Which size laptop

[jacques10]

Maybe i can get help from you guys? I do article marketing and need a laptop that has a fair amount of speed when working on the internet.
i WILL NOT be using it to play games, therefore i am not too worried about graphics.
I also move around sometimes and would like for it not to be too heavy - i though in the lines of 14" and smaller.

What would you advise??

 

[El_Capitan]

If you're looking for speed, anything that has 2 cores should be fast enough for most of your work. Anything over 2.0 GHz is overkill. Since you won't be using games, integrated graphics will save money and drain less power.

14" and smaller will restrict your vertical viewing, but decrease the weight and increase your battery life. However, a 15.6" really won't increase your vertical viewing by much more than 100 pixels, depending on the type of laptop that you get.

Price-wise, you can always get a netbook for around $300, or a speedier laptop for around $500. I prefer the laptops because of the full-sized keyboards and better viewing resolutions (my 14.1" is 1280 x 800), as well as processing and memory power. I have a 12 cell battery, while my laptop weighs about 7lbs, instead of about 5lbs with a 6 cell battery, it gives me a battery life of 5 hours while constantly working.

As much as I love my 17" gaming laptop because of the viewing resolution of 1920 x 1200, as well as a full-sized keyboard plus keypad, 1.8 hours of battery life and it weighing 10lbs doesn't make me want to carry it with me that much while on working vacations.

 

[jacques10]

El_Capitan, thanx for the valuable info, but allow me to explain what i am going to do with it exactly.
Primarily I will be writing articles and submitting them to the internet, meaning that sometimes i will have about five sites open at any given time when submitting my info.
I have also thought in the lines of dual core/core2duo , but unfortunately the smaller the laptop the greater the price. This has forced me to rather look at netbooks, but having to strain one's eyes with the smaller font size for at least three hours a day non-stop will create more than just a headache (maybe not so with the new LED screens).
I guess what i'm trying to say is, i just need something reliable, compact enough and with good operating speed.
Please advise?

 

[El_Capitan]

A single processor will actually do. Having multiple sites opened (tabbed or new windows) only takes up some memory, but not that much to slow your computer down. I'd recommend at least 2GB memory, but the more the better - though the faster you make your netbook/notebook, the faster you'll drain your battery.

I'm not sure how much battery life is important for you, but if eye strain is a problem, making your screen brighter when on battery power will drain more battery. Plus, the larger the screen size, the more battery drainage.

Reliability is a tough one, you'd just have to read the user reviews at different places and see what everyone says about it. For compactness, I wouldn't upgrade to a 9 or 12 cell battery, just stick with the 6 cell battery. Your battery life won't be as long, but your netbook/notebook won't be as heavy. Good operating speed would be a single or dual core no faster than 1.8 GHz. I'd recommend a 64-bit operating system, but then you'd need at least 3GB memory, which you don't need. A 32-bit OS with 2GB memory should be fine.

Anything up to 15.6 inches, you'll get resolutions up to 1200 x 800 (14.1"). I'd recommend using your desktop monitor and change your resolutions to get a better picture of what those resolutions look like with your new netbook/notebook. If I need more vertical viewing space, I just press F11 to maximize the browser reading space.

The bigger the monitor, the more battery drainage and heavier the netbook/notebook, but the more comfortable the viewing and viewing angle.

The smaller the monitor, the less battery drainage and lighter the netbook/notebook, but the less comfortable the viewing and the viewing angle. I notice I have to slouch more or sit up straighter on the 14.1" notebook than my 17" notebook.

 

[jacques10]

Gee-wizz, thanx a lot. You have really helped a lot. I have found a liking in the NEW Acer timeline series laptops and, although they only run Core 2 Solo, they boast 8+ hours of battery life under "normal" use.

 

[El_Capitan]

Just watch out for the company boasting their own battery life time.

Charge up once and go all-out from morning till night! The Acer PowerSmart key provides one-touch system-wide energy conservation, delivering 8-plus hours* of on-the-go notebook action.
* Based on Principled Technologies' benchmark testing, using Bapco's MobileMark 2007 Productivity test. Battery life varies depending on product specifications, computer settings, and applications or features launched, and may be reduced if Windows Aero™ is enabled. The Acer PowerSmart button must be enabled to achieve the 8+ hours. All batteries' maximum capacity diminishes with time and use.

I'm not sure about their Bapco's MobileMark 2007 Productivity test. If you look at their site:
http/www.bapco.com/support/mobilemark2007/Manual/rules.html

Display brightness: The user perceived display brightness must stay constant throughout the course of the benchmark. The display brightness should be measured for a white screen while on battery and must be set at the lowest possible setting greater than or equal to 60 nits. The display brightness based upon the display brightness of a white screen must not drop lower than the initial setting during the test. Thus all features capable of lowering the brightness of a white screen must be disabled (examples of these features are panels that lower brightness as the battery discharges and ambient light sensors). It is required that the nit level be disclosed when publishing results and included with additional notation accompanying any Full Disclosure Report submitted to BAPCo. If a luminance meter is not available it is not possible to submit an FDR (note that a luminance meter is a device which measures nits, and is not the same as a light meter, which measures lux).

I don't know what "60 nits" is, but this article might help (estimates that 60 nits is at a 20-30% brightness level): http/blogs.amd.com/patmoorhead/2009/06/10/mobilemark-2007-60-nits-one-nit-picker-and-you/

Plus, the Acer PowerSmart button and it's functionality is a little vague. I'd google some reviews where they actually test battery life for different netbooks/notebooks using real-life tests. For example, watching a DVD movie on highest level brightness and see how long it takes before hitting the 90%, 80%, 70%, 60%, and 50% mark.

 

[maniac5999]

Hmmm. My opinion is that pretty much anything that's not an Intel Atom would probably suit your needs fine. I'd still lean towards a dual core processor however, since it can handle multiple tasks (loading multiple websites with heavy flash, etc.) simultaneously. A single core processor probably wouldn't be a deal breaker for you, but given the price differences, I'd definitely recommend a dual.

Otherwise it's probably going to be mostly a feel decision. Since you're probably going to spend tons of time typing, I'd STRONGLY recommend finding a store that has models you're interested in on display, and spend a couple minutes typing on each. Some keyboards get soft in the middle due to insufficient support, and others have weird tradeoffs like shrunken shift keys. A bad keyboard could ruin an otherwise great laptop.

Oh, and one last thing about processors. DON'T COMPARE BASED on MEGAHERTZ! It's not the same. A regular Intel processor is likely the most efficient per Mhz. An AMD is likely about 20% slower per Mhz. AMD might be a reasonable choice for you however, generally, AMD laptops are a good deal cheaper for the same amount of computing power, but unfortunately you'll pay for it in battery life, because AMD is still using older manufacturing processes. Lastly, there's the Intel Atom. Don't buy it. You'l be unhappy, it's at least 50% slower per clock than an AMD processor. Yes, you'll get great battery life, but it'll be painfully slow to use. (Note, all %s are VERY rough)