A Windows XP help forum. PCbanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » PCbanter forum » Microsoft Windows XP » General XP issues or comments
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Win XP to Win 10?



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #16  
Old January 10th 19, 05:23 PM posted to microsoft.public.windowsxp.general,alt.windows7.general
Ken Blake[_5_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,007
Default laptops

On Thu, 10 Jan 2019 09:34:22 -0500, Wolf K
wrote:

On 2019-01-10 07:08, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
[...]

I can see that a proper desktop, with a big keyboard and monitor, still
holds its attraction for those with a settled lifestyle, _or_ who are
willing to switch between devices when they travel or visit. Also, for
those needing special machines - number-crunching, gaming, and so on.
For me, the ability to now take this my main computer wherever I go (not
relying on syncing services) means I can't see me ever going back to a
desktop as my main machine: in fact other than lethargy and nostalgia
I'm not sure why I keep my desktop. But - this is just me; YMMV, and I'm
certainly not saying anyone _should_ change. I just thought I'd answer
Bill-in-Co's question from my own experience.

JPG


We have a laptop, a Surface tablet PC, this desktop, and a smartphone.
Pretty soon, I'll buy a newer Surface tablet PC or laptop, and ditch the
old one. Reasons as described above. The tablet PC is good for travel,
and that's all we use it for these days.

A desktop is a business/work machine. Too cumbersome for anything else.

The smartphone is a quick'n'easy connection to email/web/etc. Handy when
a laptop is too large (as e.g. when dining out).



I have an old laptop, a smaller laptop (netbook), and a tablet. They
were all bought for traveling, and each was bought because it was
smaller and lighter than its predecessor.

I don't use any of them anymore. These days I just travel with my
smart phone, which is smaller and lighter than all of them, and does
everything I want it to do: Kindle, e-mail, web, and Google maps.

I know that a lot of people are like J. P. Gilliver, and use a laptop
in place of a desktop at home. But I can never understand why.
Ads
  #17  
Old January 10th 19, 05:41 PM posted to microsoft.public.windowsxp.general,alt.windows7.general
Ken Blake[_5_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,007
Default laptops

On Thu, 10 Jan 2019 10:05:58 -0600, VanguardLH wrote:

J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:

In message , Bill in Co
writes:
[]
If I ever went out and bought one of these nice new svelte laptops, like
I've seen on display at some stores here, I'd probably just scrap the latter
two.

I wonder if anybody gets so used to a laptop that it ends up replacing their
desktop for almost everything they need to do (for home or limited work use,
I mean).

I bought my first laptop (W9x era), intending to use it only when
travelling or in other situations where my tower machine couldn't be
taken. (I also didn't think I'd get on with a trackpad.) It became my
main machine - I was going to say rapidly, but it might have been
gradually. I have since used laptops for all my computing needs - my
desktop machines going initially weeks then months between being turned
on, and I think it might be over a year now. (And I have got very used
to a trackpad: I have a mouse, but rarely plug it in - of late, mainly
for when the trackpad [driver] misbehaves rather than needing the
differences.)

I'd say my main initial concerns re laptops fell into three areas:
limited keyboard, all-in-one-ness, and (in practice) no slots.



I'll add five concerns to that. In no particular order:

1. Small screen. On my desktop I use two 24" monitors and wish I had a
third one.

2. Increased likelihood of being lost or stolen.

3. Increased danger of being dropped and broken,

4. Increased cost of being repaired.

5. So difficult to upgrade that it's more likely the whole computer
has to be replaced.

It's because of Bill's three concerns and my five that I never
understand why someone chooses to use a laptop at home instead of a
desktop. But as I said in another message a few minutes ago, more and
more people are doing it, and if I'm not in the minority yet, I soon
will be. I wouldn't be surprised if, within a few years, only laptops
are sold and not desktops.



Limited keyboard - I was fortunate in that my first laptop still had the
sixpack; I _did_ find the second laptop irritating in having home and
end combined with something else and needing the Fn key. (Fortunately
this one has brought them back.) Also the lack of a numeric keypad (you
get one on _most_ 15" or more laptops anyway these days) meant I
couldn't use the Alt-numpad codes I'd memorised for things like the +/-
symbol, but in practice I've found a little utility called AllChars
actually easier (the sequences are easier to remember!).

All-in-one-ness - i. e. if one part fails, you have to junk the lot.
This hasn't been as much of a problem as I thought: things that have
failed - disc drive was easy to replace; a screen wasn't _too_ hard; and
a wireless card, I just used an external one. (That was on someone
else's machine that had lots of USB and she didn't use them anyway; had
it been me, I might have replaced the card - fiddly, but not difficult.)
The one case that _is_ irritating is where - I think - the internal
power supply (that takes the 19V or battery and gives the internal
supplies) has failed and thus rendered the laptop dead, whereas I think
most of it is actually alive.

No slots (I say in practice because, although in theory laptops can have
them, [a] many don't [b] the standards for laptop expansion slots change
with bewildering rapidity) - I think I was fortunate in that my
transition to laptops coincided with a large move of peripherals that
had previously used cards, to USB. This has continued, accompanied by
changes in desktop slot standards, from PCI (IDE was already dead) to
PCI-E and later, as well as graphic card slots. These changes in both
laptop and desktop slot standards have mostly _not_ been
backward-compatible, unlike USB. My transition has probably also, if I'm
honest, accompanied my changing outlook with ageing: I have less
_desire_ to use things that need plug-in cards (and aren't available via
USB).

Another advantage of laptops is that they have a poor man's UPS: brief
power outages don't crash them, even if the battery's in a poor state,
and can move from room to room without shutting down.

I can see that a proper desktop, with a big keyboard and monitor, still
holds its attraction for those with a settled lifestyle, _or_ who are
willing to switch between devices when they travel or visit. Also, for
those needing special machines - number-crunching, gaming, and so on.
For me, the ability to now take this my main computer wherever I go (not
relying on syncing services) means I can't see me ever going back to a
desktop as my main machine: in fact other than lethargy and nostalgia
I'm not sure why I keep my desktop. But - this is just me; YMMV, and I'm
certainly not saying anyone _should_ change. I just thought I'd answer
Bill-in-Co's question from my own experience.

JPG
---

How about a three-way referendum, allowing second choices?


When travelling, a Chromebook is more than sufficient.



For me, as I just said in another message, my smart phone is
sufficient. And it's smaller and lighter than your Chromebook.


No matter what
portable computer I take, almost all (perhaps all) of what I need to do
while travelling will incur a web browser. E-mail, remoting to work,
buying tickets, checking restaurant hours, getting directions and
mapping, finding entertainment, ordering stuff, and just about anything
I do while travelling is done via a web browser and that's what a
Chromebook does. If I don't have the Internet while travelling (via
wifi, cable, or cellular data), it doesn't matter what I bring since it
won't be usable to me. My choice is one of convenience, not of
functionality. I have a laptop, netbook, and Chromebook along with my
smartphone and none are convenient nor comfortable nor speedy for
entering a lot of text or doing much beyond using a web browser. The
human interface of these portable devices suck. You could use a docking
station to connect to a better monitor, keyboard, and mouse but that's
only needed if you cannot afford a decent desktop PC.



Not to mention that it's very difficult to travel with a monitor,
keyboard, and mouse.
  #18  
Old January 10th 19, 05:45 PM posted to microsoft.public.windowsxp.general,alt.windows7.general
Ken Blake[_5_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,007
Default laptops

On Thu, 10 Jan 2019 10:19:59 -0500, Zaidy036
wrote:

On 1/10/2019 8:59 AM, Mayayana wrote:

Most of those people answer email from a phone. It
works. But it's fooling oneself to think it's just the
same thing made easy. No one writes in any serious
way on a cellphone. If they're always on the move
so that they can't make a proper response then they're
living slapdash. They just don't realize it because
they've become so speedy. Like the email I got from
a friend yesterday: OK.thx.




I answer e-mail from a phone only when I travel. I *don't* think it's
just the same thing made easy; the only messages I answer are those
that are urgent. And if I do answer a message, it's usually an
abbreviated answer with a note "I'll send more after I get home."


  #19  
Old January 10th 19, 06:34 PM posted to microsoft.public.windowsxp.general,alt.windows7.general
J. P. Gilliver (John)[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,309
Default laptops

In message , Ken Blake
writes:
[]
I know that a lot of people are like J. P. Gilliver, and use a laptop
in place of a desktop at home. But I can never understand why.


I can only speak for myself, but it's the hassle of switching computers.
I travel between homes, such as other people's that I'm staying with,
and like to have a computer there, of reasonable functionality. I don't
trust (either for trust reasons or reliability) the cloud, so syncing
isn't on for me, and I like to have all my files on the computer I'm
using.
[]
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)[email protected]+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

Veni Vidi Vacuum [I came, I saw, It sucked] - , 1998
  #20  
Old January 10th 19, 06:43 PM posted to microsoft.public.windowsxp.general,alt.windows7.general
J. P. Gilliver (John)[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,309
Default laptops

In message , Ken Blake
writes:
On Thu, 10 Jan 2019 10:05:58 -0600, VanguardLH wrote:

J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:

[]
I'd say my main initial concerns re laptops fell into three areas:
limited keyboard, all-in-one-ness, and (in practice) no slots.



I'll add five concerns to that. In no particular order:

1. Small screen. On my desktop I use two 24" monitors and wish I had a
third one.


We obviously computer in different ways. I am not a software engineer,
so don't need lots of compiler windows. I _do_ have ten things open on
here at the moment, including two browsers, but find Alt-Tabbing not a
problem; YMMV.

2. Increased likelihood of being lost or stolen.

3. Increased danger of being dropped and broken,


Can't argue with either of those.

4. Increased cost of being repaired.

5. So difficult to upgrade that it's more likely the whole computer
has to be replaced.


True. I change computers sufficiently rarely (I think "cold dead hands"
might enter into it) that I generally do anyway. (Car ditto.)

It's because of Bill's three concerns and my five that I never
understand why someone chooses to use a laptop at home instead of a
desktop. But as I said in another message a few minutes ago, more and
more people are doing it, and if I'm not in the minority yet, I soon
will be. I wouldn't be surprised if, within a few years, only laptops
are sold and not desktops.

Or only tablets and smartphones. Or, possibly, only desktops and
tablets/smartphones - dektops for "serious" users, and the rest - even
we semi-"serious" - will be _stuck_ with the toys.
[]
When travelling, a Chromebook is more than sufficient.



For me, as I just said in another message, my smart phone is
sufficient. And it's smaller and lighter than your Chromebook.

Yes. I've never really got to grips with using either, but I know that's
me, not them. (The odd times I've tried to use either my smartphone
[Android 4.2.2] or my friends' iPhones, I've found the way they work to
be sufficiently different from Windows [and each other!] as to be
incredibly frustrating. I'm too old - and I'm only 58.)
[]
Not to mention that it's very difficult to travel with a monitor,
keyboard, and mouse.


Though I used to do so!
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)[email protected]+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

Veni Vidi Vacuum [I came, I saw, It sucked] - , 1998
  #21  
Old January 10th 19, 06:52 PM posted to microsoft.public.windowsxp.general,alt.windows7.general
Ken Blake[_5_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,007
Default laptops

On Thu, 10 Jan 2019 17:43:01 +0000, "J. P. Gilliver (John)"
wrote:

In message , Ken Blake
writes:
On Thu, 10 Jan 2019 10:05:58 -0600, VanguardLH wrote:

J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:

[]
I'd say my main initial concerns re laptops fell into three areas:
limited keyboard, all-in-one-ness, and (in practice) no slots.



I'll add five concerns to that. In no particular order:

1. Small screen. On my desktop I use two 24" monitors and wish I had a
third one.


We obviously computer in different ways.




As almost any two people do.


I am not a software engineer,
so don't need lots of compiler windows. I _do_ have ten things open on
here at the moment, including two browsers, but find Alt-Tabbing not a
problem; YMMV.

2. Increased likelihood of being lost or stolen.

3. Increased danger of being dropped and broken,


Can't argue with either of those.

4. Increased cost of being repaired.

5. So difficult to upgrade that it's more likely the whole computer
has to be replaced.


True. I change computers sufficiently rarely (I think "cold dead hands"
might enter into it) that I generally do anyway. (Car ditto.)

It's because of Bill's three concerns and my five that I never
understand why someone chooses to use a laptop at home instead of a
desktop. But as I said in another message a few minutes ago, more and
more people are doing it, and if I'm not in the minority yet, I soon
will be. I wouldn't be surprised if, within a few years, only laptops
are sold and not desktops.

Or only tablets and smartphones. Or, possibly, only desktops and
tablets/smartphones - dektops for "serious" users, and the rest - even
we semi-"serious" - will be _stuck_ with the toys.
[]
When travelling, a Chromebook is more than sufficient.



For me, as I just said in another message, my smart phone is
sufficient. And it's smaller and lighter than your Chromebook.

Yes. I've never really got to grips with using either, but I know that's
me, not them. (The odd times I've tried to use either my smartphone
[Android 4.2.2] or my friends' iPhones, I've found the way they work to
be sufficiently different from Windows [and each other!] as to be
incredibly frustrating. I'm too old - and I'm only 58.)
[]
Not to mention that it's very difficult to travel with a monitor,
keyboard, and mouse.


Though I used to do so!

  #22  
Old January 10th 19, 06:55 PM posted to microsoft.public.windowsxp.general,alt.windows7.general
Ken Blake[_5_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,007
Default laptops

On Thu, 10 Jan 2019 17:43:01 +0000, "J. P. Gilliver (John)"
wrote:

In message , Ken Blake
writes:
On Thu, 10 Jan 2019 10:05:58 -0600, VanguardLH wrote:

J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:

[]
I'd say my main initial concerns re laptops fell into three areas:
limited keyboard, all-in-one-ness, and (in practice) no slots.



I'll add five concerns to that. In no particular order:

1. Small screen. On my desktop I use two 24" monitors and wish I had a
third one.


We obviously computer in different ways. I am not a software engineer,
so don't need lots of compiler windows. I _do_ have ten things open on
here at the moment, including two browsers, but find Alt-Tabbing not a
problem; YMMV.

2. Increased likelihood of being lost or stolen.

3. Increased danger of being dropped and broken,


Can't argue with either of those.

4. Increased cost of being repaired.

5. So difficult to upgrade that it's more likely the whole computer
has to be replaced.


True. I change computers sufficiently rarely (I think "cold dead hands"
might enter into it) that I generally do anyway. (Car ditto.)

It's because of Bill's three concerns and my five that I never
understand why someone chooses to use a laptop at home instead of a
desktop. But as I said in another message a few minutes ago, more and
more people are doing it, and if I'm not in the minority yet, I soon
will be. I wouldn't be surprised if, within a few years, only laptops
are sold and not desktops.

Or only tablets and smartphones. Or, possibly, only desktops and
tablets/smartphones - dektops for "serious" users, and the rest - even
we semi-"serious" - will be _stuck_ with the toys.
[]
When travelling, a Chromebook is more than sufficient.



For me, as I just said in another message, my smart phone is
sufficient. And it's smaller and lighter than your Chromebook.

Yes. I've never really got to grips with using either, but I know that's
me, not them. (The odd times I've tried to use either my smartphone
[Android 4.2.2] or my friends' iPhones, I've found the way they work to
be sufficiently different from Windows [and each other!] as to be
incredibly frustrating. I'm too old - and I'm only 58.)



You're a youngster. g I'm 81.

A smartphone is relatively new to me too. I've had mine for about two
years.


Not to mention that it's very difficult to travel with a monitor,
keyboard, and mouse.


Though I used to do so!



You traveled in a car? Surely not an airplane, which is how I do most
of my traveling?
  #23  
Old January 10th 19, 07:01 PM posted to microsoft.public.windowsxp.general,alt.windows7.general
Big Al[_5_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,295
Default laptops

On 1/10/19 11:23 AM, Ken Blake wrote:
I know that a lot of people are like J. P. Gilliver, and use a laptop
in place of a desktop at home. But I can never understand why.


I dropped the desktop for a laptop when laptops became more powerful,
quite a few years ago. I have beside me a 4GB, and 2 2GB 2.5" USB power
HDs. That's enough storage for anything I need.

I'm also in my 70's and have back issues, don't play power games.
Sitting at the desktop was not enjoyable anymore. Damn 'golden years'
my foot! Needing a quick lookup on Google was inconvenient on the
desktop while my laptop just stands up beside my chair in sleep mode and
is ready in seconds.

It's more of a lifestyle thing.

Al


  #24  
Old January 10th 19, 07:20 PM posted to microsoft.public.windowsxp.general,alt.windows7.general
VanguardLH[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 9,885
Default laptops

Ken Blake wrote:

On Thu, 10 Jan 2019 10:05:58 -0600, VanguardLH wrote:

J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:

In message , Bill in Co
writes:
[]
If I ever went out and bought one of these nice new svelte laptops, like
I've seen on display at some stores here, I'd probably just scrap the latter
two.

I wonder if anybody gets so used to a laptop that it ends up replacing their
desktop for almost everything they need to do (for home or limited work use,
I mean).

I bought my first laptop (W9x era), intending to use it only when
travelling or in other situations where my tower machine couldn't be
taken. (I also didn't think I'd get on with a trackpad.) It became my
main machine - I was going to say rapidly, but it might have been
gradually. I have since used laptops for all my computing needs - my
desktop machines going initially weeks then months between being turned
on, and I think it might be over a year now. (And I have got very used
to a trackpad: I have a mouse, but rarely plug it in - of late, mainly
for when the trackpad [driver] misbehaves rather than needing the
differences.)

I'd say my main initial concerns re laptops fell into three areas:
limited keyboard, all-in-one-ness, and (in practice) no slots.


I'll add five concerns to that. In no particular order:

1. Small screen. On my desktop I use two 24" monitors and wish I had a
third one.


I mentioned using a docking station but you could just connect the USB
keyboard and mouse and an external monitor to the portables to have a
larger screen; however, the resolution is likely a lot less than you can
get with a video daughtercard in a desktop. Having to repeatedly plug
and unplug USB cables into the portable increases the chance of damage
to those ports. As to multi-monitor support, not likely with a
portable.

2. Increased likelihood of being lost or stolen.


Portability requires low weight and small size. Easier to lose small
stuff. That's why I leave enabled the locate feature built into my
smartphone so I can find it (and disable it so a thief can't use it).

3. Increased danger of being dropped and broken,


Alas, few users ever dust out their desktops which they often put on the
floor. Anything with airflow needs periodic cleaning. Users will
notice the lint accumulating on their table fan but still neglect
dusting out their laptops or desktops.

4. Increased cost of being repaired.


Chromebook are very easy to repair. Unlike laptops and netbooks,
Chromebooks are made for easy disassembly. I've had to work on laptops
and Chromebooks are far easier to open and replace parts. That's why
the schools love 'em.

5. So difficult to upgrade that it's more likely the whole computer
has to be replaced.


I've never bothered to crack open a netbook. Basically you're right
the buy it and later replace the whole thing. Tablets and
smartphones are the same. When I design a desktop build, I plan on a
lifespan of 8 years. Smartphones are usually replaced after 2 years
(yep, users just gotta have the latest and greatest). I suspect tablets
and netbooks don't have much beyond a 4-year lifespan when users get the
itch to get something better.

The most likely upgrades are CPU, memory, storage, and GPU. Most users
never consider replacing the CPU in their desktops, so they end up
having to buy a whole new desktop instead of upgrading the CPU (which
may require a better motherboard, too). Memory and storage is an easy
upgrade in laptops and desktops. To me, tablets, smartphones, and
netbooks are disposable devices: you expect them to last only about a
third, or less, that of a desktop.

It's because of Bill's three concerns and my five that I never
understand why someone chooses to use a laptop at home instead of a
desktop. But as I said in another message a few minutes ago, more and
more people are doing it, and if I'm not in the minority yet, I soon
will be. I wouldn't be surprised if, within a few years, only laptops
are sold and not desktops.


When my desktop died several times (PSU, video card, HDD), I used the
laptop as a temporary PC but with a real keyboard, mouse, and monitor
attached. It was still far less that I was used to but it worked in a
pinch until I got the parts to fix the desktop. Obviously I'm not going
to disconnect all the cables to my desktop and tote it around on a
vacation, so there are scenarios where portability is needed (assuming
you really need a computer while on vacation - bringing one on a hiking
or camping trip just degrades the experience).

When travelling, a Chromebook is more than sufficient.


For me, as I just said in another message, my smart phone is
sufficient. And it's smaller and lighter than your Chromebook.


Yes, if you can tolerate single-finger tapping on a screen keyboard or
trying to emulate a mouse with your finger while having to view and even
smaller screen. I got a smartphone with a large screen (LG V20) but
that also means having to tote around a larger smartphone. Yet a
Chromebook sitting on a table at the resort room is much easier and
quicker to use and easier on the eyes than using a smartphone. The
Chromebook goes on vacation with me but it really doesn't do much
travelling at the endpoints of my trips. The Chromebook sits in the
resort room while I tote along my smartphone.

I'm sure there are folks that cannot afford both a Chromebook, laptop,
or netbook to use on their vacation (and yet they can still afford to
vacation), so a smartphone is probably sufficient. However, these same
folks will be buying cheap and slow smartphones with little memory and
tiny screens. My car came with a scissor jack and nut wrench (which I
replaced with an x-wrench to help spin on/off the lug nuts). That's
okay for rare-time use when away from home. In my garage, I use
jackstands, ramps, and a hydraulic jack - but I'm not toting all that
when I drive the car away from home.

Not to mention that it's very difficult to travel with a monitor,
keyboard, and mouse.


True for the monitor but a 15.6" screen is still pretty good when
vacationing and a hell of a lot better than the screen in any
smartphone. You can upgrade a Chromebook but almost nill for a tablet.
I still tote along a USB-Bluetooth transceiver for a mouse and a small
keyboard (but bigger than in the Chromebook, netbook, or laptop).

Tablet usability sits between a netbook or Chromebook and a smartphone.
Since I have both a large smartphone, netbook, and a Chromebook, I just
can't see wasting money on a tablet for a niche that I don't need.

There are tablets you can use as a phone. Since they have wifi, you
could use them for VOIP calls anywhere you can find a hotspot. Some
include cellular radios but by then I might as well as get a Chromebook
with 3G/4G and have a larger screen, better keyboard, and easier to
repair and upgrade.

Of course, all the points about serviceability and upgradability are
moot for the majority of users. Those are not the vast majority of
consumers. They don't visit here. They buy and later buy again to get
something better. They don't upgrade and few do repairs.
  #25  
Old January 10th 19, 07:39 PM posted to microsoft.public.windowsxp.general,alt.windows7.general
Frank Slootweg
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 719
Default laptops

"J. P. Gilliver (John)" wrote:
In message , Ken Blake
writes:
[]
I know that a lot of people are like J. P. Gilliver, and use a laptop
in place of a desktop at home. But I can never understand why.


I can only speak for myself, but it's the hassle of switching computers.


That has been - and still is - my main reason for a long time as well.

I used to own/use desktops/towers, but that changed when we started to
work from home (late 1990's). We got a (company) laptop which was used
in a docking station (with large monitor, keyboard and 'mouse') both at
home and at the office. With the laptop, all software and most data
moved from home to office and vice versa. Networks were too slow and too
expensive to do that. Only limited amounts of data needed to do the work
were sent over the network.

When I retired, I kept the laptop and have been using laptops ever
since.

At first I bought a netbook for travel, but later switched to
single-laptop-for-everything, because of "the hassle of switching
computers". We travel for extended periods - upto three months - and
having stuff at home, which we need/want during travel is just not an
option. (And no, 'the cloud' isn't an option because of the amount of
storage needed and the (un)availability of networking.)

I realize that our use case is/may_be uncommon, but it's what *we*
need/want, so it's great to have that choice.

And yes, we also have a tablet and smartphone, but there's very little
overlap in the use of laptop, tablet and smartphone.

P.S. It seems to me that some 'desktop-people' take the term 'laptop' to
literally. My laptop nearly never sits on my lap, but nearly always on
a table or so and nearly always on (mains) power.

I travel between homes, such as other people's that I'm staying with,
and like to have a computer there, of reasonable functionality. I don't
trust (either for trust reasons or reliability) the cloud, so syncing
isn't on for me, and I like to have all my files on the computer I'm
using.


+ very_large_number
  #26  
Old January 10th 19, 07:54 PM posted to microsoft.public.windowsxp.general,alt.windows7.general
Frank Slootweg
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 719
Default laptops

Ken Blake wrote:
[...]

Not to mention that it's very difficult to travel with a monitor,
keyboard, and mouse.


WIMP! In the late 60's, early 70's, I traveled with a - core-memory -
computer and a ASR-33 Teletype! :-)

HP 2114 Computer:
http://www.hpmuseum.net/display_item.php?hw=97

ASR-33:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teletype_Model_33

The car (similar to this one):
https://www.classic-trader.com/uk/cars/listing/simca/1000/1000-special/1969/86746
  #27  
Old January 10th 19, 07:55 PM posted to alt.windows7.general,microsoft.public.windowsxp.general
Zaidy036[_6_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 44
Default laptops

Mayayana wrote:
"Zaidy036" wrote

| But you can load any file onto a tablet using a free program called "Air
| Transfer" so CD/DVD not required.

Air transfer from....? You've suddenly brought
in a need for a computer and bluetooth in order
to read files on this supposedly portable device.
What if I have 3 DVDs I want to access? I'm going
to load it all via bluetooth onto an overpriced iPad?
Wouldn't it be easier to just pack up my computer
in styrofoam and take that? And then I can read on
a human-sized screen.

We actually have an iPad here. I've never really
looked at it. I have no reason to research how and
if I can shoehorn the file formats I want onto that
tiny device and whether I can get good software
to open them. My ladyfriend bought the iPad. She
uses it only occasionally, to write email when away
travelling.

| iPad is very light and better for
| travel. Easy to use on airplane. Admit typing vs. laptop not the best.
|

A lot of people seem to agree with you. All
I see is a smaller screen with more limited
functionality with a lot less control. Even when
I travel with a laptop, I'm not carrying it around
to coffee shops or using it on planes. I pack it
and use it at the other end. So losing a couple
of pounds holds no appeal.

I once went with a friend to check out tablets.
I asked the Apple disciple if I could access the file
system on an iPad. He didn't understand. After
much conferring he said that, yes, there's an app for
that. It's called Exporer! I though it was very telling
that he hadn't thought of managing files.

Then we went to the Microsoft store. They had
tablets with full Windows for about $500. That
was impressive. It really was Windows, not just
a limited kiosk OS. But then I realized: I could buy
the same thing as a desktop or laptop, probably
for less money, with a lot better functionality. For
me, since I don't have to carry it all day, smaller
just means less functional. A tricycle saves on
gas, yes, but it doesn't do what a car does.


Air Transfer is a free iOS app which uses WiFi to xfer from PC to iThing
where files will be readable and editable if desired. IPad very usable to
watch video when on domestic US flights many of which no longer offer seat
back screens.
Your choice to carry heavier laptop.


--
Zaidy036
  #28  
Old January 10th 19, 08:23 PM posted to microsoft.public.windowsxp.general,alt.windows7.general
Ken Blake[_5_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,007
Default laptops

On Thu, 10 Jan 2019 12:20:25 -0600, VanguardLH wrote:


The most likely upgrades are CPU, memory, storage, and GPU. Most users
never consider replacing the CPU in their desktops, so they end up
having to buy a whole new desktop instead of upgrading the CPU (which
may require a better motherboard, too). Memory and storage is an easy
upgrade in laptops and desktops. To me, tablets, smartphones, and
netbooks are disposable devices: you expect them to last only about a
third, or less, that of a desktop.



Yes, I agree. Laptops start out being more expensive than desktops,
and that makes them even more expensive.


When my desktop died several times (PSU, video card, HDD), I used the
laptop as a temporary PC but with a real keyboard, mouse, and monitor
attached. It was still far less that I was used to but it worked in a
pinch until I got the parts to fix the desktop.



I still have an old laptop I could do the same with. Or I could use my
wife's desktop.

But what I would most likely do is use my phone and do less for a
while, as I do when traveling.

As an example of what I mean, I do Usenet every day when I'm home, but
never when I travel.


Obviously I'm not going
to disconnect all the cables to my desktop and tote it around on a
vacation, so there are scenarios where portability is needed (assuming
you really need a computer while on vacation - bringing one on a hiking
or camping trip just degrades the experience).



I don't go on hiking or camping trips. I never did much of it when I
was younger, and I'm much too old now.


When travelling, a Chromebook is more than sufficient.


For me, as I just said in another message, my smart phone is
sufficient. And it's smaller and lighter than your Chromebook.


Yes, if you can tolerate single-finger tapping on a screen keyboard or
trying to emulate a mouse with your finger while having to view and even
smaller screen.



I'm not good at any of those things, and I hate doing all of them. But
as I said, I do much less when traveling, so I manage.


I got a smartphone with a large screen (LG V20) but
that also means having to tote around a larger smartphone. Yet a
Chromebook sitting on a table at the resort room is much easier and
quicker to use and easier on the eyes than using a smartphone. The
Chromebook goes on vacation with me but it really doesn't do much
travelling at the endpoints of my trips. The Chromebook sits in the
resort room while I tote along my smartphone.



I know next to nothing about Chromebooks so I have no opinion of them
and don't know whether I should consider getting one. How big and
heavy are they? How much do they cost?

How does their size and weight compare to a tablet? I used to travel
with a tablet, but my smart phone is so much easier to carry around
that, despite the difficulty of using it, I greatly prefer it.


I'm sure there are folks that cannot afford both a Chromebook, laptop,
or netbook to use on their vacation (and yet they can still afford to
vacation), so a smartphone is probably sufficient. However, these same
folks will be buying cheap and slow smartphones with little memory and
tiny screens. My car came with a scissor jack and nut wrench (which I
replaced with an x-wrench to help spin on/off the lug nuts). That's
okay for rare-time use when away from home. In my garage, I use
jackstands, ramps, and a hydraulic jack - but I'm not toting all that
when I drive the car away from home.



I'm too old and frail to change a tire these days. If I get a flat, I
call service.


Not to mention that it's very difficult to travel with a monitor,
keyboard, and mouse.


True for the monitor but a 15.6" screen is still pretty good when
vacationing and a hell of a lot better than the screen in any
smartphone.



Of course. But again size and weight are very important to me when
traveling, particularly on an airplane, which is what I mostly travel
on.



Of course, all the points about serviceability and upgradability are
moot for the majority of users. Those are not the vast majority of
consumers. They don't visit here. They buy and later buy again to get
something better. They don't upgrade and few do repairs.



Yep! I agree. They are important to me, but not to everyone.
  #29  
Old January 10th 19, 08:27 PM posted to microsoft.public.windowsxp.general,alt.windows7.general
pyotr filipivich
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 477
Default laptops

"Mayayana" on Thu, 10 Jan 2019 11:06:10
-0500 typed in alt.windows7.general the following:

Then we went to the Microsoft store. They had
tablets with full Windows for about $500. That
was impressive. It really was Windows, not just
a limited kiosk OS. But then I realized: I could buy
the same thing as a desktop or laptop, probably
for less money, with a lot better functionality. For
me, since I don't have to carry it all day, smaller
just means less functional. A tricycle saves on
gas, yes, but it doesn't do what a car does.


Bingo.
--
pyotr filipivich
Next month's Panel: Graft - Boon or blessing?
  #30  
Old January 10th 19, 08:28 PM posted to microsoft.public.windowsxp.general
Bill in Co[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 103
Default Win XP to Win 10?

Paul wrote:
Bill in Co wrote:

I have two old used eBay laptops (one with Win XP, one
with Windows 7), which I rarely use..


So the Win7 one would be your "trial candidate" for Windows 10.

If it's Win7 SP1 x64 Home Premium, try installing Windows 10 x64 Home
over it.
If it's Win7 SP1 x86 Professional, try installing Windows 10 x86 Pro over
it.
For a "free" upgrade, the "class" of the install has to match.

It's still possible for a CPU on a Win7 box, to not
be sufficient for Windows 10, but that's the most
likely limiting factor.

Both Win7 and Win10 work with 1GB of RAM. The "kernel portion"
of the OS (i.e. squeeze out all the fat) is about 350MB or so.
Using 1GB of RAM leaves room to work.

In terms of "comfort"

1) Single core computer "works", but many common activities
might seem slow. Firefox with five processes running, railed
while it loads Yahoo News, is going to be slightly worse
than it is on Windows 7. This is because Windows 10 has little
maintenance things it will be doing in the background.

2) Graphics drivers for Windows 10 are limited by the
hardware companies. An FX5200 for example, would be running
the Microsoft Basic Display Adapter. My HD6450 PCIe video card
got one driver of merit and support has stopped. The card
runs at native resolution. When the Microsoft Basic Display Adapter
runs the show, you get 1024x768 (even on a 16:9 display).

3) A "best config" would be a quad core processor, to give some
bandwidth for the background stuff, and leave a bit for you.

You have the materials to test, but it'll be your Win7 laptop
as a (possible) candidate with no guarantees. The screen will likely
run at 1024x768.

*******

On a laptop, when it gets super-thin, there's no cooling fan.
The CPU/GPU heat is dumped into the base.

The processor then has two limits. It has a "power limiter" that
throttles if the electrical demands of the processor are too high.
It also has the usual "thermal throttles". It will allow "bursts",
so on a single threaded task (with no OS background activity),
it might seem fast. But as soon as there is background activity, it's
going to disable turbo. There is at least one enthusiast class
processor, where the turbo is set up for two cores, which allows
some amount of annoying Windows 10 activity, while you "bench"
on the other core.

With the thermal limiter, you could start a movie transcode, and
be doing 60FPS processing for the first 15 seconds, and then
the frames per second processed gradually drop to a lower number.
The cooler you keep the base, the more the speed can rise again.

If the laptop is thicker and has tradition "air cooling", you might
have more headroom. Air cooling also allows cheaper competitor
CPU choices which happen to not be as efficient. Air cooling
should allow a cheaper "performant" laptop to be built.

Thin devices used eMMC Flash storage. A device with 32GB of disk
space, stores things in a single flash chip. If the flash chip
fails, nobody is going to offer you a repair strategy (chip
must be un-soldered to replace). A wiser purchase is a machine
with at least one bay for a 2.5" drive. Which can take a SATA SSD.
And be replaced if there is an issue.

HTH,
Paul


Thanks. I will keep this in mind as an idea, but I'm a bit hesitant to bite
the bullet and mess with the Win 7 laptop (plus downloading a 3.5 GB file is
another issue over here). But at least as you've said, it is an option.

And you brought up something there that never occured to me, and that is,
that while it seems fine and dandy to have that SSD internal drive, if it
fails, you're screwed, since it's soldered in place (at least for the thin
laptops, from what you said). I wonder if there are any laptops that have
their SSD socketed, and if so, how would one ever know before purchasing?

And then of course, the concerns over the reliability and the failure mode
of an SSD vs a normal HDD. Sometimes for that reason alone I think it might
be safer to stick with the regular HDD laptops, but then have to put up with
the much slower boot and program load times. But perhaps I'm being too
conservative here, because the SSD stuff sure is attractive, otherwise.


 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off






All times are GMT +1. The time now is 02:30 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2019 PCbanter.
The comments are property of their posters.