Centrino Duo, Buy or Wait?

pillageplunder writes "BusinessWeek Columnist Steven Wildstrom answers a readers question on whether or not to buy a laptop with the new Intel Centrino Duo processor. The reader wanted to know if the new chip would be up to handling the Graphic requirements of Microsofts new Vista OS, and whether or not it would cost more. His take? Regarding price, probably not, about performance, right now there is no real way to know for sure. He does a decent job of outlining bug issues with new chips, and what the various vendors say/feel about this chip."

Comments

Will it last long enough to see vista?

[woodsrunner]

The real question is, will it last long enough to see vista? Given that the average laptop dies a natural death in one to three years, it's anyone's guess...

Re:Will it last long enough to see vista?

[kannibal_klown]

The real question is, will it last long enough to see vista? Given that the average laptop dies a natural death in one to three years, it's anyone's guess...

I own 3 laptops:
- Dell Inspiron (1998)
- vpr Matrix (2002)
- Apple PowerBook (2004)

The oldest (Inspiron) had to make a daily commute back-and-forth to my school in Newark, and even back-and-forth to work for a while. Sure, there's the occasional scratch or skuff mark but otherwise it's fine. The only problem is the battery on the Dell Inspiron is toast, so it currently acts as a lower power makeshift server in my house.

It depends on how you treat them and if you buy decent hardware.

Re:Will it last long enough to see vista?

[WuphonsReach]

Actually, a new laptop will last quite a while. What I couldn't swallow was the idea that laptop users will upgrade their O/S. IOW, the whole 2nd part of the article was nothing more then fluff and FUD.

Laptops often use custom chipsets that require particular drivers. Often drivers that never get updated for comaptibility against newer O/S's. Upgrading the O/S in those cases becomes a fool's errand.

I'm still using a Toshiba Tecra from 2002 (4 years now). It has an upgraded hard drive and a full loadout of RAM (1GB). If I treat it well (and the backlight holds up), I could easily use it for another 3-4 years.

The only reasons that I'm considering upgrading:

- More RAM. I need more then 1GB of working memory (I'm constantly bumping up against the swap file most weeks). I can't put any more into this existing system. The Thinkpad T60s are supposed to support 2GB of RAM.

- Dual-core. The idea of dual-core in a laptop is extremely appealing. Better responsiveness is going to be the big winner. There are way too many times when system performance goes to hell on my existing laptop.

Requirements

[cosmotron]

According to Microsoft, you will need around the following:

System Requirements:

Minimum system requirements will not be known until summer 2006 at the earliest. However, these guidelines provide useful estimates:

512 megabytes (MB) or more of RAM

A dedicated graphics card with DirectX® 9.0 support

A modern, Intel Pentium- or AMD Athlon-based PC.

So, I am guessing that a Centrino will fly.

Re:Requirements

[Golias]

The answer to the actual question the headline is asking ("buy or wait") is the same answer as it always is, no matter what:

If you really, really need a new computer now, buy one now.

If you don't, don't.

No matter what, there will be something new computers can do next year that the one you buy today can't do. C'est la vie. Don't buy computers you don't need, and this will never be a problem.

Re:Requirements

[jank1887]

512 megabytes (MB) or more of RAM

Am I the only one who is really bothered by this requirement from an OS .

Re:Requirements

[networkBoy]

I'm not so much bothered as I am terrified.
-nB

Re:Requirements

[itamblyn]

I've heard people say this before, and it always makes me mad. While it is true that computing power, storage, etc generally marches forward at a fairly predictable rate, there are definitely points along the way when the computer you bought yesterday is much "worse" than the computer that you could have bought today. Take the PowerPC -> Intel switch on the Powerbooks for example. The sucker who bought their machine in December is probably wishing they had waited another month or two. Conversely, the person who buys a MacBook Pro today probably won't be kicking themselves too much a few months from now, when at most Apple will offer a bit more ram/hd, whatever. Obviously if you REALLY need a computer today, there is nothing you can do about it. But if you're just looking to upgrade, and you can be a bit flexible, it pays to ask questions like "should I wait?".

Re:Requirements

[level_headed_midwest]

My experience with Linux over the last two years has been that a full, modern DE (KDE, Gnome) consumes somewhat less RAM than a bone-stock XP does at idle, but it's not that much less. A fresh install of XP without an antivirus, firewall, or other stuff (and it's not online, of course!!) consumes about 175MB RAM on my laptop. A fresh install of SuSE or Ubuntu takes about 130-150MB. Once I added an antivirus, anti-spyware, good bidirectional firewall, XP's idle RAM usage is about 270-330MB vs. the about 130-150 for Linux. I have a gig of RAM, so XP's increase is not that painful.

The real difference is what happens once you start to use the OSes. XP generally uses in that 400-450MB range once you have a bunch of stuff open, and Linux is in the low 300s. Again, that difference is probably due to the antivirus, etc. But load up that CPU or HDD with I/O requests and Windows has a very hard time drawing, moving, resizing windows. Linux will slow down, but stays usable and responsive at a much higher loading than does Windows. So at least in my experience, it is not the increased RAM usage but the better division of computer resources that sets Linux apart as more responsive on older and less-powerful hardware.

Re:Requirements

[MojoStan]

A dedicated graphics card with DirectX® 9.0 support

That is only a requirement if you want to run the Aero user interface (it must also support Windows Display Driver Model). I can't believe I haven't seen any "Score:3+" comments mentioning Vista's "Classic" UI mode, which doesn't require a powerful GPU. In fact, it looks a lot like Windows XP with its "Luna" interface deactivated. According to that Wikipedia article (don't use as a final source), Vista's "classic mode" only has the same graphics card requirements as Windows 2000.

Here's what I think is a better Microsoft page describing (and providing links to) Vista's likely requirements:

Windows Vista Capable PC Hardware Guidelines

Here's the non-specific requirements from that page:

• CPU -- PC systems should have a modern CPU.
• RAM -- PC systems should have 512MB of memory or more.
• GPU -- PC systems should have a graphics processor that will support Windows Display Driver Model (WDDM).

It then gets a little more specific about the requirements for the optional Aero user interface:

Windows Vista offers significant improvements to the graphics user experience. To take advantage of these advances in the graphics user experience, graphics processor will need to support WDDM. Graphics processors capable of supporting WDDM:

• Are designed to ensure that graphics user experience scales up with hardware capabilities.
• Offer improved graphic stability and performance.
• May be able to support additional desktop productivity features.

Finally, it describes the "classic mode" that Vista will fall back on if the graphics aren't powerful enough for the Aero UI:

Systems that meet and/or exceed the above requirements should be able to provide a good experience while running Windows Vista. PC systems that do not meet the above hardware requirements for CPU, RAM and GPU may support running Windows Vista. However, such systems may not offer all the features and benefits of Windows Vista. For example, PC systems with GPUs that do not support WDDM will only be able to provide a Windows XP-comparable desktop graphics experience, with regards to features, stability, and performance.

That page I linked to also has links that define what a "modern CPU" is and which graphics processors support Windows Display Driver Model (WDDM).

So to answer the freakin' article's question: Yes, if your Core Duo or Solo notebook had integrated Intel graphics, it will work with Vista because GMA 950 supports WDDM. Heck, it will likely work with the new Aero UI. But since the reader specifically stated he "doesn't care about semitransparent windows and cool animations," even an old Pentium M or Celeron M notebook with the 915GM chipset (GMA 900 graphics) will work with Vista in "classic mode." Here's a link to an Intel page on mobile minimum recommendations for Vista:

Windows Vista and Intel Mobile Platforms for Business

From that Intel page:

After the launch of Windows Vista, laptop PCs with Mobile Intel® 915GM Express Chipset will be able to run Windows Vista providing a Windows* XP-comparable graphics experience.

New Duo Prices for Dell

[berboot]

Dell left an internal directory open to google's bots and accidentally leaked their upcoming Duo Core prices. Interesting how similarly priced they are to their single core brethren.

Re:New Duo Prices for Dell

[yamla]

Yeah, I found exactly the same thing. The Apple laptop with extended warranty, etc. etc., was a little over $3600 Canadian. A comparable Dell was closer to $3000 Canadian, a 20% price premium. It's somewhat confused, though, by the Dell warranty being clearly superior, the Dell laptop having a dual-layer burner, a better battery, and a much better video card, and the Apple hardware overall being higher quality. And of course, the Apple operating system is clearly superior.

I'm actually hoping to get a laptop closer to $2000 to $2100, though. For that, I can get a WXSGA display, 2 gigs of RAM, a 1.86 Ghz CPU, and a super-duper warranty if I go the Dell route. Or, for an extra $200, I can get an Apple laptop with a lower-resolution LCD, slower CPU, and a quarter of the RAM. Also, the Apple would cost an additional $400 for a substandard warranty (though I've heard Apple treats their extended warranty customers very well). Or alternatively, a 12" iMac with less RAM (1.5 GB), no DVD burner, a vastly slower CPU (1.33 Ghz), vastly smaller LCD and resolution, but at least with a decent hard drive and an extended warranty.

IF ONLY. But with price premiums in the 25 - 50% region, Apple's laptops are just out of my price range.

Re:The snail

[Tx]

I wonder if apple would ever use a centrino, though... I doubt it.

Centrino != Celeron

The processor used with the Centrino chipset is a core duo, exactly what Apple is using.

Centrino Duo: Buy or Wait?

[GillBates0]

Short answer: Buy
Long answer: Wait

Re:The snail

[kebes]

Actually I think that's pretty good advice. New chips always have bugs and problems. So getting a laptop with a new Intel architecture is going to be a bit of a gamble.

Apple has a pretty good track record of:
(a) Managing switches to new architectures in an efficient (seamless?) way;
(b) Dealing with recalls, upgrades and problems; i.e.: they have good customer support.

So I would say if you want to be "bleeding edge" in this case, do it with Apple, who will "hold your hand" and smooth out many of the rough edges. I'm not trying to be an MS-basher, but I just don't think Windows will handle the transition as smoothly (whether it's something as bad as crashes or more subtle, like not taking full advantage of the dual-processors, I don't know). I have more confidence in Apple than MS in this case.

If you want Windows, then stick with what's known to work well, until the new architecture has gone through a few months of shakedown.

(Note: Please resist the urge to reply with the usual "Mac zealot" comments. For the record, I've never owned a Mac product.)

Bad Move

[Nom du Keyboard]

Bad move to buy a 32-bit chip in a world that's rapidly moving to 64-bit processors.

Re:Bad Move

[WhiteWolf666]

The closest thing to a "killer app" for x86_64 is any kind of encoding or compression on a 64-bit linux, or anything with lots of floating point calculations:

http://www.linuxhardware.org/article.pl?sid=05/02/ 24/1747228&mode=thread

On AMD processors, Povray seems to experience a 25% performance improvement by going 64-bit. If you were rendering lots of complex scenes, a 25% performance improvement merely by switching from a 32-bit to a 64-bit OS is incredible.

Especially if you are a POV-ray buff; the 64-bit version seems to work not only faster, but with higher precision. I'm not sure if commercial 3D apps work the same way. I do know if I had to spend more time in 3D rendering and Video encoding, I would be very, very excited about the performance improvement I got from switching to 64-bit SuSE (which is what I run). In general, however, I don't spend a lot of time on those activites, so its not a big deal.

Even gaming seems to experience some improvement, but not as much.

The question is, how much would you pay for a 25% faster system? On Linux, going 64-bit is painless; and in doing so, I've sped up things like video encoding, compression, and complex rendering by 25-30%. That's pretty amazing, if you ask me.

No, there's no 64-bit "killer-app", and to be honest, I don't think there ever will be. What you do get, however, at least with an AMD64 processor, is an average of 15-25% performance improvement on math intensive apps. That's a pretty big deal; think about the price delta between any given processor "X" and processor "X*1.25". By switching to a 64-bit OS, you get that free; or if you are at the absolute bleeding edge, you get performance not possible in the 32-bit world. *shrug*

Re:Bad Move

[ciroknight]

Rapidly? Wow, I'm blindsided by this. As long as I've been alive I've ran a 32-bit Operating System, and I saw Alpha claim the 64-bit crown, I've seen Sun's offerings claim to be the best thing since sliced bread, and I'm now seeing AMD do the same thing. Guess what?

RAM will be the deciding factor for when we move to 64-bit processors.

Don't believe me? Ask yourself this: why is it all of the big room server clients wanted a 64-bit chip years and years ago? So that they can saturate their servers with multiple gigs of ram; CPU archetectures might change day to day almost, but RAM archetectures usually last a long, long time, and as time passes, prices go down. So that big iron server that you purchased with 4GB of extremely expensive ram at the time, you can now saturate with 16GB of dirt cheap ram and still be in the top 80% performance bracket.

How does this translate to home users? When home users hit, and can no longer exceed the 4GB limit, then and only then will we see a desktop push to 64-bit. And we've still got a lot of ground to cover until then; some top end computers are running 4GB now, but by and large 512MB is the standard, with 1GB now being the recommended ram total. Ram scaling-wise, I predict we won't hit that "need for 64-bit" number until 2009, but by 2008 or earlier, all desktop CPUs will be 100% 64-bit anyways.

How does that tie into today's discussion? Perfectly; by 2008, your laptop will be obsolete, that's a given. So that means purchasing a system now will likely carry you until the 64-bit revolution. All and all, this means that 64-bit is a non-selling point to a Laptop consumer at this date.

Re:Bad Move

[jiushao]

First and foremost the change from 16 bit processors to 32 bit processors happened when the typical memory use and actual memory size had long since become far greater than what could be addressed without segmenting (16 bit addresses only gives you 64 kilobytes of addressable memory). As things stand now however it is quite rare among pros to need more than 3 gigabytes of memory for any one app, and no home user does. As it happens you don't actually get that much ram into the typical laptop anyway.

In a similar way the usefulness of 64 bit variables over 32 bit variables for integers is a lot less than going to 32 bit over 16. While one has to keep track of values larger than 65535 a lot of the time, the four billion as a maximal value for 32 bit is comfortably far away for a lot of tasks. Making actually operating on 64 bit integers rare enough that it is a non-existent win to go with them.

The actual feature that x86-64 has an impact on the typical user is the increased number of directly accessible registers, which does give a nice performance boost. What it comes down to then however is some straight benchmarks of whatever heavy apps one plans to run on it, it is not a killer application but rather a nice performance advantage.

Re:Bad Move

[Overly Critical Guy]

Others have pointed out that you're wrong, but I wanted to explain why. The world is not rapidly moving to 64-bit except in the server space where memory is a concern. However, Intel chips since the Pentium Pro have supported 36-bit memory addressing which breaks the total 4GB barrier anyway. The reason 64-bit is not rapidly taking off is that 64-bit introduces a bigger pipe but offsets the gains with bigger pointers and more cache bloat. Most of the performance gains you see in benchmarks comes from the fact that in 64-bit chips, SSE3 is a baseline and so you can target it in your code, as well as the extra registers which are added by the vendor and not related to being 64-bit.

In 32-bit code where SSE optimization is implemented, a lot of 64-bit gains disappear. This is particularly interesting for the Mac since their baseline Intel spec will always have at least SSE3, so all apps can target it from now on. Doing 64-bit math doesn't require a 64-bit chip either, as SSE goes up to 128-bit. The real reason you'd want 64-bit is if you're running a server that needs a very high amount of memory.

64-bit gaming has been the most amusing to me, watching as CryTek and AMD teamed up to sell more chips and desperately advertised 64-bit Far Cry as better than its 32-bit version by adding higher-res textures here and there and tweaking the visuals, even though absolutely none of that has to do with being 64-bit and everything to do with your video card. 64-bit Half-Life 2 is actually slower than its 32-bit version according to the benchmarks. Slashdot has an article in its archives about how 64-bit gaming has been overhyped to gamers.

There are times I wonder if 64-bit will die as a fad this year and become an unused set of instructions that only server admins use. It's certainly got all the makings of a tech fad. I think the novelty is wearing off and people are realizing 32-bit is just fine and that there is nothing inherently better about being 64-bit, other than giving AMD and Intel a marketing reason to sell you new chips. I can't think of any reason a desktop computer user today needs a 64-bit chip. Microsoft, of course, is very vocal about wanting to put everyone on 64-bit chips, and the reason for that is that the majority of Windows sales come from pre-installations on OEM computers, so if they can convince people to buy new computers that have new chips in them, they sell more copies of Windows. I think they'll have as much success with that as they did with the XBox 360 launch. Ahem.

As a sidenote, Apple handled 64-bit in OS X Tiger by keeping the GUI 32-bit, but allowing 64-bit processes to be spawned in the background. This means your app is 32-bit but you communicate with a spawned 64-bit console process (it has to be a console process because the GUI libraries are still 32-bit code). It's so little used that it took a while for anyone to notice when one of the 10.4 updates accidentally disabled 64-bit support...

It can't run 64-bit Windows Vista

[Brian Stretch]

It can't run 64-bit Windows Vista and the Intel GPUs the Centrino Duo notebooks usually use are very poor. Buy an AMD Turion laptop with an ATI (or nVidia, whenever they get some Turion design wins) GPU if you want to be Vista-ready. Or if you want to run 64-bit Linux now. Hardly anyone who is going to go through the nuisance to upgrade the OS is going to bother with the 32-bit Vista "PHB Edition". (Unless the Pointy Haired Boss makes such technical decisions at your company... hmm...)

Rather glaring ommission by BusinessWeek.

Re:It can't run 64-bit Windows Vista

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

It can't run 64-bit Windows Vista and the Intel GPUs the Centrino Duo notebooks usually use are very poor.

Nothing can run 64-bit Windows because the existing versions suck so badly with driver and software incompatibilities. No one I know with a 64 bit processor is running a 64 bit version of Windows on it anymore. Everyone has given up and switched back. Vista will support 32 bit for longer than most laptops will last and I don't see any reason why someone would switch in the foreseeable future for their laptop.

As for graphics, what the hell are you talking about? There are a handful of Centrino Duo machines for sale right now and looking at the selection I see both ATI and nVidia graphics cards in them. Acers ship with ATI and Sony with nVidia.

Do you enjoy misleading people by making crap like this up, or are you just very misinformed?

Re:It can't run 64-bit Windows Vista

[ciroknight]

"It can't run 64-bit Windows Vista"

Who cares, who has a retail copy of 64-bit Windows Vista laying around. Oh, who's that? Nobody? Well then. And who will have a copy in a year? Who's that? Hardly anyone? That's right. Face it, 64-bit will be slow to adopt until we truly hit the 4GB ram barrier (right now we're averaging right under the 1GB mark; most PCs ship with 512, most recommend 1GB), and Vista will help that push, but we won't likely see a need for 64-bit Windows/OS X arrive until 2008 or later, which by then your laptop would be rather obsolete (a generation+ behind Moore's law anyway). And by then we'll also have 64-bit Yohans and Meroms..

"and the Intel GPUs the Centrino Duo notebooks usually use are very poor."

You speak as if there are many Centrino Duo notebooks on the market. There aren't. In fact, there are so few on the market, that finding reviews for them yet is pratically impossible (Tom's hardware did a good one.. that's all I've seen). On the flipside, the major purchaser so far (Apple) has paired it up with an extremely powerful GPU (X1600 Mobile), and at this point, I'm pretty sure that'd be the standard.

So, I think this user's just being a fanboy and not really considering reality. 64-Bit Linux is about the only thing that will run, and "PHB" 32-Bit Vista will be running on 90+% of the computers that upgrade to Vista in the next year (conceeding that they have it done in this year).

Re:It can't run 64-bit Windows Vista

[Overly Critical Guy]

The Core Duo competes performance-wise with the Athlon64 3800+ X2 while consuming less power at 100% than the Athlon does at idle. It surpasses the Turion in both performance and power usage. It would be silly to avoid the Core Duo in favor of the Turion just for the pointless excursion of 64-bit.

As someone else here also mentioned, all the people I know who were running 64-bit Windows gave up and now run the 32-bit version. Guess what, it's faster for them and runs better. There is little inherently better about a 64-bit chip since its performance gains are offset by its negative qualities (pointer size, cache bloat), especially if the 32-bit code is optimized for SSE as 64-bit apps often are.

Claiming "hardly anyone" will be using the 32-bit version of Vista is quite a claim considering the vast majority of laptops are 32-bit, the majority of desktops are 32-bit, and the majority of 64-bit capable desktops are running in 32-bit mode. The new hardware upgrade cycle just happened, so not as many will be buying new hardware later this year just to run Windows "now with more plastic" Vista.

Re:The snail

[Ritz_Just_Ritz]

Absolutely. If you must have a slick duo-powered laptop right now, the Macbook Pro is a sweet machine. Pretty interface and unix-ish under the hood. It's not even THAT expensive compared to similar Windows notebooks. Win-win-win.

Intel integrated graphics RAM usage?

[PeterHammer]

How do you justify the closing statement of the article? While not technically wrong it seems vastly misleading. If the new Intel Graphics Adapter uses 128Mb (or let's say even 256Mb for arguments sake), wouldn't a simple corresponding increase in main system memory suffice? Why push a 1Gb memory upgrade for the purpose of better graphics then. Sure you can break a "windows" with a rocket launcher. But wouldn't a baseball bat suffice?

Merom

[feranick]

With Merom behind the corner, I wonder if the current Core Duo (basically Yonah) will be obsolete soon...

Re:Merom

[Overly Critical Guy]

The Merom will be pin-compatible with the Core Duo and uses the same chipset, suggesting an easy upgrade path.

Posting from

[GweeDo]

I am posting this from a Dell Inspiron 9400 (core duo at 1.83ghz). If Vista doesn't fly on this laptop then MS has done something wrong, not the hardware boys.

Re:Posting from

[idlake]

If Vista doesn't fly on this laptop then MS has done something wrong, not the hardware boys.

And that's different from previous Windows versions how exactly?

6 months

[bmongar]

My answer to anyone who asks if now is a good time to buy x in computer hardware. My answer is always can you wait 6 months? IF you can wait then do if not then buy now. Things will always be better/cheaper in 6 months so if you can wait you get a better deal.

Re:6 months

[evilviper]

IF you can wait then do if not then buy now. Things will always be better/cheaper in 6 months so if you can wait you get a better deal.

I found the opposite with CRTs a couple years ago. My 19" $150 monitor died after a year, and was now going for $200. No sales or rebates involved. I thought it was maybe just a fluke, but other monitors of various sizes all went up around $50 as well.

More recently, I've been looking for a DVB-S card (satellite). It's incredibly annoying to read a post from 2 years ago about buying one for $40, when the cheapest is $80 now...

Things usually go down, but inflation exists, and technology progresses, so electronics do sometimes go up in price.

Re:Works fine with OS X

[richdun]

OS X's GUI is very Open GL heavy, so it's less the CPU and more the GPU that matters. CPU can still make a difference, of course, especially when putting a high-end graphics card with a low-end CPU is nearly impossible in an Apple product, except for the PowerMacs, which generally come with high-end graphics cards anyway.

The Vista GUI (if I recall) is going to rely on DirectX 10 (or whatever version). In theory, so long as ATi and nVidia keep up and their cards have good DX10 implementation, the CPU shouldn't matter as much. Of course, it's may not just be a matter of how "graphic intense" the two OSes are - it depends on how efficiently they are implemented. OS X is well built. Vista, we'll have to see when it comes out.

Wait

[tom8658]

When the Meroms come out, the price on the current gen of Centrinos will fall. Snatch up a nice Thinkpad for $1000.

Different Question

[Ulrich Hobelmann]

Does the new Celeron still not clock/volt down?

I'd only ever buy a mobile CPU if I know it doesn't eat my battery for breakfast!

(actually I'm looking into buying a Turion NB, but not sure yet, as choice in that area is *slightly* limited)

Unlike them, I agree.

[BlueScreenOfTOM]

I agree with you... yes, they're right that the move to 64 bit isn't exactly "rapid", but do you really want a chip that won't be able to run the more powerful version of the next OS? Buying a 64-bit chip costs around the same and allows you to run 64-bit applications now... I think it'd be dumb for anyone to buy a 32 bit chip at this stage, even if everything is still 32 bit.

Re:my source of free PCs is going to dry up.

[denis-The-menace]

Don't fret. Spyware is there to help you in that regard.
I heard many people just buy a new PC instead of having their old one disinfected. Why? It costs about the same.
You either pay $500 for labor or $500 for a new PC.

Bah

[jridley]

As long as it'll still run Windows 2000 and Linux, I'm good. I haven't needed anything Microsoft put out since W2K, and I haven't had any need for anything faster than about 1.2 GHz. A bunch of people at work bought tricked-out new 3+ GHz machines in the last couple of months, and I asked them, "Why so fast" or "Why did you buy the $300 graphics card update?" Basically people have become so conditioned that they HAVE to buy the FASTEST and BEST thing out there or their computer is already obsolete before they even start. It's a bunch of crap anymore. Most of these people are just browsing the web, doing email, writing documents, editing photos. A $400 PC or Mac Mini would have been plenty for them. They spent $1500, and threw away a bunch of money.

I had someone say that a Dell rep told them that they really should get that Hyper-hot $350 GeForce ultra-platinum video card, because she'd need it to retouch photos on the computer. That's pretty reprehensible IMHO. A $30 graphics card or mainboard graphics would have done just fine. I say they practically stole $300 from her.

Sorry for going OT.

Re:The snail

[Anonymous Coward]

Absolutely. If you must have a slick duo-powered laptop right now, the Macbook Pro is a sweet machine.

Except that it's not available yet. And even when it will be, Intel ports of Mac software will still be mostly missing in action (unless all you need is basic stuff from Apple) - and no, Rosetta does not always cut it, heck, some programs can't even run under it at all[*]. So depending on your needs, a MacBook might just be a slick brick for a while. The key concept here is think before you buy.

[*] preemptive example: if you have a large investment in Altivec-accelerated Photoshop filters for your work (by no means a corner case) then you're screwed, as Rosetta can't handle Altivec. And so on.

Re:The snail

[dirty]

Rosetta can handle Altivec. Originally it was listed as unsupported, but right before the new machines were announced Rosetta got Altivec support.

Re:Sage advice says:

[rjstanford]

The dual-core machines don't help that much unless code is written for them specifically; there's precious little code that can really whup a dual-core just yet.

Yeah, if only we had something that let us work on two different programs at the same time. Oh, right, we do, its called a multitasking OS. Even if you don't do anything like ripping CDs, chances are good that you're running multiple widgets, all doing their things at the same time. You're checking emails, running an RSS gatherer, indexing your disk, providing good desktop interactivity, and working on a new proposal (which is formatting your page as you type, checking your spelling, et cetera). Most people multitask way more than they think; the key isn't long periods of parallelization, its eliminating those annoying short blips of contention.

And if you're a developer, this is a no-brainer. You've probably got at least one DBMS on your machine; running client software, a dev environment, the database, and keeping good responsiveness is so much easier with a dual core (or better) setup.

Re:After checking Core Duo specs, the verdict is

[otis wildflower]

Er, the Macbook has up to 256MB dedicated to a real mobile GPU..

Come over to the shiny side!!

Re:Works fine with OS X

[masklinn]

RTFA, the /. headline is stupid and misses half the facts. The article is about the i945M integrated graphics, not the Core Duo itself, and whether the integrated graphics will be able to handle the load of Vista.

The iMac/x86 are bundled with ATI's X1600 and the Macbook pros have an ATI Mobility X1600, they're not using integrated graphics from the chipset.

Second core doesn't help much

[0xABADC0DA]

I've got a dual-core and it doesn't really help much since pretty much all the software I use regularly is single-threaded. Occasionally the disk io happens in another core from other processing, so for example rar'ing might be say 5% faster than on a single core. It is nice that I can rar huge file without impacting performance of the 'main' thing I am working on, but that doesn't happen very often.

Overall, the only thing I've really noticed that is significantly faster is Java. Most Java apps use threads, and if nothing else the GC seems to run on the 2nd CPU. For example, the graphics demo takes 100% of both cores if you set the delay to 0ms between frames. That's about the only program I've seen actually use both cores.

As a side note, I predict with more cores we will see greater use of things like Java. It may run at say 80% C speed, but 80% + 80% is still much more than 100% on one cpu and 0% on another.

Re:Second core doesn't help much

[0xABADC0DA]

Yes .NET falls into the "things like Java" category.

However, CLR does not have the potential to be as fast as Java on a multi-core processor since, due to it's native code interface and unsafe code, the GC can run less often in parallel with the other threads (it blocks significantly more often getting access to the pinned object memory). Also, CLR based applications have fewer opportunities for hotspot-like optimization due to its bytecode format being difficult to interpret efficiently; Java can run an optimizer on another core and get more use from the other processor in that way, and faster code. In addition, betas of the new JVM put temporary objects on the stack automatically (often detected as a result of optimization). This also allows the GC to run in parallel more often (.NET can only do this with value classes, ie structures, that the programmer has to explicitly declare... much like 'register' or other archaic attempts at optimization).

Vista Reqs

[ghost1911]

If you want to run Glass (the GUI) you need to make sure you have a compatible video card. I have found in Vista that the biggest perf issues stem from low memory or not having a compatible video card. Here is nvidia's list of supported video cards, note that there are no notebook cards on it right now. Here is ATI's list of supported video cards. If you want the slick UI, just make sure you get a laptop that supports LDDM.

Re:Works fine with OS X

[WhiteWolf666]

You've got it backwards ;-)

OS X uses some OpenGL stuff; a lot of 2D compositing. It doesn't totally bury the system, however, and it can move a lot of that to software rendering as well; that's why it works just fine on my Powerbook with a GeforceFX 5200, 32 MB ram.

Vista, on the other hand, uses boatloads of 3D, everywhere. Lots of texturing. The main issue with Vista is not having enough graphics ram. For the full "Avalon" "experience", you'll need 256 MB in a 32-bit environment, and possibly more in a 64-bit environment. Fill rates will also be important, in order for you to keep your windows flying around the screen in 3D.

God knows why so much is needed; Project Looking Glass provides a similar display with far more modest requirements, and thats a JAVA window manager. Not to mention that Xorg is getting really, really close to alot of these things. Xgl is currently running with all kinds of interesting shader/geometry effects, and KDE's got the window manager refraction/reflection (take a look at the CrystalGL, the big cousin of Crystal, which does it in software).

Ultimately, Linux will get there, but the problem is integration; most of these features are avaliable on X, but few of them play nicely with OpenGL, and they often don't play well together. We'll have to see a big, combined push between the KDE 4 effort, GNOME's next generation Metacity, the freedesktop XGL/Xorg 7+ people, and NVIDIA/ATI. As I understand it, much of this is occuring now; but we probably won't see releases till near the time Vista is released, and we won't see proper integration into distributions till late 2006/early 2007.

The best part is, however, that once it DOES get into Linux, it'll run just fine on 32/64 MB cards, and most likely will degrade much more gracefully than Vista; there'll be a finer set of non-functional options, rather than 3/4 main settings.

I have no fear that we'll see plenty of desktop eye candy in the near future on Linux; this is mainly attributable to the freedesktop people, who have saved X with Xorg, a product that is making progress now after years and years of stagnation.

I'm much more worried about DirectX 10 (WGF 2.0). Will OpenGL keep up? I hope so, otherwise we'll see the few Linux/Mac gaming houses there are out there (in addition to Transgaming) fail completely as they become unable to port over Windows graphics features. NVIDIA, ATI and Apple seem to be keeping the OpenGL group moving, though.

Re:Works fine with OS X

[WhiteWolf666]

BTW: Here are some BE-AU-TI-FUL Xgl videos. Real videos, as in captured with a camcorder ;-)

http://forums.gentoo.org//viewtopic-p-3081186.html #3081186

Anecdotal evidence is not Data

[woodsrunner]

Yeah, the thinkpad is a really nice and tough notebook. So is the Fujitsu Lifebook and the Panasonic Toughbook, I have heard good things about Dells, but haven't experienced it first hand (and I am a former Dell Tech) I find their fans die slowly (they spin, but not enough) at about 9 -18 months and burn the thing out... but the laptops that last seven years aren't the average notebook, are they?

It was a joke, with a grain of truth. Basically a laptop's life expectancy is 1 - 3 years and more realistically a year of serious professional duty. How long does your battery last? Over 4 hours, still? That's usually the first to go... How about the optical drive and floppy? Can it read every burned disk you throw at it? In my experience, and I have a shelf full of old laptops, these things probably don't work too well. Laptops die young. This is why most manufactuers have never given them a long warranty. It's probably great for hobbist stuff, but would you still have your job if you tried issuing 7 year old laptops as standard corp. issue?

Your seven year old laptop is going to be hard pressed to run XP and I don't think any sensible admin is going to want to have a 98 book in the wild with sensitve data. How many minutes would it take me to own your computer if it's hooked up to the internet? If you really want to extend your laptop's life, get a copy of Solaris on the thing. I am running Solaris 8 for intel on an old stinkpad of the same vintage and it is as good as XP on a new machine with a gig of ram.

Now that I have explained the premise of the joke and expressed my sympathies with your concerns, I will continue with the punchline... How long has MS been telling us they are coming out with Longhorn, now Vista? A dang long time.

In reality it might come out this year, but it might be another year or two at the rate things are going. It's been delayed for easily a good three years now. See, that's why it is funny. If you bought a laptop for longhorn/Vista when it was supposed to be released it'd probably be dead right now especially if you bought a gateway, emachine, HP or sony. In anycase, it'd be slow and underpowered.

And yeah, you're better off waiting for the OS to be released and get a machine made for the OS because if the graphics card don't work, your not going to be able to swap it out... and there are a lot of components that might be questionable under the new trusted computing/closed A(nalog)-hole/DMCA/**AA design Microsoft is going for. Your best bet would be to wait. If you need a laptop buy a $500 Acer (they have a great warranty and build good gear) and save your money for the machine you really want.

And the name of my laptop? Why I use an Aristocrat!

Re:Anecdotal evidence is not Data

[WuphonsReach]

Things have slowed down a lot in the past few years. No longer does system performance double every 12-15 months. As long as you pack enough RAM in the system, these units can keep ticking for a long long time without feeling outdated.

We have numerous laptops that are 3-5 years old and still run WinXP/Win2k just fine. Mostly because we made sure to max out their memory configurations (either with 512MB or 1GB of RAM). Heck, my system is a 1GB Tecra that is from early 2002 and I still use it 12-15 hours a day.

The biggest killer is failing hardware. Warranties cover that for the first 3 years, after that we get them fixed as needed ($200-$400 per repair). Backlight fade is repairable and our users are pretty careful about not breaking optical drive trays or twisting the hinges off. Still, a $200 repair is worth the cost compared to replacing the entire laptop and spending the labor time to get the user up and running on a new system.

It probably also helps that we only bought Toshiba's business-class Tecras for the past few years. Their build quality and sturdiness is quite good. (We're switching to Thinkpads starting this year, however.) It doesn't pay to go cheap with laptops, they get too much abuse.

Re:The snail

[saleenS281]

Apple has good customer support? *LOL* Nice support

Vista will run - GPU is needed, not CPU

[Philip K Dickhead]

Even your 2 GHz Centrino or 1.6 GHz Mobile Pentium won't be crippled by Vista - as long as you have 2 Gb RAM!

The demanding requirements of Vista come from the Quartz-clone, Aero Glass. This is like Apple's quartz, only pure XML instead of Adobe PDF based (an XML/Forth hybrid/melange).

In doing so, it is between 500% to 1000% less efficient, requiring the highest end GPUs, with minimums of 128 MB VRAM.

In the end, it accomplishes little more than Quartz - with the exception of easire X-Style remote window invocation. This is a possible direction, as yet undeveloped.

Re:Vista will run - GPU is needed, not CPU

[Entropius]

One worry I have about Vista using the GPU is laptop power use.

My laptop has dedicated graphics that consume significant power when clocked at full speed. To save power, my machine underclocks the graphics module when the performance isn't needed, sort of like PowerNow/Speedstep for the GPU. I understand that Nvidia cards actually power down some of their 3D circuitry when it's not needed, as well.

If Vista requires the GPU to be fully powered up all the time, that could put a significant burden on laptop batteries. This seems unnecessary, especially when there's plenty of eye candy that can be rendered in software by a processor running at low speed.

Re:After checking Core Duo specs, the verdict is

[Thundersnatch]

Why? Power consumption. There's little use having a super-efficient CPU if all the battery juice you save goes to powering a steaming hunk of ATI or Nvidia silicon (and additional battery-draining high-performance video memory).

Integrated graphics are good enough for just about everything but gaming. Most laptop buyers actually use their laptops for work, surfing the net, email, etc. Longer battery life is more important than frames per second to that large market segment.

Re:The snail

[prickeke]

The "Centrino" you speak of is a brand name which includes multiple pieces of silicon. The processor included in the "Centrino" brand is a Pentium M. The new "Centrino" second generation includes the Pentium Duo or Solo. Therefore, Apple IS technology from "Centrino."