Slashdot Mirror
What's The Perfect Balance For a Budget Laptop?
cheapbob writes "Recently HP officially unveiled a budget ultraportable laptop aimed to compete with the likes of Asus Eee PC. According to Compal, one of Dell's assemblers, Dell is also going to enter the budget ultra-portable market soon. All of these devices lack many of the features associated with larger-sized laptops, such as optical drives and large amounts of storage space, yet demand for them is very high. Initial reviews of these devices unsurprisingly expose them to be underpowered and lacklustre. What's the appeal? What do you think is the perfect balance of features and price point for a budget laptop?"
_0_
\''\
'=o='
.|!|
.| |
large amounts of storage space
The question was about "budget" laptop. What people fail to figure when asking that question is how much of the bugdet includes the time they have to waste configuring it or delousing it.
In my experience, if youre not using a mac either
1) your time has no value or y
2) you have some specific reason you need to use another OS.
2b) you have some specific hardware issue
3) you are deploying a fleet of these where cost per unit matters and sysadmin can be pooled.
That's not snobbery, it's just that saving $200 on a laptop means nothing to most people for whom time is money or a lost report is worth more than $200.
If you can use the nice mac-apps as well, then figure those in the purchase.
Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
He should get a fucking car.
Hell, in the US I bet a fucking horse and cart is quicker than the fucking train.
TWO FUCKING HOURS? EACH WAY? Nutter.
Maybe he should push for a fucking pay rise, so he can afford a fucking mortgage within an hour of work. Don't live to work. Work to live.
I guess he can justifuckingfy it all because he reads on the train, or plans, or fucking shit. Fuck that. Or he could downsize. You don't need 2000sqft you know. A single person can do with 600 just fine, hell, a studio flat that lets you have a fucking life is a far better option. FUCK.
That's an excellent point, but if you have to travel 4 hrs a day to make a living, maybe that means your skillset isn't high enough that they can pick the location of their job. Companies recruiting people for $200,000 a year are getting people from 2 hours away because the quality talent can choose jobs closer to their home. If you're a B rate employee, it might be worth it to take the 140,000 paycut and work for 60-65K a year and work 10 minutes from work.
Honestly, unless your kid is a supergenius that can't somehow get the scholarship to go to Harvard, and you're not saving the extra money you're making by commuting those extra 3 1/2 hours a day towards early retirement, you're getting an awful return on your time. Throwing your money away on a giant house you hardly ever see doesn't make sense - you can make a much better return on other investments in the long run.
I commuted an hour each way for six months. Because I was starting out and needed the experience to get the job. Once I got the job/raise, I moved 8 minutes from work, and next month will be walking distance from work.
moox. for a new generation.