Home Forums Cheapo Labtop

I'm trying to replace another dying laptop. Walmart has some very inexpensive laptops---$250-$290!!! But they are equipped with Intel Atom or AMD Nile processors. And 1gb ram. Now the primary, and nearly only, use of this laptop would be to schedule appointments online, verify some insurances maybe, and really to do EKG/Spirometry running AC. Does this seem like a purchase that will do the job, even this limited one, or is it more of a case of , its not a good deal even at that low price.

Oh I forgot, comes with "Windows 7 Starter" OS. Starter? what's that????

We love netbooks. Only downside is lo resolution screen. Great for vitals and Spiro.

Depending on what your existing network setup is, I'd steer clear of Win7 starter. Here is the link from MS on what you can (and *can't*) do with the networking constraints.

http://windows.microsoft.com/en-US/windows7/Networking-in-Windows-7-Starter

There are also some other constraints of Win7 starter, that you might want to be aware of before buying.

http://answers.microsoft.com/en-us/...ons/422801d5-89de-494d-8cc1-6f4fc21c2ac0

If you have a machine laying around with a valid XP lic, you might be better re-cycling that OS lic. Keep in mind that newer hardware might present driver issues in some cases.

I seriously think the stupidest thing Microsoft does is its multple versions of its OS. Just have XP and WIN7 and make them all the same kind of like that other company they compete with.

Wayne,

I have looked into this.

The Atom processor can't handle the SQL data base and AC won't load. I have tried it. I can't recall the exact link where I read this but you need a processor with more power.

1 GB of RAM is not enough though netbook RAM can be increased to 2 GB.

Also, keep in mind that the acexec file keeps getting larger and larger which starts to limit RAM.

You would be better off with a laptop with a decent processor and able to
take 4 Gb of RAM.

Hope that helps.

Rick

Thanks guys. As expected, the PC industry still believes "marketing" means "trick people into buy junk, then you get another sale when they buy the better product from you."

But I see while MS has the different versions. Its really just one program. You can update by paying for an upgrade, and downloading a code to activate the additional features.

Wayne,

This one of the reasons that *nix folks have been referring to MS as M$ or "The Borg" for years. Forewarned is forearmed. At the time various M$ execs admitted that they had to introduce a lower-cost OS to compete with netbooks that just cost less because they didn't bear an OS 'tax'.

That said, every dog has their day in the sun, and eventually M$ will be overtaken, just as IBM was before them.

Their approach is part of what has brought about the Free-mium business model, and IMHO that is a good thing.

This is just not a good business model. When Vista first came out, there were what, seven versions or so, maybe less. No one knew what came with what. It is crazy for people on here to continue to advise others not to use XP Home. If MS just made XP Pro for everyone, that wouldn't be as issue. Same thing with SBS Standard and Premium. And, how many versions of SQL?

Sure, it's a great business model.

Confuse and Obsfuscate: they didn't know what they were doing and it must be their fault. More often they won't complain because it would show their "ignorance." They will then buy another version because it is really what they needed MORE MONEY!!! Only works if you dominate the market (BC, M$, ect)

It's no different than the insurance companies with 20 different plans with minimal differences.

Gentlemen,

I'm afraid I must respectfully disagree. Having multiple versions of Windows does make sense. It is not fair for a college kid who wants to write term papers, download music illegally, and play Starcraft to pay for the ability to join a domain and many of the other features of Professional or Ultimate.

As the old saying goes, though, the more things change the more they stay the same. In the Microsoft world, you have to make choices based on feature set and that determines what edition of the software you buy. Little if anything is free and you have to be careful that you get what you need. If you need support, you call MS's 800 number and pay $259 bucks and get support. Your money is refunded if MS cannot solve the problem or if the problem is the result of a bug in the software. In the Unix/Linux world you have to make choices based on what level of support you want. Do you want same day, next day, etc. You also have to accept limitations on what you can and cannot do with the product in question because for the vendor to support the product it must be in a "supported configuration." You pretty much get all the software for free (although there are today some limitations to that as well - see Red Hat's website). In the Mac world you pay top dollar for the latest and greatest in style/fashion and high levels of quality but make the trade-off of having a very limited feature set and submitting yourself to Apple's control.

So which do you want? Choices of different software editions or choices of different support editions? It's all different sides of the same coin.

Don't be so quick to slam MS for having different editions of its software. If all MS sold was the ENTERPRISE edition of SQL Server, how much would Amazing Charts cost then?

JamesNT

P.S. If you really want to see how frustrated you can get with all this, call Oracle.

I agree with what you are saying, James, that you have to be careful in selecting MS Windows versions. This is clearly a decision to max out profits.

The multiple versions allow Microsoft to cash in on later upgrades and lets the big box stores sell cheap PCs. I have even seen the less expensive Dell & HP small business computers offered with Home Premium. When the home or small business user realizes they can't get the job done with Home Premium (is there is a non-Premium?), they have to use Windows Anytime Upgrade for a more capable version, and maybe even pay for some extra memory as well.

However, I disagree with your comment about Macs having a "very limited feature set", but that is probably a discussion for a different board.

ryanjo,

My friend, you and I may have reached a point to where we need to agree to disagree. The multiple versions are designed, in my opinion to save money. The Small BUSINESS user should be buying Professional to begin with. In my experience, the business owners who buy the Home edition are just being cheap or simply don't know better (although one would think the word "Home" would give it all away).

Furthermore, I have never recommended any of the "cheap" PC's for just the reason you are stating. The Best Buy's and Office Depots of the world are there to nickel and dime you to death or just sell to college kids. If you need a business class machine, then buy a business class machine. In the case of Dell, that means the Optiplex, Precision, or Latitude lines of products.

Also, as I mentioned above, other vendors do the same thing just in different approaches (i.e. editions of support versus editions of product). In those cases, I have seen businesses skimp out and get the cheapest support possible only to scream bloody murder when the vendor isn't there to pick up the pieces in 5 minute or less. So what's the difference?

It never surprises me as to how expensive cheap can be.

JamesNT

This discussion is one of the best reasons why I still buy refurbished laptops over on eBay. One of the best deals now is the Dell D630s with dual-core processors, and go for less-than-$250 (usually with free shipping) and still sell with Win XP Professional which will be supported by MS up until 2014.

URL: http://shop.ebay.com/?_from=R40&...630+laptop&_sacat=See-All-Categories

For slightly more, you can get 4MB ram and up to 320GB HD:

http://shop.ebay.com/?_from=R40&_trksid=m570&_nkw=dell+d630+4gb+xp

In my lifetime I've bought about 25 refurbished/used Dell laptops (at least 4 D610-D630 line models; a lot were the older venerable C840s which offered 2 HD bays and a 15 inch screen, with that series going from the 320MB to 2.2GB single core processor) without issues. No warranties are needed- when they finally break, I throw them away and get a new one.

Most are simply put aside when they simply get too old; the only one that really broke occurred when I took it to Italy and the cobblestone roads seemed too much for the laptop motherboard... The weirdest buy was a CIA laptop that came with an on-motherboard password protection that I had to break into, which was a hassle (it was real cheap- cost me $85).

When I finally break out of Windows XP in 2014/2015 MS will most likely have Windows 9 or whatever...

JamesNT, while I generally agree with you in theory, I find it interesting that Dell advertises Business PCs with Windows 7 Home. This is an example of my complaint--they tend to call the product one thing, but it is actually something else. But with these purchases, its more difficult to see and understand what it is that the system should have but doesn't. Maybe not for you, and maybe not so much for us with tech backgrounds, but there is still the time and effort involved if your tech background really isnt focused on PCs, or is simply out of date since you do something else now (like me). At least with windows it does say Home edition (hint hint). But I can see someone else thinking that it must be ok for business otherwise they wouldnt have put that OS in there. Or the more insidious things, like using an insuffiecient power supply. Or advertising how the system comes with 4GB ram with 32-bit OS, but I thought the 32-bit OS only could address up to 3GB.

Wayne,

I agree with what you are saying. But notice how things have shifted. ryanjo was blaming MS for this when in fact it is clearly Dell causing the confusion by putting a home OS on business class machines and most likely selling them with the business class price tag - in accordance with your example. Also, in looking back at previous posts, the brick-and-mortar stores (i.e. Office Depot, et. al.) are just as guilty.

The first people I would place blame on is the OEM's and the store-fronts, not MS. And I say this because placing blame in the right place is the fastest way to get resolution. More often than not, the biggest and easiest target (i.e. MS) isn't always the right target.

Shifting over to alborg, I would advise caution with alborg's approach to handling equipment procurement. For one, notice this comment:


This is a fine approach assuming the business can handle the downtime. Having a warranty with next day on-site repair is important for some of us who simply cannot handle having an employee wait a few days for a replacement to arrive. Any machine I purchase is with the idea of it lasting at the very least 3 years. Period. And I try to get four years out of them when I can.

Lastly, note that Mr. alborg is planning on staying on Windows XP until 2014 when support finally ends. Again, I disagree with this approach. As he states himself, yet another version of Windows will be out by then. By then, Mr. alborg will be probably four versions behind on Windows. At that point, he will incur a large amount of expense upgrading not only desktops etc. but also line-of-business applications.

Those who know me know that I have always recommending staying in the MIDDLE of the upgrade curve. You never want to stay cutting edge because then you'll always be upgrading which is way too expensive. However, you don't want to be last as then you'll have a major jump to make when you finally do need to upgrade and that jump will exhaust all the money saved by waiting so long.

My business skipped Vista and is standardized on Windows 7 now. We will probably skip Windows 8 and go for whatever is after that (Windows 9, I suppose). This way we are in the middle. Upgrades are controlled and, therefore, so is cost. Another example is Exchange Server. We went from Exchange 2003 to Exchange 2010 - skipping Exchange 2007 altogether. I can tell you now there will most likely not be a migration path from Exchange 2003 to whatever version of Exchange comes out next - just like there is no migration path from Exchange 5.5 to Exchange 2010. Those who cling to Exchange 2003 for 5 more years will find themselves in quite the expensive predicament when they need to upgrade. They will have to migrate to Exchange 2010 first then on to whatever the lastest version is - in effect doubling cost.

This isn't to say that alborg's approach is a bad idea. It's fine, as long as the trade-offs are to your satisfaction. But it is important to be aware of what those trade-offs are.

One man's trash is another man's treasure.
One man's money saving idea is another man's expense.

ad infinitum.

One final comment. Ladies and Gentlemen it is very important to remember that I do not disagree with people for the sake of disagreeing with them. When I disagree with you or make recommendations contrary to what you may believe, it is not to "stir the pot." I am trying to accomplish one goal and one goal only - to save you money. IT can cost a great deal as we see time and time again with some of the posts on this forum and on forums elsewhere. In many cases, those who complain about how much money they spent can trace the expenditure(s) down to one or two notable mistakes that are simply best avoided. In other cases, the person in question was just trying to come out cheap and cut to many corners. Please, look at what I am saying and try to see the logic in it. If you don't see said logic, then ask me to explain again. And don't forget what Bert said in another thread. Somestimes I mean well but it just doesn't come out as intended. My apologies in advanced for those situations.

For further reading:
http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/magazine/2006.10.windowsconfidential.aspx

Can anyone venture to guess as to why I posted that article?

JamesNT

Hi James:

Gosh, I'd wish you'd call me Al (Mr. alborg?), especially since we've known each other for so long. We may disagree in that you promote and have a business selling IT products while I'm an end-user; you make money on IT while I have to purchase/lose money on hardware and software. We just have different spectacles through which we see the value of IT- both hardware and software.

James, for some other purchases, I do exactly what you do, which is to skip a generation or two. When it comes to Windows XP, though, it's so stable, and looking at the fact that BOTH of my hospitals still use Windows XP, I prefer to stay put. Remember- my EMR uses MS Office 2003 which all my hospitals also still have on just about all of their computers, which I use by putting all of my patient information on a password protected USB drive. The cost of a refurbished Win XP D630 costs about the same as the total cost of Windows 7 Ultimate. At least for my EMR needs, Windows XP suffices now and I suppose to the far off future without having to throw away non-Windows 7 compatible hardware, s.a. computers, printers and scanners.

Like you stated, depending on the person- if someone is starting a whole new setup, then by all means, they should not buy backwards into Windows XP. For those with WinXP already installed on most of their network, then they should think twice about their needs... both Win 7 and Win XP should be considered.

For me, I just happen to like Win XP a lot and it suits my needs perfectly, as do the WinXP laptops. I once purchased a beautiful Dell 17" laptop once with Vista set up on it- I ended up giving it to my son for him to play video games. I simply don't believe in mixing up Windows versions in my medical office. Last time I did, with Win 98 and Win 2000, it was a disaster when an undocumented bug appeared with MS Access database corruption.

About the downtime issue- I have so many laptops that are still working, that when one goes down I simply swap it out (without any downtime). We're not talking about the backend server here- just one node in a LAN configuration.

I don't believe that I'm cutting any corners... I'm just being an "educated consumer" by buying smart and getting the best deal possible while maintaining the most stable configuration possible that I know how to use and fix. I just can't afford to throw money away at technology when the gain is minimal, if any, at best.

Cheers,
Al

Al,

No problem at all on the Mr. Alborg part. Thank you!

By the way, I do not own a company that sells IT services and products. If I lead you to believe that, my apologies. I am IT and software development for a billing company that, incidentally, promotes Amazing Charts to its clients if we feel it is a good fit for them. However, I do get roped into doing IT for our clients from time-to-time either because their current IT sucks or they just don't have one (I firmly believe some of them take advantage of this sometimes but that is a different story).

As for your other points, they are well made. I do believe you have found the proper "mix" that suits you, and perhaps many others with skill like yours, very well indeed.

JamesNT

Wow! Well, I didn't read all this, but I still think multiple versions ridiculous. Maybe XP Pro vs Home, but all the ridiculous versions for Vista and WIN7?

Why not make the lowest one more expensive and the best least expensive? I just bought my girlfriend an iPad and, except for 3G vs Wi-Fi cost, that was it -- one cost. I bought it online in less than five minutes, because I didn't need to decide which to buy

Let the college guy buy the more expensive one and then let him join a domain. And, I doubt the college guy who we are assuming is downloading music illegally is going to be joining a domain anytime soon.

I heard from some rather smart network and computer geeks that it would simply make more sense to have XP only and if you want the domain tools, you pay for them and download them.

There must be a way. I am not arguing all this above. I am just saying, hey, Steve Ballmer and Bill Gates -- sit down and figure out a way to have one OS. Sure, with cars you can get this package and that package, but when you buy a BMW 335xi, you don't choose from BMW 335xi home, pro, light, ultimate, etc.

If you really want to know how many editions there are, check out the following:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_7_editions

JamesNT

So, are you saying it is good, because there are only three or bad, because there are six?

So if I lived in Brazil, I should go with Windows Home Basic? Then again, if I lived in Brazil, I wouldn't be sitting in front of a computer.

But, even with three, it's two too many.

I still think there are too many versions of SQL. But, it's not a good analogy, because most people using SQL Server 2005 or 2008 and purchasing licenses, etc. know what they are doing. And, you do need a SQL Express version just for programs like AC.

OMG- check out this quote from your link, James: "Microsoft will only support Ultimate until 2015[!]"

I didn't know that. Why would they do that when they are supporting XP until 2014? It doesn't make any sense... Doesn't make one want to go out and spend $200 a license on a product whose lifespan is about the same as it's closest competitor ("XP").

Al

I should point out what most of our enterprise clients have been doing since the advent of Vista; they have insisted on back-grade OS licenses. Then they have XP installed on machines from (Del//HP/IBM) and then eventually they'll upgrade if that day comes.

Time goes on, and now they are getting Win7Pro back-grade licenses with XP (still!) installed. I suspect that we will still be supporting XP on the managed services side for 3-6 years, regardless of when M$ sunsets XP.

I would add at the same time, I am actually seeing clients of 10+ years that I *never* thought would leave M$ choosing to go open source over cost issues. They are coming up on server hardware refresh time, and are virtualizing most of the existing servers in their small data-center (a few racks).

In virtualizing these servers, they are pricing Dell/HP rack servers along with 3 years NBD support, and they have separately priced VMWare, M$ Hyper-V, and commercial Zen. Once all the smoke cleared, they still want to go forward with the virtualization, but want to use Zen or KVM (both FOSS) to save all the optional software costs. Since we are virtualizing existing servers, we will move the Win2003 server lics onto the virtual hardware, and not have to rebuy server OSs.

So ..... in the struggling SMB market-segment, cost pressures are growing, and other software options are now considered viable. Most practices are now installing OpenOffice, and really don't notice the difference as long as their saved documents preferences are set correctly.

As far as Oracle, yes James, we were once even Oracle partners, but after one round with them and a major client, we ended the relationship. They remind me of NetWare or SCO back in the day.

OpenOffice. I had decided to use Openoffice, but MS added a free version of word/excel with win 7. But O2 has some features I liked for making forms, so I'll use it for special purposes anywary.

Indy,

I can easily see many enterprise clients sticking with XP a while longer. I am constantly amazed at how many of these companies rely completely on old software programs that have been poorly maintained - and in many cases they don't even have the source code to it anymore!! Some of the companies I know are still upgrading to Windows 7 but are using XP Mode to overcome back compat issues. I suppose all we can do is wish them well.

As for companies switching, I'm seeing as much one way as I am the other. One of the local manufacturing plants that belongs to a major fiber optics manufacturer is rolling on Windows Server 2008 and SQL Server 2008 as fast as they can in a bid to consolidate off of mySQL and Oracle. However, there are some companies that are dabbling in open source looking for cost savings. It would be interesting to see an official statistic on what is happening across various industries.

Regarding Oracle, check out this article that I found interesting:

http://www.zdnet.com/blog/howlett/oracles-40-sun-hardware-slide-a-business-under-threat/3013?tag=content;selector-blogs

I can't really say most SMB's are installing Open Office. All the ones I still work with are using Office 2007 or higher all the way. However, there is no doubt that OO is out there. Again, it would be interesting to see an official statistic.

JamesNT

Buying cheep pc's will come back to byte you in the end. My goal is to setup a quality pc and make it last for 3 years. This always depends on the end user however. For a business always buy the pro version of windows. Makes things easer for your Computer people for sure.

Only 3 years. That's exactly why you try to get them as cheap as you can to do the job they need to do. Now, if it needs to do alot, well it wont be cheap. But if you really only need to do some basic stuff, a cheap one can be fine. I just want to insure that it can do what is needed.

The issue here is what is being defined as "basic stuff." For example, take the girl working the front desk. All her computer needs to do is run one simple program - the front desk scheduling software - so she can check patients in and out and set up new appointments. Buying a cheap PC for her job sounds great. Until that PC breaks and she can't set up new appointments which is nothing short of lost revenue.

Always remember that money, risk, and time are interchangeable on a one-to-one basis.

JamesNT

I agree. Sometimes my patients go to Walk-In care AT WAL-MART (sorry Scott). They get diagnosed with strep and are treated appropriately, they just don't know that liquid penicillin tastes horrible.

If they come to their doctor and pay a bit more (I know, WIC costs more), they get better care.

How many DIMMs are there for RAM on the "cheap" computer?

A friend of mine who has done networking for 29 years states that doctors choose to pay less than any other profession. It's the get what you pay for thing.

And three years was a bit low, which is what prompted this discussion. My computers are going on five years now with a video card here and a hard drive there.

I mention three years because that's how long the standard warranties are. Also, note that I say "at least three years." Three years is the minimum - not the maximum.

I typically don't start talking about replacing a machine until well into the fourth year of service.

JamesNT

Its terrible to think how disposable the computers are... what eco-unfriendly waste we generate!

Dr. Chazli,

You will be very happy to know that many computer components are recycled today. In fact, the computer chip running your microwave oven is probably from a recycled computer.

While you are quite correct in that the percentage of recycled electronics remains low, I fully expect this to change in the near future as used computers/electronics can be a valuable source of tin, gold, mercury, and other precious metals that we are currently running short on in the US.

For more information, please visit:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recycling_Computer

JamesNT

I was just going to say that there are many hardware parts in a computer. I would look at them or have a shop look at them before just throwing them away. Little things like:

-- Replacing the PSC
-- Is your RAM seated correctly
-- Video card -> big culprit
-- CPU
-- Motherboard
-- New drivers

It is much easier at a computer repair shop as they have a bench and can plug working parts in easily and see if it can be replaced.

It's kind of a gamble. Do I pay the minimum price of $70 or possibly $100 or do I just toss it?

I don't know much about laptops. Never owned one.

http://www.pbs.org/frontlineworld/stories/ghana804/video/video_index.html

I am posting this because its worth seeing what happens... and how often we really need to jump to the latest gadgets.

Spoken by the guy with an Iphone!

Tom

All I am suggesting is, to be responsible about such issues.

If someone reminded another that smoking is bad for one's health, and those around him/her, should one be branded with a scarlett letter for having smoked in the past? Does it make it any less true?


I definitely was not aware of what really goes on behind the scenes until I had seen this program.