Recommendation for an xmas present PC for a college kid?

In article
Gene Wirchenko wrote:

Sincerely,

Gene Wirchenko

It's disingenuous and insincere when you cobble a sig that says
"Sincerely" onto every little scrabble. When everything is
"sincere", nothing is.

Best,
Hamlet

"Gene Wirchenko" wrote

| Beautifully stated. May I quote you in my blog?

Yes, if you like.

| If yes, do you want to be credited?

It's thoughtful of you to ask, but no, I don't
want specific credit. I guess you could just
say it was posted in a newsgroup.

On Tue, 20 Dec 2016 15:31:59 -0800, Gene Wirchenko wrote:

On Tue, 20 Dec 2016 19:57:42 GMT, Johnny B Good
wrote:

On Mon, 19 Dec 2016 09:58:22 -0800, Gene Wirchenko wrote:

On Sat, 17 Dec 2016 15:35:56 GMT, Johnny B Good
wrote:

[snip]

Given the choice between a laptop sporting a 2TB HDD and one sporting
a
'mere 500GB' of SSD storage, the SSD option wins hands down every
time.

What about the case where you need 1 TB of storage?

Quite obviously (I'm surprised you had to ask), you'll either have to
accept a compromise (2TB HDD specced laptop) or else shell out the extra
cash (either a laptop with a 500GB SSD plus an additional external 2.5
inch pocketable HDD or else a 1TB SSD specced laptop if you want to
avoid the additional baggage of an external drive).

IOW, the 500GB SSD option does not win hands down every time.

[snip]

Ok, ok already! So, I exaggerated the case (a teensy weensy bit). More
accurately, I should have included the caveat that this would be true
*only* in *most* cases. :-)

--
Johnny B Good

In message , Gene Wirchenko
writes:
On Tue, 20 Dec 2016 01:05:20 +0000, "J. P. Gilliver (John)"
wrote:

In message , Gene Wirchenko
writes:

[snip]

2) The touchpad is awkward to use.
a) My hands are very dry, and I occasionally cause a click when
my finger is just above -- but not actually touching -- the touchpad.
Other clicks can happen when I am moving the pointer.

With many touchpads, there are adjustments for both of these.

Not on mine that I have found.

The default driver that comes with the OS (XP, anyway - not sure about 7
and above) just makes the t'pad look like a mouse, with the standard
controls. If you get the driver - ideally downloaded from the laptop
manufacturer, but usually the one from the touchpad manufacturer will
also work (IME it's nearly always Synaptics, or at least their driver
works [www.synaptics.com]), then when you bring up the mouse properties
box from control panel, you get tabs for buttons, pointers, pointer
options, sometimes wheel and sometimes hardware - so far, same as any
mouse - and also one Device Settings. Within that tab, you get a choice
of tray icons, and a settings button. Within _that_, you get Overview,
Tapping, Buttons, Virtual Scrolling, Pointer Motion, and Sensitivity;
each of these has lots of subsections, but for one of your problems, the
Sensitivity section includes Touch Sensitivity: "If your pointer is
moving or clicking erratically, or you work in an area with high
humidity," move the slider one way, "If you have to press too hard to
operate the TouchPad or if the TouchPad does not always respond to your
taps," move it the other way.

If you don't have the extra tabs etc., you have only the default driver.

b) I am accustomed to point and click. On the touchpad, I lose
my hand position when I click. With a mouse, I can click without
losing the position.

Don't you tap-tap? I, at first, thought I'd never get used to a
touchpad, but am now very used to it. I use a mouse at work. On the
whole, I switch between them without difficulty; occasionally, I find
something that one does better than the other, but I think it's about
the same number for each.

No. I am accustomed to move, click, move, click, move, click. It
is fast. Tap-tap loses my precise positioning and is slower.

Each to his own. I don't find I lose position. (I wouldn't, I _think_,
use a touchpad for fine drawing - though I don't think I'd use a mouse
either; I'd get one of those graphics pads you use with a stylus.)

3) WiFi is much slower than my desktop system's ADSL.
A lot of laptops still have an ethernet port - but of course have wifi
as well. (Actually, I've never found wifi to be the limiting factor -
more likely the processor power, or occasionally the external internet
connection speed. But I can see the wifi _could_ be the limiting factor
for some people.)

It is what is available at hotels. It is noticeably slower. It
affects my workflow.

Ah, I haven't experienced hotel wifi much. I can see that, with the
combination of perhaps not enough routers (in the extreme, just one),
and multiple users, it could indeed be slow. However, conversely, you at
least have it; you can't claim the slowness of wifi as a disadvantage of
a laptop, it's only a disadvantage of wifi.

[snip]

No argument. Lappy's main advantages are portability and ubiquity.

Yes.

I am reminded of a definition of golf attributed to Ambrose
Bierce. Paraphrase: Golf is a game where the idea is to hit a little
ball into a little hole with implements that are ill-suited to the
purpose.

I thought you were going to bring up the old one (I don't know who) that
"golf is a good walk, spoiled".

Laptops are a form of computer golf.

A little harsh. Even if you do find all the things about them true,
their portability/convenience means they can be used where a desktop
just can't (or, can't without a _lot_ of infrastructure).

Sincerely,

Gene Wirchenko

Insincerely (-:,
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

Actors are fairly modest...A lot of us have quite a lot to be modest about. -
Simon Greenall (voice of Aleksandr the "Simples!" Meerkat), RT 11-17 Dec 2010

In message , Ken Blake
writes:
[]
9. Because a laptop is an "all-in-one" unit, if a major component,
such as the screen, fails, the whole laptop needs to be replaced.

No, unless you want _instant_ get-going again. In the last few years,
I've replaced a laptop screen, hard disc, and memory (the memory was to
upgrade, not a fail).

So, despite their becoming more popular as a basic computer for many
people, I personally think they are a very poor choice. I think a
laptop should only be for traveling.

I used to think that too. I _do_ prefer a full-size keyboard; but, I
tolerate the slight inconvenience of this netbook one (much alleviated
by the use of AllChars), rather than connect a keyboard to it. (I do
actually have an external keyboard within reach, now I think of it, but
I haven't connected it for months.)

I basically use a desktop with two 24" screens. I used to carry a very
small laptop (a netbook) when I traveled, but I no longer even do
that. Since when traveling, all I want to do is read e-mail and
occasionally browse the web, I now use my smart phone when I travel,
and the laptop stays in the closet.
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

Actors are fairly modest...A lot of us have quite a lot to be modest about. -
Simon Greenall (voice of Aleksandr the "Simples!" Meerkat), RT 11-17 Dec 2010

In message , Johnny B Good
writes:
[]
The longer you can go between major upgrades, the bigger the bang for
your buck (and the less likely you'll land up feeling cheated[1] by a
premature upgrade that just missed out on the "latest must have
technology update").

[1] A feeling that'll always be present to a greater or lesser degree
depending on how well you managed to time your last upgrade to avoid that
feeling of operating in a SATA3 world with SATA1 kit. :-(

Provided the new power of your new system isn't largely cancelled by the
sloppier programming of a new OS and new versions of the software. The
best _perceived_ effect is probably when you upgrade towards the end of
the run of an OS (and the software versions that go with it).

(And yes, I am aware this isn't _always_ the case - I've heard the
claims that 7 "works better" on limited hardware than XP; but even if
that's true, I think it's the exception that perhaps proves the rule.)
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

Beatrix Potter was a bunny boiler.
- Patricia Routledge, on "Today" 2016-1-26

"J. P. Gilliver (John)" wrote

|I've heard the
| claims that 7 "works better" on limited hardware than XP;

I'd be very surprised if that's true. 7 is just more
complex, bigger, with more background processes
running. I have 2 Win7 systems and both are OK,
but neither is especially zippy. My XP box nearly
always responds instantly, except when opening
hogs like Libre Office or Firefox.

It *might* be true that 7 is better on strong
hardware. That's true of XP vs Win9x. Win98 can
fly on 64 MB of RAM while XP will crawl. But given
enough resources, XP is noticeably more robust.

I ran XP for years with 256 MB RAM. It was fine.
(That was before wildly bloated software.) I doubt
win7 could do that. I've never tried it, but I did
try the Win8 beta on a single core with 1 GB RAM.
It could barely manage to sit there. Any actual
functionality was too much to handle. To be fair,
though, 8 is basically 7 with the fat weight of
Metro sitting on top of it -- a wrapper-infested,
superfluous, second operating system. So I guess
it's not surprising that it's such a pig.

In message , Mayayana
writes:
"J. P. Gilliver (John)" wrote

|I've heard the
| claims that 7 "works better" on limited hardware than XP;

I'd be very surprised if that's true. 7 is just more

I think some such claims include reducing 7 to marginal usability
(certainly turning off Aero, and possibly even using Starter Edition or
whatever it's called). I always viewed them with doubt anyway - AFAIAC,
each new version of Windows demands far more everything than its
predecessor - but thought I ought to at least acknowledge the claim(s).

If, by any remote chance, the OP is still reading this thread, then I'd
probably recommend 7 as the OS for any new machine, on the basis that I
haven't seen anything 10 offers that _I_ want, and XP _would_ cause
various problems in today's world; however, it's probably moot, as if he
wants to buy the kid a "new" machine, 10 is all he'll be able to find
(without considerable effort) anyway.

complex, bigger, with more background processes
running. I have 2 Win7 systems and both are OK,
but neither is especially zippy. My XP box nearly
always responds instantly, except when opening
hogs like Libre Office or Firefox.

Much the same he one 7 (64) is a 17", which I use for Skype and
giving TeamViewer support because of the big screen (and it's ideal for
those), but (as I discovered when "trying" the free 10) isn't multicore
(I think it's Vista date). [It took about 2 _days_ to "up"grade to 10,
which was totally unusable on it; thank goodness for Macrium!] The other
7 (32) _is_ quite a nice machine, and I haven't really played with it -
I will switch to it if this trusty XP machine does ever die. (My main
news/email client - Turnpike - won't run on '64.)

It *might* be true that 7 is better on strong
hardware. That's true of XP vs Win9x. Win98 can
fly on 64 MB of RAM while XP will crawl. But given
enough resources, XP is noticeably more robust.

Yes, my '98SElite seems to work well with its 128.

I ran XP for years with 256 MB RAM. It was fine.

As did my brother, but it was getting slower; I wouldn't try to run
XPSP3 on less than 1, and would recommend 2 these days (mainly to
support browsers).

(That was before wildly bloated software.) I doubt
win7 could do that. I've never tried it, but I did
try the Win8 beta on a single core with 1 GB RAM.

I remember overriding the check so that I could start NT4 in - I can't
remember whether it was 4M or 16M; now _that_ was an experience!
Noticeable delay on any keypress or mouse movement.

It could barely manage to sit there. Any actual
functionality was too much to handle. To be fair,
though, 8 is basically 7 with the fat weight of
Metro sitting on top of it -- a wrapper-infested,
superfluous, second operating system. So I guess
it's not surprising that it's such a pig.

Yes, I never saw any advantage in 8 either; lots of people saying use
classic shell with it, but that seemed a very odd attitude to me!

My main dislike for 10 is, as well as all the security concerns that
lots of people complain about, that (as usual) lots of things seem to
have been changed purely for the sake of it. (I'm sure that's not the
real reason for such changes - I don't think of the designers as
intrinsically evil to that extent - but it always _seems_ that way.) So
my default for any "new" machine will be 7 as long as I can get such
machines. (And I'll keep using this XP machine for the moment as my main
one!) All of which, however, is a long way from what the OP wanted.
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

I'd rather trust the guys in the lab coats who aren't demanding that I get up
early on Sundays to apologize for being human.
-- Captain Splendid (quoted by "The Real Bev" in mozilla.general, 2014-11-16)

On 2016-12-21 10:24 PM, Mayayana wrote:
"J. P. Gilliver (John)" wrote

|I've heard the
| claims that 7 "works better" on limited hardware than XP;

I'd be very surprised if that's true. 7 is just more
complex, bigger, with more background processes
running. I have 2 Win7 systems and both are OK,
but neither is especially zippy. My XP box nearly
always responds instantly, except when opening
hogs like Libre Office or Firefox.

To be fair to LibreOffice, it's only a pig in Windows. In Linux, both it
and Firefox run incredibly fast IMO.

It *might* be true that 7 is better on strong
hardware. That's true of XP vs Win9x. Win98 can
fly on 64 MB of RAM while XP will crawl. But given
enough resources, XP is noticeably more robust.

I ran XP for years with 256 MB RAM. It was fine.
(That was before wildly bloated software.) I doubt
win7 could do that. I've never tried it, but I did
try the Win8 beta on a single core with 1 GB RAM.
It could barely manage to sit there. Any actual
functionality was too much to handle. To be fair,
though, 8 is basically 7 with the fat weight of
Metro sitting on top of it -- a wrapper-infested,
superfluous, second operating system. So I guess
it's not surprising that it's such a pig.

There's a reason Microsoft makes its operating system noticeably slower
with each iteration and it has a lot to do with the fact that hardware
manufacturers want to continue selling their products and finding
customers. Why else would hardware that worked in Vista (which has the
same core as 10) not work in 10? Why else would the bundled software
which ran well 7 years ago slow down to a crawl on the same hardware
even though practically nothing about the software changed during that
time (I'm looking at you, Windows Media Player). The customer is being
laughed at to the benefit of corporations and we're all swallowing it
without question.

--
Silver Slimer
Fingerprint: e58428b2633833a3b0c9bb7e40819166642245b7
Gab.ai: @silverslimer

Proud bigot.

On Thu, 22 Dec 2016 02:40:09 +0000, "J. P. Gilliver (John)"
wrote:

[snip]

Ah, I haven't experienced hotel wifi much. I can see that, with the
combination of perhaps not enough routers (in the extreme, just one),
and multiple users, it could indeed be slow. However, conversely, you at
least have it; you can't claim the slowness of wifi as a disadvantage of
a laptop, it's only a disadvantage of wifi.

No, it is a disadvantage of a laptop in the environment I would
use it in. That the root cause is WiFi is irrelevant; my system is
slow.

[snip]

Sincerely,

Gene Wirchenko

On Wed, 21 Dec 2016 19:01:57 -0500, "Mayayana"
wrote:

"Gene Wirchenko" wrote

| Beautifully stated. May I quote you in my blog?

Yes, if you like.

| If yes, do you want to be credited?

It's thoughtful of you to ask, but no, I don't
want specific credit. I guess you could just
say it was posted in a newsgroup.

Will do. Thank you.

Sincerely,

Gene Wirchenko

In message , Gene Wirchenko
writes:
On Thu, 22 Dec 2016 02:40:09 +0000, "J. P. Gilliver (John)"
wrote:

[snip]

Ah, I haven't experienced hotel wifi much. I can see that, with the
combination of perhaps not enough routers (in the extreme, just one),
and multiple users, it could indeed be slow. However, conversely, you at
least have it; you can't claim the slowness of wifi as a disadvantage of
a laptop, it's only a disadvantage of wifi.

No, it is a disadvantage of a laptop in the environment I would
use it in. That the root cause is WiFi is irrelevant; my system is
slow.
[]
If the environment is one (e. g. your home?) where ethernet is
available, then I'd compare your desktop machine with ethernet vs. a
laptop with ethernet; deliberately hobbling the laptop by forcing it to
use wifi in such a case is a bit unfair. (Unless you've got a laptop
with no ethernet connection, granted, but I don't think they're _that_
common yet, unlike e. g. tablets.) If the environment is something like
a hotel, then you are unlikely to have the desktop with you at all, so
again the comparison is moot.
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

"If you have ten thousand regulations you destroy all respect for the
law." - Winston Churchill.

On Fri, 23 Dec 2016 01:06:58 +0000, "J. P. Gilliver (John)"
wrote:

In message , Gene Wirchenko
writes:

[snip]

No, it is a disadvantage of a laptop in the environment I would
use it in. That the root cause is WiFi is irrelevant; my system is
slow.
[]
If the environment is one (e. g. your home?) where ethernet is

ADSL, but I do not think that affects the argument either way.

available, then I'd compare your desktop machine with ethernet vs. a
laptop with ethernet; deliberately hobbling the laptop by forcing it to
use wifi in such a case is a bit unfair. (Unless you've got a laptop

No, it is not. I am comparing each for when I would use them.

There is little point to using a laptop to do my main work when I
have a desktop system with its much better (for me) ergonomics.

Similarly, I can not easily haul my desktop system to the hotels,
and there is no sense stating that if there were faster Internet there
that a laptop would give a better user experience. It does not in the
situation that exists.

with no ethernet connection, granted, but I don't think they're _that_
common yet, unlike e. g. tablets.) If the environment is something like
a hotel, then you are unlikely to have the desktop with you at all, so
again the comparison is moot.

Sincerely,

Gene Wirchenko

On Fri, 16 Dec 2016 15:53:54 +0000 (UTC), Hazuki Nakamura
wrote:

College kid needs a new computer as the old one was too big and busted
(dead battery, broken hinges, etc.)

Kid wants a smaller computer.
Kid doesn't do gaming.
Kid just needs the basics (MS Office).

Any idea of a cost-effective PC?

I asked the kid to go to the college bookstore to snap a picture of the
*size* she likes and she texted me a Dell Inspiron 11 3000 (which seems to
be 13.3 inches corner to corner).

Googling for the size specs on that computer, it's about an inch thick but
I can't tell the length and width dimensions from the Dell site:
http://www.dell.com/en-us/shop/produ...11-3147-laptop

She doesn't need touch display nor any fancy monitor hinges (just the KISS
basics).

What inexpensive non-touch-screen non-fancy-hinges laptop would you
recommend for a non-gaming college student that is about the length and
width of that laptop?

If you are looking at Dell Laptops, I would skip the Inspiron Line and
go to a Lattitude. They are more sturdy for transit and if carried
around campus, to classes, etc. A good practical model that is not
outrageous in cost would be the Latitude 3350. Functional and no
frills, but a really nice laptop for school work, etc. Designed for
rough handling.

In alt.comp.os.windows-10, on Mon, 19 Dec 2016 16:07:24 +0000, "J. P.
Gilliver (John)" wrote:

In message , micky
writes:
[]
But I'm still working things out. When it gets dark out, I also can't
see the keyboard which makes it hard to do cntl-W for example, and
sometimes I've hit cntl-Q, which closes Eudora. So I bought an
illuminated keyboard, choice of several colors even, and though the
light part worked, I made many more typos than with the other KB. I'm
thinking of trying to get better with it, or even buying a different
brand. Until then, I have the burden of standing up and turning on the
ceiling light when it gets dark out. Life is hard.
[]
I found a clip-on light helped there. The one I have clips to the top of
the screen (but the LEDs point down), and has a spring-retract for the
(very fine) USB lead. (I wouldn't go for the ones that have a stiff
flexible neck - I'd worry about them putting too much wear on the USB
socket, and also getting in the way, both physically and visually.)

I also have the white model of the keyboard: this machine came in black
or white (I have black), but when I was trying to fix the keyboard funny
(which I _still_ haven't got to the bottom of! I just don't touch the
left Ctrl key), I bought a spare keyboard to see if that fixed it (it
didn't), and bought the black-letters-on-white variant; this is easier
to see in dim light (a bit), such as the light from the screen.

These are all good ideas.

So is the remote control, Char and Paul.

Still now going to get up and turn on the ceiling light. (The white
keyboard still requires some peering, and I'm not sure where I've put my
clip-on light.)

LOL