PC World Laptop, £199!

AMO

FlyUK wrote:

I've never laughed as much as I have reading this thread. I love how people claim it's a bit of poo simply cos it's not armed with the fastest CPU on the market and isn't full of dual channel RAM.

This machine is more than sufficient to run fully updated XP SP2, perfectly capable of surfing the net at any speed (more bandwidth does not need a better PC), playing DVDs, listening to music over a network, writing emails, word processing, chatting with MSN live and using the Java platform.

Let's put it into context, for £199 I got a NEW laptop. It comes with a genuine copy of MS Windows XP home and Works home office software all with 12 months warranty. If the Ram isnt enough it will cost me no more than £30 to triple it. The screen is bright, the battery lasts nearly 2 hours and it is as quiet as a whisper.

First point - as I've said all along on this thread, for anyone to have any remote chance of this laptop being argued as usable, you would have to increase the memory in it.

Second point - when you start spending money on this machine, you have to compare this machine in equivalent categories. As a techy I am sure that you'll find it easy to source the memory to 'triple' it at no more than £30. Whether you can or not, kindly post the link so that others can benefit from this bargain. Also state what memory you'd have to chuck out to put in the new memory.

After all, we're talking about putting things into context right?

AMO

beara

AMO wrote:

First point - as I've said all along on this thread, for anyone to have any remote chance of this laptop being argued as usable, you would have to increase the memory in it.

AMO

But you've got to define useable - as I've said, for what I want to do - laptop browsing - its perfectly useable and being used to do this now!

rsykes2000

Memory - does anyone know exactly what it takes ? I agree with upping it, but if DDR (def won't be DDR2), brand new Corsair PC2100 SO-DIMM 512MB can be got for under 35 + delivery from dabs.com. Ebuyer.com have generic stuff for a few pounds less. So that takes it to 235 with triple the memory (256 to 768MB), which is still quite a lot cheaper (and also quieter, cooler and less power-hungry) than other laptops for those on a budget and will make a perfectly acceptable office/Internet machine.
If it's PC133, which I doubt, this will be more expensive to upgrade.

toasterman

AMO wrote:

The resource requirements to surf internet and check email are much greater than they were 5 years ago. Go to hotmail now and compare it to 5 years ago. The cost to download all the heavy images and the richness of the application is such that you need a more sophisticated browser program and wider bandwidth and faster CPU to interpret the HTML generated by the browser.
Surely people realise by now that even 'simple web browsing' and 'emailing software' has become more sophisticated over time which requires more powerful hardware.AMO

That isn't true.
I point you to anyone on this thread who has proved they are using a pc (laptop or desktop) which is not current specs, and finding it perfectly usable for what they need it for.

And how can you claim anything needs a more sophisticated browser?
More sophisticated than what?
Internet Explorer 6 has been out since 2001 (before XP) and worked on every Windows pc released since that time - its had patches and updates since - but it works fine on any spec machine I've put it on. You don't find yourself forced to update to IE7 to get to the BBC's site.

As for whoever said you can't expect users to run old versions - except for a few extra animations and moving some menus around - whats the difference between Office 2000 and Office XP? They both support all the same file formats - but 2000 runs quicker (no matter what hardware you have).
2003 - again - supports all the same files, looks a bit more rounded, but has a bug in it where it won't open some Word 2000 files.
I'm not particularly anti-Microsoft, but if I ran a company and had to make the decision, I'd leave everyone on Office 2000.

And Windows XP specs - I met someone a week ago who was running Windows XP on a Celeron 400 with 64mb ram.
Yes - the first question they asked me is why it wasn't as fast as the newer P4's - but they were doing all their daily work on it quite easily.

No-one can make judgements on how Linux will or won't work with it, unless they've tried it. I haven't, but I can tell you the budget unbranded Via-chipset laptops that Ebuyer sell come with Linux preinstalled. From that, I would guess its possible if you understand Linux very well. I don't.

You can't get a new laptop with software for £200 anywhere else but PC World - so this deal has to be a good one. Even if you think the components inside make it only worth £200 - PC World are the only ones (currently) selling it for this price.

AMO

beara wrote:

But you've got to define useable - as I've said, for what I want to do - laptop browsing - its perfectly useable and being used to do this now!

Okay. Usable is using the computer and not having to wait for it such that you get impatient with it for what you want to use it for and not just the day you switch on the machine for the first time when you can argue that the only thing you use it for is surfing if you know it will change, e.g. when you install virus checkers, firewalls etc.

Your laptop will take a fair while to boot into Windows, constantly have the hard drive light on because it has insufficient memory to run Windows without virtual memory wearing down the hard drive or requiring you to purchase more memory, most likely requiring you to chuck out some or all of your existing memory and putting the price of the laptop closer to the £250 mark if not more.

Over the coming weeks / months once you settle in to using your laptop, its then a truer indication of performance. Once the software you want is installed and you've surfed the net enough to have enough temporary files to show moderate use and represent defragmentation.

But overall, have a think about MSE or Money Saving Expert. Some people buy things because they are cheap. Others buy things because it represents value.

Once you find your 'usability level' for a PC, work out how long you could use this PC before you think it will appear slow and sluggish. In general, most people would not buy the laptop you've got.

But basically, if a £200 laptop will last 2 months and a £400 laptop will last 4 months, then they represent equal value and it does not matter if you go for either.

However, what we're trying to say here with these laptops is that for what you get, for £200 you get a laptop ready for the bin. If you pump 1Gb memory at the cost of £50-70ish, you can get a slow laptop for maybe a year. However, if you spend £400 on a laptop elsewhere, you'd get a much better value laptop that could last a couple of years or more (after all, if you can make a virtually useless laptop run a year, what kind of miracles can you do with one that is usable! ).


AMO

AMO

toasterman wrote:

That isn't true.
I point you to anyone on this thread who has proved they are using a pc (laptop or desktop) which is not current specs, and finding it perfectly usable for what they need it for.

And how can you claim anything needs a more sophisticated browser?
More sophisticated than what?
Internet Explorer 6 has been out since 2001 (before XP) and worked on every Windows pc released since that time - its had patches and updates since - but it works fine on any spec machine I've put it on. You don't find yourself forced to update to IE7 to get to the BBC's site.

As for whoever said you can't expect users to run old versions - except for a few extra animations and moving some menus around - whats the difference between Office 2000 and Office XP? They both support all the same file formats - but 2000 runs quicker (no matter what hardware you have).
2003 - again - supports all the same files, looks a bit more rounded, but has a bug in it where it won't open some Word 2000 files.
I'm not particularly anti-Microsoft, but if I ran a company and had to make the decision, I'd leave everyone on Office 2000.

And Windows XP specs - I met someone a week ago who was running Windows XP on a Celeron 400 with 64mb ram.
Yes - the first question they asked me is why it wasn't as fast as the newer P4's - but they were doing all their daily work on it quite easily.

No-one can make judgements on how Linux will or won't work with it, unless they've tried it. I haven't, but I can tell you the budget unbranded Via-chipset laptops that Ebuyer sell come with Linux preinstalled. From that, I would guess its possible if you understand Linux very well. I don't.

You can't get a new laptop with software for £200 anywhere else but PC World - so this deal has to be a good one. Even if you think the components inside make it only worth £200 - PC World are the only ones (currently) selling it for this price.

Okay, I rest my case. It will be interesting to see how long people keep these laptops for. Assuming that they only need to surf the internet and read email and don't mind waiting for the laptop to loadup and loadup applications for the first time and do only one thing at a time and fairly slowly at that then it probably is fine for the patient minded.

Assuming they can make the PC last for a year, then its an outgoing of £200 / year. If they can make it last 2 years, then £100 / year, etc.

However, I would certainly not recommend this deal to anyone. I would tell them to spend closer to the £400 mark and then see them run the laptop into the ground. Much better to spend £400 and make it last twice as long, than £200 here.

But most people here are looking at spending more to beef up the machine as it is sooo slow anyway.

AMO

beara

Well, I think that we'll have to disagree on that - AVG antivirus is on it already, windows firewall will suffice as I'm behind a router, and office xp is just fine. Before this one, I was using a compaq armada with 128meg ram and a 333mhz processor, and that briefly had XPon before dropping back to w2k, but was happy using it with w2k and office XP.

If I wanted to do more on it I'd spend more - I won't be upgrading the memory as it's fine for what I want. Therefore for me it was a bargain, and worth being on MSE (although I didn't get the offer here - I'd decided before when I saw the advert).

AMO

But why did you drop back to Windows 2000? It being too slow and 'unuable' by any chance? That's how I define usable.

Fair enough, if it does what you want.

AMO

Brockyman

All immaterial now anyway as the offer was only on for two days according to the PC World flyer.
Ian.

melodytoon

AMO wrote:

No, but everyone you speak to will want to do it on Windows XP with IE6 or later (or the Firefox/Opera alternatives)!

AMO

No, not everyone. The 'delights' of XP or IE6 or other software mean absolutely nothing to my mum (who I got the laptop for). Vista will mean nothing much to her either - it's now a product name, but until Microsoft took hold of it, it was another word for 'view'. That's it - it could be a cooker or a fancy type of tile for the bathroom for all she cares. I and many others don't care if what they need to do can to be done on Firefox or two plates spinning on some unfortunate's eyelashes. What they want is a system that does what they want it to at a price they can afford. When someone else is paying for it, it can be at a price they can afford.

Not everyone has the money for the seemingly never-ending upgrades & 'must haves'. 'Only £40' for X, 'only £60 more' for Y and 'wait a few more months then Z will be out' is part of what stops some people getting involved in the information technology 'race' in the first place - they don't have the money to keep up, so they get frightened off buying anything at all. The sensible ones don't bother with the race other people seem so desperate to take part in - they buy the best they can get for the money they've got at the time & get on with their lives. They quickly cop on that it's not going to matter a drip if they have to wait an extra couple of seconds for something to happen - after all, the world's not going to start spinning anti-clockwise or their blood group suddenly change because of it. They don't see having the latest technology as the be all & end all - they're more concerned about having technology that works, & the age of it is secondary.