Please, do yourself a favor and never order anything from TigerDirect. I regret the day that I ordered something from them, because I've been deluged with spam ever since. It was the most expensive $5 savings ever.
I think AnandTech should do its readers a service and not include them as a retailer in these articles.
I use Thunderbird, and their spam filtering works great. I get about 20 spam email messages per day (including some from TigerDirect, though they're not daily). They're automatically deleted for me.
Sorry, just looked at the best buy site again. The 399.00 laptop was an HP, not Dell, but the specs I listed were correct. Anyway, still a good name brand.
Since the 2,2Ghz Pentium4(A)supports multi-threading I correct:
I meant in real life applications that support multi-threaded tasks, otherwise for single-threaded applications the Athlon 64 3500+ should be nearly always faster than 2X.
and N280 is not faster overall than a 2,2Ghz Pentium4(A) (it is a little bit faster in some thing but also a little bit slower in others (something like +20%/-20%)
I meant in real life applications that support multi-threaded tasks, otherwise for single-threaded applications the 2,2Ghz Pentium4(A) should be nearly always faster.
So I think that the labeling of "2X faster" of Athlon 64 3500+ in real life applications is better characterization.
I'm just guessing, I am not sure (maybe in a future review will see what a Atom N280 can do)
I did a little bit more research and http://www.anandtech.com/bench/default.aspx?p=91&a...">came up with this from Anand's Bench testing of Atom 330 and P4 660. Needless to say, twice as fast is probably far more accurate than 30%, and it's probably even more lopsided once we look at N280. I've updated the first page with this information.
Sorry just asking becauce I recommended to a friend of mine not to bother with 200-300 euro netbooks based on Atom CPUs but instead to buy something like HP 550 (300 euro) or Acer Extensa 5630Z (400 euro)
Since a 64 3500+ is like something a Pentium 4 650 (3,4Ghz) or even faster than a Pentium 4 660 in some things (like games) and a 650 has nearly 2x the power of a 2,2Ghz Pentium4(A),
and N280 is not faster overall than a 2,2Ghz Pentium4(A) (it is a little bit faster in some thing but also a little bit slower in others)
It was a very conservative estimate based off of multi-threaded workloads where the Atom's Hyper-Threading can help. In single-threaded tasks the old Athlon 64 is likely more than twice the performance of an Atom. Without anything concrete to test I didn't want to go too far.
The past few days I was looking to buy a laptop for my father around $500. Your article was perfect timing, and I've found exactly what I want for something that will last my dad a few years.
It's worth explaining in large bold letters; Windows Vista Home Basic DOES NOT QUALIFY for a free or discounted upgrade to Windows 7.
Retailers can be expected to begin dumping systems preloaded with Vista Home Basic which is okay if you plan to downgrade to WinXP anyway (or don't care about Windows 7). Still, I expect that many value-oriented buyers won't understand this critical point and may feel hoodwinked when they later discover the truth of what their bargain deal did not include when compared against slightly higher-priced alternatives.
One can perhaps pay $50 more for Vista Home Premium now and get Windows 7 Home Premium for free -OR- you can pay $120 to get Windows 7 Home Premium this Fall. I know which option I'd prefer.
Right now its priced at $450, but is typically on sale for lower. Overall, the build quality is decent, and the speed and specs are great for the price! It doesn't come with a bunch of bloatware (< 7 total pre-installed apps, 1/2 of which are google apps, so not overly intrusive), I prefer XP over Vista but thats a simple downgrade and not a knock on this laptop. So far, it manages ~2.5 hrs of battery life, which is about the same as my $1200 Lenovo (T61 with Nvidia 8400M, non-integrated graphics, 6 cell battery). A stripped down C2D at 2.16ghz isn't exactly a slouch of a processor, and it's more than fast enough for anything basic, and it would be faster than most at video encoding as well.
I saw the Aspire One Timeline at Fry's the other day, and the top model was about $700. That is way too expensive for an Atom processor. These manufacturers are getting trigger happy with these Atom processor; that is what Intel was afraid of.
Someone needs to investigate whether these $300 laptops from Wal-Mart and Best Buy are just bait and switch products. In store only deals? Come on: this is just stuff to lure people with an interest in a laptop into your computer section and then sell them some thing with a better margin.
There's more to 64 bit than simply addressing more RAM. However, 64 bit drivers have been slow in coming for Windows so a lot of manufacturers pre-install the 32 bit version instead.
However, this is strictly a Windows issue. Any one of these machines will run 64 bit Linux where there are 64 bit drivers for all of their hardware. Missing 64 bit drivers is strictly a Windows issue because manufacturers don't bother updating drivers for older hardware.
The other problem is getting a laptop without paying the Microsoft tax (Microsoft reportedly don't make it easy to return unused licenses).
Frankly, the thought of running Vista or Windows 7 on one of these machines is not appealing. The mobile versions of the processors always run slower than the desktop versions even without considering the slower hard drives. When you're running on lower end hardware, you want an OS that can take advantage of what the hardware can do without wasting cycles on unnecessary eye candy.
i run windows7 rc7100 on my netbook (extremely low spec: 1.6ghz atom, 1gb ram) and i highly reccomend it... it has improved my experience over windows xp... it has better memory management (loads my most used apps into ram), it has better hdd management (defrags in the background), the UI has better support for small fonts, it has also improved my battery life... it definately ran faster than when i had XP on it.. in fact its about as fast a when i had ubuntu notebook remix on it
[quote]There's not much sense in getting a 64-bit version of Home Basic[/quote]
What are you trying to say here?
Is there no 64-bit version of Home Basic, or is there no sense in 64-bit Windows? What?
I'm looking for a cheap 64-bit laptop, because there is no sense in having 3GB+ memory and an OS that can barely handle 2GB (as each process is limited to 2GB user memory with such a configuration).
I've been told that Vista install keys only care about version and market. So with that laptop, if you could obtain a 64 bit Vista Home Basic OEM disc, you could use it with the key on the laptop to reinstall/upgrade the OS to 64 bit.
That only gets you so far. Most Windows applications are only 32 bit. Software manufacturers for the most part don't want to maintain two versions, let alone ship with two install disks or a dual-mode installer. Instead they build just the 32 bit version, which will run on 64 bit systems - just not at full speed.
If you want to run pure 64 bit, you need Linux. Linux apps have been running on 64 bit systems for more than a decade so the translation to 64 bit x86 wasn't a stretch.
My point is that Home Basic is the stripped down version of Vista. Why get a stripped down OS but then worry about getting 64-bit? If you want 64-bit you should be buying the full featured OS in the first place.
FWIW, I have had OEM computers (from Gateway) where it came with 32-bit Vista and I used my Vista RTM 64-bit DVD with the same key and re-installed. Still, having used 32-bit and 64-bit Vista pretty much since their release, I have found no benefit to the 64-bit version unless you're running more than 4GB RAM.
Having been playing around with VirtualBox for the last few days I've been annoyed that the E5200 in my Desktop doesn't support Intel VT (I know it's £50 / $66 CPU but similar priced AMD CPUs do have AMD-V).
With Microsoft relying on hardware virtualization for the XP-Mode feature in Windows 7, Intel’s lack of VT in so many processors (even the Q8200 doesn’t have VT) is going to annoy a lot of people.
Anyway, I think Jarred should have mentioned VT/-V when comparing the AMD vs Intel based laptops. Even the Intel T4200s or T3400s don’t support Intel VT so not a single Intel-based laptop in the whole article features Intel VT…
Many people seem to have an epic misunderstanding of what XP-mode is for. It is not for your Mom to run her 8 year-old version of Quicken...it's for businesses who do not want to or can not rewrite their XP-era corporate apps to work with Win7. Hence why it's only included in the Professional and Ultimate versions.
It actually doesn't matter or seem that way to some users. If they have XP they will try to run their programs on it, if not just to see how it runs or performs. I've tried XP mode and it blows. You're better off with VirtualBox or VMWare with XP Pro. And while I didn't look hard at the XP you can download for XP Mode, it's appears to be crippled.
If you're really desperate and have no other option then XP mode is ok, otherwise I don't recommend for use at all.
Probably Jarred didn't even thought of the need of virtualisation on such a lowly computer. These being said, it might be interesting to know either way.
In what alternate universe does the el cheapo Ace "compete" with the MB Air? Not the same specs, not the same OS, nowhere near the same level of quality or support. Plenty of other laptops have 8 hr battery life so that isn't it.
It competes because it can functionally do most of the same things as an Air, and has one of its primary selling points, 8 hrs of use and a small/light form factor in a package that is 1/3 the price of the air. Worth at least a look to me.
If you are not buying the Air for battery life and size/weight then why are you spending the extra money over a similarly configured macbook?
I would want to look at actual failure rates and rate of return for individual brands before I gave advice to anyone.
I wouldn't want to make the mistake of making recommendations based off of personal experience when that may not be indicative of actual rates of failure within each brand.
That said, my gateway notebook has been rock solid for three years and my gateway desktop has been more stable than my homebuilt PC. So if I were to go out and give advice I would recommend Gateway. But I don't because I have no idea whether I was just lucky with good Gateways or whether there are actual, material, difference within each brand that I can quantify so I am just not spouting unverifiable opinion.
Well, I have to agree about the Acer since any I've seen were all rather flimsy.
However, quality is seldom figured in on comparisons like this or the Lenovo would have been singled out for extra praise.
I confess that I have a Thinkpad T60 and compared to any laptop I've ever owned it just oozes durability and quality. Decent battery life too and I've only go the six-cell
I modified the text slightly, but that was Acer's professed goal: a PC alternative to the Air. As for 8 hour battery life, there really aren't that many Windows laptops that provide that sort of battery life in a 13.3" chassis, and certainly not with a moderate sized battery. I've seen 95Whr batteries in smaller laptops yield 8 hours, but that's as much like the Air as the Timeline.
Making a notebook (higher performance than the typical netbook) in a small enclosure brings with it a price premium, not the other way around. So, I think the 11.6in version would be more expensive than the 13.3 inch version, and possibly have lower battery life.
We’ve updated our terms. By continuing to use the site and/or by logging into your account, you agree to the Site’s updated Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
40 Comments
Back to Article
gobaers - Wednesday, July 29, 2009 - link
Please, do yourself a favor and never order anything from TigerDirect. I regret the day that I ordered something from them, because I've been deluged with spam ever since. It was the most expensive $5 savings ever.I think AnandTech should do its readers a service and not include them as a retailer in these articles.
JarredWalton - Wednesday, July 29, 2009 - link
I use Thunderbird, and their spam filtering works great. I get about 20 spam email messages per day (including some from TigerDirect, though they're not daily). They're automatically deleted for me.frozentundra123456 - Wednesday, July 29, 2009 - link
Sorry, just looked at the best buy site again. The 399.00 laptop was an HP, not Dell, but the specs I listed were correct. Anyway, still a good name brand.frozentundra123456 - Wednesday, July 29, 2009 - link
I dont know if either of them is in stock, but Best Buy has two really cheap laptops listed in their ad this week.1. For 299.00 they list a Toshiba single core celeron, 2gb ram and Vista Basic.
2. For 399.00 they list a Dell dual core pentium, 4gb of ram, and Vista premium.
These are prices that people used to stand in line on Black Friday to get.
MODEL3 - Tuesday, July 28, 2009 - link
Thanks Jarred,Otherwise, my friend would killed me if he found out that my advice cost him 100$ more for zero performance inprovement
MODEL3 - Tuesday, July 28, 2009 - link
Since the 2,2Ghz Pentium4(A)supports multi-threading I correct:I meant in real life applications that support multi-threaded tasks, otherwise for single-threaded applications the Athlon 64 3500+ should be nearly always faster than 2X.
MODEL3 - Tuesday, July 28, 2009 - link
When i said:and N280 is not faster overall than a 2,2Ghz Pentium4(A) (it is a little bit faster in some thing but also a little bit slower in others (something like +20%/-20%)
I meant in real life applications that support multi-threaded tasks, otherwise for single-threaded applications the 2,2Ghz Pentium4(A) should be nearly always faster.
So I think that the labeling of "2X faster" of Athlon 64 3500+ in real life applications is better characterization.
I'm just guessing, I am not sure (maybe in a future review will see what a Atom N280 can do)
JarredWalton - Tuesday, July 28, 2009 - link
I did a little bit more research and http://www.anandtech.com/bench/default.aspx?p=91&a...">came up with this from Anand's Bench testing of Atom 330 and P4 660. Needless to say, twice as fast is probably far more accurate than 30%, and it's probably even more lopsided once we look at N280. I've updated the first page with this information.MODEL3 - Tuesday, July 28, 2009 - link
Sorry just asking becauce I recommended to a friend of mine not to bother with 200-300 euro netbooks based on Atom CPUs but instead to buy something like HP 550 (300 euro) or Acer Extensa 5630Z (400 euro)Since a 64 3500+ is like something a Pentium 4 650 (3,4Ghz) or even faster than a Pentium 4 660 in some things (like games) and a 650 has nearly 2x the power of a 2,2Ghz Pentium4(A),
and N280 is not faster overall than a 2,2Ghz Pentium4(A) (it is a little bit faster in some thing but also a little bit slower in others)
Shouldn't the 3500+ has 2X the power of N280?
JarredWalton - Tuesday, July 28, 2009 - link
It was a very conservative estimate based off of multi-threaded workloads where the Atom's Hyper-Threading can help. In single-threaded tasks the old Athlon 64 is likely more than twice the performance of an Atom. Without anything concrete to test I didn't want to go too far.Morphuess - Tuesday, July 28, 2009 - link
The past few days I was looking to buy a laptop for my father around $500. Your article was perfect timing, and I've found exactly what I want for something that will last my dad a few years.Clones123 - Tuesday, July 28, 2009 - link
It's worth explaining in large bold letters; Windows Vista Home Basic DOES NOT QUALIFY for a free or discounted upgrade to Windows 7.Retailers can be expected to begin dumping systems preloaded with Vista Home Basic which is okay if you plan to downgrade to WinXP anyway (or don't care about Windows 7). Still, I expect that many value-oriented buyers won't understand this critical point and may feel hoodwinked when they later discover the truth of what their bargain deal did not include when compared against slightly higher-priced alternatives.
One can perhaps pay $50 more for Vista Home Premium now and get Windows 7 Home Premium for free -OR- you can pay $120 to get Windows 7 Home Premium this Fall. I know which option I'd prefer.
JarredWalton - Tuesday, July 28, 2009 - link
Thanks - I made a note on page one where I discuss the OS on the $300 laptop.customcoms - Tuesday, July 28, 2009 - link
Just purchased this for $350: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N8...">http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N8...Right now its priced at $450, but is typically on sale for lower. Overall, the build quality is decent, and the speed and specs are great for the price! It doesn't come with a bunch of bloatware (< 7 total pre-installed apps, 1/2 of which are google apps, so not overly intrusive), I prefer XP over Vista but thats a simple downgrade and not a knock on this laptop. So far, it manages ~2.5 hrs of battery life, which is about the same as my $1200 Lenovo (T61 with Nvidia 8400M, non-integrated graphics, 6 cell battery). A stripped down C2D at 2.16ghz isn't exactly a slouch of a processor, and it's more than fast enough for anything basic, and it would be faster than most at video encoding as well.
max347 - Tuesday, July 28, 2009 - link
"The M-1631U also upgrades the memory two 4GB and comes with Windows Home Premium 64-bit."JarredWalton - Tuesday, July 28, 2009 - link
Sorry - speech recognition and bad editing strike again. Thanks for the fix.Digitman0101 - Tuesday, July 28, 2009 - link
I saw the Aspire One Timeline at Fry's the other day, and the top model was about $700. That is way too expensive for an Atom processor. These manufacturers are getting trigger happy with these Atom processor; that is what Intel was afraid of.JarredWalton - Tuesday, July 28, 2009 - link
Technically a single-core Pentium chip, not an Atom... but given the clock speed it should perform similarly.Lepton87 - Tuesday, July 28, 2009 - link
Actually it's a little bit faster than intel atom at 1.6GHz overall, but it run circles around atom when it comes to single-threaded performance.philosofool - Tuesday, July 28, 2009 - link
Someone needs to investigate whether these $300 laptops from Wal-Mart and Best Buy are just bait and switch products. In store only deals? Come on: this is just stuff to lure people with an interest in a laptop into your computer section and then sell them some thing with a better margin.garydale - Tuesday, July 28, 2009 - link
There's more to 64 bit than simply addressing more RAM. However, 64 bit drivers have been slow in coming for Windows so a lot of manufacturers pre-install the 32 bit version instead.However, this is strictly a Windows issue. Any one of these machines will run 64 bit Linux where there are 64 bit drivers for all of their hardware. Missing 64 bit drivers is strictly a Windows issue because manufacturers don't bother updating drivers for older hardware.
The other problem is getting a laptop without paying the Microsoft tax (Microsoft reportedly don't make it easy to return unused licenses).
Frankly, the thought of running Vista or Windows 7 on one of these machines is not appealing. The mobile versions of the processors always run slower than the desktop versions even without considering the slower hard drives. When you're running on lower end hardware, you want an OS that can take advantage of what the hardware can do without wasting cycles on unnecessary eye candy.
kpxgq - Thursday, August 6, 2009 - link
i run windows7 rc7100 on my netbook (extremely low spec: 1.6ghz atom, 1gb ram) and i highly reccomend it... it has improved my experience over windows xp... it has better memory management (loads my most used apps into ram), it has better hdd management (defrags in the background), the UI has better support for small fonts, it has also improved my battery life... it definately ran faster than when i had XP on it.. in fact its about as fast a when i had ubuntu notebook remix on itBikeDude - Tuesday, July 28, 2009 - link
[quote]There's not much sense in getting a 64-bit version of Home Basic[/quote]What are you trying to say here?
Is there no 64-bit version of Home Basic, or is there no sense in 64-bit Windows? What?
I'm looking for a cheap 64-bit laptop, because there is no sense in having 3GB+ memory and an OS that can barely handle 2GB (as each process is limited to 2GB user memory with such a configuration).
GaryJohnson - Tuesday, July 28, 2009 - link
I've been told that Vista install keys only care about version and market. So with that laptop, if you could obtain a 64 bit Vista Home Basic OEM disc, you could use it with the key on the laptop to reinstall/upgrade the OS to 64 bit.garydale - Tuesday, July 28, 2009 - link
That only gets you so far. Most Windows applications are only 32 bit. Software manufacturers for the most part don't want to maintain two versions, let alone ship with two install disks or a dual-mode installer. Instead they build just the 32 bit version, which will run on 64 bit systems - just not at full speed.If you want to run pure 64 bit, you need Linux. Linux apps have been running on 64 bit systems for more than a decade so the translation to 64 bit x86 wasn't a stretch.
JarredWalton - Tuesday, July 28, 2009 - link
My point is that Home Basic is the stripped down version of Vista. Why get a stripped down OS but then worry about getting 64-bit? If you want 64-bit you should be buying the full featured OS in the first place.FWIW, I have had OEM computers (from Gateway) where it came with 32-bit Vista and I used my Vista RTM 64-bit DVD with the same key and re-installed. Still, having used 32-bit and 64-bit Vista pretty much since their release, I have found no benefit to the 64-bit version unless you're running more than 4GB RAM.
KompuKare - Tuesday, July 28, 2009 - link
Having been playing around with VirtualBox for the last few days I've been annoyed that the E5200 in my Desktop doesn't support Intel VT (I know it's £50 / $66 CPU but similar priced AMD CPUs do have AMD-V).With Microsoft relying on hardware virtualization for the XP-Mode feature in Windows 7, Intel’s lack of VT in so many processors (even the Q8200 doesn’t have VT) is going to annoy a lot of people.
Anyway, I think Jarred should have mentioned VT/-V when comparing the AMD vs Intel based laptops. Even the Intel T4200s or T3400s don’t support Intel VT so not a single Intel-based laptop in the whole article features Intel VT…
A5 - Tuesday, July 28, 2009 - link
Many people seem to have an epic misunderstanding of what XP-mode is for. It is not for your Mom to run her 8 year-old version of Quicken...it's for businesses who do not want to or can not rewrite their XP-era corporate apps to work with Win7. Hence why it's only included in the Professional and Ultimate versions.The0ne - Tuesday, July 28, 2009 - link
It actually doesn't matter or seem that way to some users. If they have XP they will try to run their programs on it, if not just to see how it runs or performs. I've tried XP mode and it blows. You're better off with VirtualBox or VMWare with XP Pro. And while I didn't look hard at the XP you can download for XP Mode, it's appears to be crippled.If you're really desperate and have no other option then XP mode is ok, otherwise I don't recommend for use at all.
Calin - Tuesday, July 28, 2009 - link
Probably Jarred didn't even thought of the need of virtualisation on such a lowly computer. These being said, it might be interesting to know either way.snookie - Tuesday, July 28, 2009 - link
In what alternate universe does the el cheapo Ace "compete" with the MB Air? Not the same specs, not the same OS, nowhere near the same level of quality or support. Plenty of other laptops have 8 hr battery life so that isn't it.brybir - Tuesday, July 28, 2009 - link
It competes because it can functionally do most of the same things as an Air, and has one of its primary selling points, 8 hrs of use and a small/light form factor in a package that is 1/3 the price of the air. Worth at least a look to me.If you are not buying the Air for battery life and size/weight then why are you spending the extra money over a similarly configured macbook?
RadnorHarkonnen - Tuesday, July 28, 2009 - link
Must agree here, i wouldn't buy/recommend an Acer or brands related. emachines, packard bell and gateway are some of the few.I wouldn't buy HP also, but that has nothing to do with the product itself. They are ussually decent ones.
IlllI - Tuesday, July 28, 2009 - link
i would not recommend those either for people who want good customer servicebrybir - Tuesday, July 28, 2009 - link
I would want to look at actual failure rates and rate of return for individual brands before I gave advice to anyone.I wouldn't want to make the mistake of making recommendations based off of personal experience when that may not be indicative of actual rates of failure within each brand.
That said, my gateway notebook has been rock solid for three years and my gateway desktop has been more stable than my homebuilt PC. So if I were to go out and give advice I would recommend Gateway. But I don't because I have no idea whether I was just lucky with good Gateways or whether there are actual, material, difference within each brand that I can quantify so I am just not spouting unverifiable opinion.
KompuKare - Tuesday, July 28, 2009 - link
Well, I have to agree about the Acer since any I've seen were all rather flimsy.However, quality is seldom figured in on comparisons like this or the Lenovo would have been singled out for extra praise.
I confess that I have a Thinkpad T60 and compared to any laptop I've ever owned it just oozes durability and quality. Decent battery life too and I've only go the six-cell
JarredWalton - Tuesday, July 28, 2009 - link
I modified the text slightly, but that was Acer's professed goal: a PC alternative to the Air. As for 8 hour battery life, there really aren't that many Windows laptops that provide that sort of battery life in a 13.3" chassis, and certainly not with a moderate sized battery. I've seen 95Whr batteries in smaller laptops yield 8 hours, but that's as much like the Air as the Timeline.IlllI - Tuesday, July 28, 2009 - link
Can't wait for the timeline review. Theres also going to be an 11.6in version, which i would think would be closer to $300 markCalin - Tuesday, July 28, 2009 - link
Making a notebook (higher performance than the typical netbook) in a small enclosure brings with it a price premium, not the other way around. So, I think the 11.6in version would be more expensive than the 13.3 inch version, and possibly have lower battery life.IlllI - Tuesday, July 28, 2009 - link
i don't see why it should. if its basically the same as 13.3 version only with a smaller screen