Securing a New Laptop

[Pieter Boelen]

What does it matter? Just make the 64bit thing invisible to the end user.
*I* don't care how much bit, as long as it WORKS.
Do I really need two copies of Internet Explorer in my Start menu???

 

[Thagarr]

In my opinion, you don't even need one!

If they made it completely seamless and invisible, then they wouldn't have an excuse to try and make you buy all new computer equipment and new programs every few years, gotta love the computer industry!

 

[rupertlittlebear]

It is really quite confusing sometimes mate, Microsoft sure doesn't help much either. Just think of all the fun we are gonna have when 128 bit processors start to become standard ...

and the multi-cores that lock-up old programs

not to mention the multi-cores that insist that they be multi-threaded

for even more locking fun.

 

[Stallion]

Tell me about it...

I miss the single-core days.

 

[Thagarr]

Multi-core chips can cause problems for sure, especially for older code that wasn't written to take advantage of them. There are a couple of ways to try and mitigate this, the most effective of which is to set the core affinity for certain programs. In other words, you can tell windows to only process a specific program through a specific core.

You can do this manually using Task Manager from the process tab, but you have to set it each time the program is run. There are also several handy little programs that will do this for you, one of them is "THG Task Assignment Manager" which you can find HERE! It's a rather old program, but it should work in Windows 7, although I haven't tried it. Another is CPU-Control, which you can find HERE!

DO NOT change the Process Affinity for System Processes!

Another way to do it is to edit the shortcut of the program you are wanting to set the processor affinity on and change the target line to read like this : C:\Windows\System32\cmd.exe /C start "" /affinity 1 "C:\(ProgramFolder)\(program).exe"

The affinity should be a single hexadecimal number, not a list of CPU numbers:
1 = use CPU 0
2 = use CPU 1
3 = use CPU 1 and 0
4 = use CPU 2
F = use CPU 3, 2, 1 and 0

 

[rupertlittlebear]

Multi-core chips can cause problems for sure, especially for older code that wasn't written to take advantage of them.

that's because to an Operating system "backwards compatible"

means "turning it's back on problems".

(AKA if I ignore you long enough, the user will be forced to fix it)

whereas

to a user "backwards compatible"

means "If it worked before, it'll work now"

 

[Armada]

Sorry to dig up this now-ancient thread, but with my birthday fast approaching I've decided it's finally time to do away with my frustratingly slow desktop and treat myself to a shiny new laptop.

Problem is, there's so much choice out there, and I need to be sure I'm making the right decision before parting with so much cash, so I'm wondering if anyone can offer some advice.
So far I'm looking for a machine that costs less than £500 (preferably), has a fairly capable processor and dedicated graphics (because we all know how good Intel's integrated graphics are...).
Obviously, it needs to be able to run PotC quite well, along with Maya 2012 and GIMP as the 'modding essentials' I use. I'd also like it to be capable of running fairly modern games smoothly, thinking of when Hearts of Oak finally materialises over the coming months/years.

I reckon the main things I need to think carefully about are the following (along with anything else people can think of):
Processor: Many machines I've looked at in this price range come with the latest Intel Core i3 or i5 dual-core processors; which of these would be more worth getting? As for AMD alternatives, I've only really found the A8 quad-core processor as a good contender, but some are saying it's inferior to the Core i3/5 in some ways. So is it worth considering?

Screen size: The majority of laptops I've looked at have 15.6" screens at a 1366x768 resolution, and some more expensive variants have 17.3" screens at 1600x900.
Considering my current screen has a resolution of 1400x900, would it be too much of a 'downgrade' going with a 15.6" screen? Or would the difference not have any adverse effects?

Windows 8? As a Vista user for the last five years (five... long... years...), I'm going with the idea that anything is an improvement, whether it be Windows 7 or Windows 8.
Now, I've read some reviews for Windows 8 that don't seem to highlight any major faults, and even praise many of the new features, so I'm highly tempted to go with it (especially with support for touchpad gestures on laptops that have them). So I have to ask: are there any reasons why I definitely SHOULDN'T get Windows 8? And has anyone tested PotC or CoAS on it yet?

The rest of the specs, I'm less concerned about. It looks like at least 4GB or RAM and 500GB of storage are fairly standard (compared to my PC's 2GB RAM and 72GB internal + 50GB external storage).
Wireless options, battery life and such look good too. Dedicated graphics should be fine in any case.

For reference, HERE is a laptop I'm tempted to buy, at the cheapest price I've found it, from a reliable retailer. I've seen some excellent reviews for it, and heard it's great value for money (and it improves on every aspect of my current PC, which is most important).

If anyone has any comments or alternative suggestions, I'd greatly appreciate it.

 

[Jack Rackham]

Very good post, thanks a lot! I'll need this information someday.

 

[Hylie Pistof]

I am prejudiced. Laptops are useless for gaming.

With that said, Intel CPUs multi thread much better and use much less power than AMD CPUs. They deliver better FPS in games. Get an I5 like the 3750K.

1366 X 768 is an oddball size that does not work well with many programs. Avoid that. Anyway, bigger is better.

What I have heard is that Win8 can be better, and it can be worse than Win7. If one knows how to tweak it, it can be more efficient than Win7. If one just runs it stock, it can be a dog.

Nvidia graphics seems to have an edge in tweakability over ATI for laptops based on questions asked here.

I have 8gb of ram and have often seen around 4 gb being used. 4 gb of ram is the minimum and more will let it run faster.

A 500gb hd is ok. I generally keep around 200gb free on mine, but I have to regularly dive in and weed out the old stuff. I currently also have an 80gb for Windoze and its utilities that usually has around 20-25gb free.

Anyway, you will notice a huge improvement no matter what you end up with.

 

[Thagarr]

I second what Hylie says above, if you want to game, you want a desktop. That being said, I do understand the desire to be as portable as possible, but you will sacrifice a great deal for that convenience. To get anywhere close to desktop performance on a laptop, you will need to spend at least 3 times what you are looking at mate. There are a LOT of things to consider, things aren’t near as simple now as they were just a couple of years ago, especially in the laptop/mobile market.

The system that you linked to above with the mobile GT630 chip would certainly do great graphics-wise, but would suffer greatly with just a dual core i3. Though you would certainly notice a difference with your current system now, down the road a couple of years, I think you would be very disappointed with just 2 cores. Gimp and Maya and any other graphics programs that you use will benefit greatly from multi-core processors.

This opens up a whole new debate though, and I will try not to get to far off topic, but I will summarize a bit. AMD screwed up and their current best 8 core processors are being left in the dust by even last years core i5's. In terms of raw processing power, Intel will outperform AMD for many years to come, it will take AMD at least 5 years to catch up, if not longer. Intel has made great strides with their latest HD4000 chipset, and it actually preforms quite well. Although I am not sure about POTC. However, the graphics side of AMD's chips completely blow away anything that Intel offers, and even rivals stand alone graphics chips like the mobile GT630. Needless to say, this makes choosing the best bang for your buck a whole lot more complicated nowadays.

Windows 7 or Windows 8, this opens up yet another debate and Microsoft really screwed up with this one. Touch screens are great for tablets, not so much if you have an actual keyboard. Windows 8 is a tablet operating system that Microsoft designed as a store front/spyware platform, and is trying to force it on both desktops and laptops. I would highly recommend Windows 7. But that is just my own biased opinion.

As far as screen size goes, resolution is much more important then the actual physical size of the display. 1366 x 768 is probably about the best you are going to find in your price range. You will notice a difference from your current resolution, but LCD tech has improved quite a bit over the past few years, so it might actually look better.

With £500 as a limit, in my opinion, your best bet for performance for the price would be an AMD APU.

 

[Greyfoot]

I have been fixing laptops and desktops for a living for over 5yrs now and I have to say that laptops brought in for repair due to motherboard soldering issue have a ratio of 7 to 1 AMD over Intel. This is due to the factory limitations of enviromental soldering used in modern laptops. This is a load of balls if you ask me as it has nothing to do with saving poor wildlife it is because the constant heat cycle generated by laptops by turning them on and off makes the soldering material pop, resulting in expensive repair/premature failure.

AMD based boards are more prone to this due to worse heat dissipation/generation compared to Intel chips. Keep this in mind, if you are going to use the laptop as a work station.

EDIT: Forgot to mention that the desktop I am using utilizes an AMD chip and ATI gpu, so I am no fanboy, heat is not much of an issue in a desktop where adequate air flow is readily available even in cheap towers/cases.

 

[Armada]

Thanks for the comments, mates!

Firstly, I probably shouldn't have put so much emphasis on the graphics side of things. To be clear, I'm not looking to use the laptop as my primary gaming machine; I have a PS3 for that purpose.
All I need right now is enough power to run Maya and GIMP efficiently, which in turn should be capable of running any other day-to-day tasks very smoothly. Any higher performance is a bonus, and better for future-proofing, of course.

You're probably right that the 1366x768 resolution of a 15.6" screen is too small; I can easily imagine Maya getting very cramped, for instance.
I'll try to hunt down a 17" screen, though chances are I'll have to sacrifice something to keep the price down.

On that note, after some further research into the latest integrated graphics, I'm actually wondering whether I even need to bother with dedicated cards.
I was surprised to learn that Intel's HD Graphics 4000 is quite competent, and is probably good enough for my purposes.
In budget terms, that means I can spend more on other more important features. For example, HERE is the same laptop I mentioned above, with a bigger 17.3" screen, Core i5 processor, but no dedicated graphics, for the same price. Reduced from £500, that looks like an absolute bargain.

I looked into AMD APUs as an alternative (specifically the A8 and A10), but despite the integrated graphics being marginally better, I've been a bit put off after hearing that the Core i5 can outperform both the processors in almost every respect.

One thing that's really bugging me, though, is whether Intel has improved their integrated graphics enough to run PotC without any problems (or at least better than before).
It's not absolutely crucial either way, since the latest Build version includes the best fix we've had so far.

 

[Greyfoot]

I remember that first gen core i chipset, namely H55 ran COAS perfectly without a hitch, not sure about POTC mate.

EDIT: AMD chips are not that far behind Intel in day to day computing, many people use AMD for autocad without any issue, others say Intel will piss all over AMD any day. Tbh except the heat issue I explained earlier there is absolutely no real world difference between AMD and Intel.

 

[Armada]

OK then, I'll probably still settle for Intel. Besides, of all the 17" laptops I've found, so far I haven't come across one with anything other than an Intel processor.

As for the graphics, it's not really the hardware which has been known to have issues with PotC, but Intel's drivers instead. I've heard that they've made many improvements to the drivers recently, so there's a chance they might be doing something right, at least.

 

[Pieter Boelen]

You could put PotC on a USB stick, find your laptop of choice in a store and ask if they'd allow you to test it out?

 

[Armada]

I'm not so worried about it. I hardly even play PotC any more, so even if I have to install the fix, it won't matter so much.

Anyway, unfortunately that juicy deal on the Acer didn't last; it looks as though someone went and bulk-bought the whole lot almost overnight, so the price has gone back up to £500 for the remaining stock.
That's life, I suppose.

Instead, I've now ordered a new Dell Inspiron 17 with nearly identical specs as the Acer, for £450. Still a 17" screen with a Core i5 processor and Windows 8, but it also has a nice matte finish which won't attract dust and fingerprints so much. Looking forward to using that in place of my outdated desktop!