Dell vs Toshiba Laptops

[miesque]

I need a new laptop and fast (aka show up at Best Buy and walk out with one, none of this ordering online to specifications and waiting for it). I don't need a lot of bells and whistles, just MS Office,Adobe, etc (I use remote access for office stuff), the main thing is I like a big, widescreen version since its great for spreadsheet analysis. My last two laptops have been 17 inch widescreens, one a Dell and the most recent an HP. I view laptops as disposable now that the price levels have come down in recent years, if I can get 12-18 months out of it, thats great, and since I have that outlook I don't want to spend money on stuff I don't need. Looking at what Best Buy has on sale, I notice they have a good deal on a 16 inch Toshiba with an AMD processor and its features/specs appear to be very much in line with the 17 inch Dell, just $250 less. Now, normally I would pay extra and go with the Dell, but after reading the reviews of both products they have on the Best Buy site, it does not appear that its worth it. If anyone is a regular Toshiba laptop user and has any comments, I would apprecite it. :)

[ddog]

Only used toshiba for many years.
Would NEVER buy a Dell.

[Dave Schwartz]

One word - Costco.

Second word - Online.

Costco Online.

You get the great Costco guarantee, you can return it directly to the store, you can use a credit card and still customize it.

Service is fast.


Second best: Sager
http://www.sagernotebook.com/

Only programmers seem to know about these guys.

[ddog]

Dave

I had thought about trying one of those, do you have one of the current generation that you like?


I am not a gamer, just racing and a few MS apps.

[lamboguy]

i like dell

[Dave Schwartz]

I have one that is about 4 years old and had another before that.

The two that I have had were both blazing fast. I always buy AMD but it is getting harder to find them.

Their tech support and repair is fantastic - when something went wrong early on, I overnighted to them and they overnighted back. Total turn around was 4 days!

I have no idea what their current wares are like.

[DJofSD]

I'm biased toward HP. A co-worker just bought a new HP with an i5 in it -- it screams. It was purchased at Best Buy, set up and burned in for a couple of days then sent alone to the relative that needed help with getting a replacement (not techo-literate). She's very happy with it and everything is working as you would hope.

[HUSKER55]

I am starting to research a new computer also. Went to the shop the other day and listened to several store reps talk to a bunch of us potential buyers.

Seems to me that the intel icores do alot better job than amd. Nobody spoke bad of amd but the multi cores cost comparisons leaned in favor of intel.

That said all the reps agreed that minimum of 4 gigs ram was best.

However, the shop I go to told me to hold out unless I am having a lot of problems.

I am not a guru but it seems there are now systems that use 4 colors per pixel that make a huge difference in how the picture works in the monitor.

That part was past me but you should check it out with your repair shop before you buy. My impresson was that it is coming and there are going to be real good deals down the road.

Like I said, I am not a guru and most parts are past me but I think it would behove you to check out your sources to get the best deal for your dollar.

JMHO

good luck

[headhawg]

I think for the most part current Intel procs will easily trump the AMD parts. However, if most of what you do is run applications then you want as many cores as you can get. Look into the AMD hexacore machines before you make a decision. They will be cheaper then the Intel equivalent and have two more cores (obviously) then the quad-core Intel CPUs.

[DJofSD]

There's no guarentee that having more cores will make all applications run faster. In theory, yes, but when it comes down to it, there are other considerations within the operating system and the mix of those applications themselves that will sometimes challenge that logic. I say this so people don't feel they've been ripped off when they spend the extra bucks then don't see things running like a hot knife through butter.

Given a choice between more cores and smaller L1 cache v. fewer cores and larger L1 cache, I'll take the latter.

[Robert Goren]

Although they are getting smaller in numbers these days, there is group of computer geeks out there that hate Intel, just like those who hate Microsoft.

[DeltaLover]

I recommend ThinkPad Lenovo (especialy Y560)

http://shop.lenovo.com/SEUILibrary/controller/e/web/LenovoPortal/en_US/special-offers.workflow:find-config?category-id=653343E0DE54435882FABC3CE1BC569A&filter=Screen%20Size_7,&page-size=200

I am using ThinkPads for 10 years, doing research and software development plus taking it to the track daily with absolutely no problems....

[DeltaLover]

Although they are getting smaller in numbers these days, there is group of computer geeks out there that hate Intel, just like those who hate Microsoft.
What is their alternative?

[headhawg]

There's no guarentee that having more cores will make all applications run faster... Given a choice between more cores and smaller L1 cache v. fewer cores and larger L1 cache, I'll take the latter.Of course there's no guarantee -- the apps have to be written to take advantage of multiple cores. I was mostly comparing apps to games where games don't often take advantage of more than one core. I was also mentioning hexacore machines in order to future-proof. Why settle for two when you can get six, budget notwithstanding?

And to answer miesque's question more directly, then, get what you like that fits into your budget. From your usage description it doesn't sound like you are going to tax the machine very much. One thing to look at is the speed of the HDD. If you manage to get a laptop with a 7200 RPM drive it will be noticeably faster. And I like both companies for their overall quality but would prefer a Toshiba.

[headhawg]

What is their alternative?An AMD proc and Linux??

[miesque]

Of course there's no guarantee -- the apps have to be written to take advantage of multiple cores. I was mostly comparing apps to games where games don't often take advantage of more than one core. I was also mentioning hexacore machines in order to future-proof. Why settle for two when you can get six, budget notwithstanding?

And to answer miesque's question more directly, then, get what you like that fits into your budget. From your usage description it doesn't sound like you are going to tax the machine very much. One thing to look at is the speed of the HDD. If you manage to get a laptop with a 7200 RPM drive it will be noticeably faster. And I like both companies for their overall quality but would prefer a Toshiba.

The ones I am looking at are 5400 rpm. Question, does Cache Memory make a big difference? I notice it varies between 1-3 MB. RAM and processor speeds are equivalent.

[headhawg]

I am assuming that you are referring to L1, L2, and L3 cache. If cache memory speeds are equivalent (hard to obtain that spec) then yes more is better. The rule for cache is usually faster > quantity. However cache is in the hands of the CPU manufacturer and the cheaper processors (Celerons as an example) will have little or no cache thus making the system slower overall. So when in doubt, get a proc with a bigger cache (assuming that it fits into your budget).

[miesque]

I am assuming that you are referring to L1, L2, and L3 cache. If cache memory speeds are equivalent (hard to obtain that spec) then yes more is better. The rule for cache is usually faster > quantity. However cache is in the hands of the CPU manufacturer and the cheaper processors (Celerons as an example) will have little or no cache thus making the system slower overall. So when in doubt, get a proc with a bigger cache (assuming that it fits into your budget).

Thanks! Also Thank You to everyone else who contributed to the thread, much appreciated.

[DeltaLover]

Hmm. LINUX is an OS and not a CPU so it not an alternative to Intel.
AMD is pretty similar to intel and was designed to be compatible with x86 so what are the differences for anyone actually using an AMD rather than an INTEL based machine?

[HUSKER55]

fOR what it is worth, I found out that some SSD are coming down in price, about $125 for 40m. might want to give that some thought. I am told they are faster and more stable and can handle more abuse.


JMHO

[headhawg]

Hmm. LINUX is an OS and not a CPU so it not an alternative to Intel.
AMD is pretty similar to intel and was designed to be compatible with x86 so what are the differences for anyone actually using an AMD rather than an INTEL based machine?Of course I know that Linux is an OS and technically it's an OS kernel. I was referring to Robert Goren's comment about the M$ and Intel haters. The alternatives would be Linux and AMD. And while both CPU brands are x86-based there are differences when it comes down to the best bang for the buck.

[Dick Schmidt]

Check out this site for some real deals. Their listings change all the time, so if you don't see what you want at first, check back.

http://dealnews.com/categories/Computer/PC-Computers/PC-Laptop/49.html?exp=Y

Dick

Socialized medicine: all the skill & warmth of DMV workers, now at your nearest government clinic!

[judd]

Only used toshiba for many years.
Would NEVER buy a Dell.
know a guy that builds computors, says dell junk !

[judd]

I recommend ThinkPad Lenovo (especialy Y560)

http://shop.lenovo.com/SEUILibrary/controller/e/web/LenovoPortal/en_US/special-offers.workflow:find-config?category-id=653343E0DE54435882FABC3CE1BC569A&filter=Screen%20Size_7,&page-size=200

I am using ThinkPads for 10 years, doing research and software development plus taking it to the track daily with absolutely no problems....
i heard they are a great company from donnie (pace member)

[Dave Schwartz]

5400 rpm

That will be a slow machine.