedicated card will do. See my previous post.
And I can tell you that its not putting out -that- much heat, compared to a CPU-only heavy load.

If TF2 is what you want, go look into Lenovo T500's on Ebay. So long as you make sure its got the ATI graphics, its a great laptop, and nigh indestructible.

-Rob

[hapless]

If you want a laptop for years, get a Lenovo ThinkPad, (NOT IdeaPad), of series different than SL.
Yes, they're expensive, but they're still built like a brick, almost as good as in IBM times, and better than anything else on the market (except special ruggedized stuff).
I don't have personal experience with the current-generation models, but my friend recently got one of T400 series, with a dual GPU setup as described by Robbie above. On powersave mode of surfing internet, writing documents, and such, it handles eight hours (or seven if you switch it to keep the fans on all the time, instead of only when CPU goes over... 50C, IIRC?). Not sure how it behaves on full power mode with the ATI GPU active, but should be at least 2-3 hours, I think. I'd surely hear complaints if it was less.
These values are probably with the extended battery, I honestly did not ask if he has it.

Also, one very important point. If you use anything other than the "stock" install, be it an alternative OS like Linux, or even an attempt for a "cleaner" install of Windows (and the Lenovo tools are actually quite useful and not too buggy, not like most other manufacturers!) make sure you have all the SPECIFIC dedicated drivers. Generics will work, but usually drain the battery like crazy. Just recenthy I saw a case where someone's laptop barely could keep 2h of uptime IDLE... installing drivers prolonged the time to six hours with no change to screen brightness or fan speed.