Please help me choose a back to school laptop

[Narnia]

I go to WAVA's online highschool and I'm getting a new laptop computer for school and I would like sum suggestions on what to get and why. My school is online so I use a program called Elluminate a LOT (Elluminate is basicly an online chat program with voice over internet protical (this is used almost constantly, sometimes with 2 or more people's microphones running at the same time), video conferencing (this is new and wasn't used much last year but will likely become more and more common), and part of the Elluminate window is taken up by a section called the "whiteboard" which has a striking resemblence to microsoft paint except that anything you write on it or any pictures you paste on it is shared with everyone else in the class), I use speach reconition software whenever my hands start hurting from typing too much and I know that this uses up a lot of my computer's resources, I leave outlook on and have it check for new emails ever few minutes incase my teachers send something important (many new teachers will sometimes send emails that say, "please remember to attend the life elluminate session that starts in 5 mins" not realizing that most students don't check their email that often) and I also use outlook's callandar and task features to remind me of asignments I must complete and deadlines I have and stuff like that. I always have at least 2 internet explorer windows open (I will likely switch to google chrome soon however) with multiple tabs open on each and my online school has many pictures in their lessons as well as the ocasional video explination. I also often have multiple (I think 14 is the record but I generally have only about 2 to 4 open at once) word, excell, and/or powerpoint windows open. I also have taken multiple photo/video editing classes and will likely take more. I was planning on getting Windows 7 pro 64 bit and I was wondering how well its combatablility works with older 32bit webpages and webapps. I am looking at a toshiba with 8GB of ram, 7 Pro 64-bit, bluetooth and Broadcom wireless LAN 802.11b/g/n, 32GB HDD 5400rpm harddrive, and my choice between the default AMD athlon II dual core p320 (2.1GHz, 1MB L2 Cache), a $40 upgrade to a AMD Turion II Dual core p520 (2.3GHz, 2MB L2 Cache) , or a $100 dollar upgrade to a AMD Phenom II Triple core p820 (1.8 GHz, 1.5 MB L2). The laptop has a 17.3 inch screen and is $884. Is this a good deal and would it fit my needs? If so, should I upgrade to one of the other proccessors? I've had good experiences with Toshiba's laptops in the past (VERY durable) but although I would prefer a Toshiba over another brand I would be willing to go with another company if they had a good deal on a good laptop.

PS, I don't play many computer games (the only computer game I really play much is Civ4, but like I said I do however do a lot of photo and video editing and I would like my computer to be able to handle that.
PS, sorry for the wall of text, I know it a LOT to read.

 

[Narnia]

PS, I am not worried about weight (I generally use my current laptop like a desktop and hook a second monitor up to it as well), nor am I very worried about battery life (however would like it to last about 3 hours of watching a movie for when in the car). I do however need the portabbility of a laptop because I do take my computer on vacation with me and in the car. I also want a laptop that won't overheat very easily, my last one seemed to overheat if I just looked at it!

 

[Narnia]

I'm sorry but one more thing, I'm not sure if I mentioned that I download a LOT of stuff from my school and I need to be able to work in multiple windows at once while also downloading assignments and grading criteria and stuff.

 

[PeteAtoms]

lrn2paragraph bro,

It looks like the laptop you have listed is more than enough, I don't know if 8gb of ram is necessary though...

It looks like the only thing I can recommend you do, is look at the video editing software you plan on using, and build your laptop off of those specs in mind. Because that looks like the most important factor, everything else is doable by even cheaper netbooks.

PS: Get a browser with tab views, lol. And maybe try out Google Docs, OfficeLive or Zoho. (one less program open, and easier file sharing/collaboration).

 

[deanej]

IE has tabs (unless you're still using IE6). I wouldn't fully switch to Chrome (the speed boost is minimal unless IE8 has accumulated a lot of junk, which you can avoid by making sure it deletes temporary Internet files after each session) as it lacks print preview and viewing PDF files is VERY annoying (chrome doesn't allow you to view them without saving the file on your computer, and you'll have to manually delete it unless you want to keep it; Google doesn't seem to understand that you might want to view a PDF once and then never see it again). I'd have it around though, just in case you encounter anything that uses HTML 5 or CSS 3, and application view is really nice. Chrome also has spell check in forms, but you can get that in IE with the Google toolbar.

Google Docs is great for collaboration and file sharing, but IMO that's about the only thing it does really well (apparently you can create moving graphs with it's spreadsheets, but I have no clue how it's done); you can do more formatting with even WordPad. The presentation stuff in it is really good too; I like it because I don't need to use a USB drive if I'm giving a powerpoint presentation. OfficeLive is integrated with office though, so you'll probably want to look at it.

You shouldn't have to worry about 32-bit compatibility unless you need to install an unsigned driver (which is impossible on 64-bit versions of Windows). Even IE is 32-bit (there is a 64-bit version, but there's no reason to use it because 64-bit plug-ins don't exist for it. Maybe if HTML 5 kills flash IE9's 64-bit version might get used, but until then...).

 

[Genocidicbunny]

Chrome is much much faster than IE8. Sure, static html speed might be similar, but most sites these days use a lot of js which chrome loads and runs faster than IE8 does.

Saving PDF's and scanning them before running is a very good idea too btw, a lot of nasties can be hiding in them.

 

[deanej]

The only site I've noticed a difference on is Google Maps, and that's because Google insists on having street view on all the time; it was much better when you could turn it on and off in the top right.

You can sanitise PDF viewing by not using Adobe Reader (Foxit Reader has much better security and is much faster too) and to disable JavaScript in your PDF reader (yes, PDF readers have a useless JavaScript feature that does little but present security vulnerabilities). Having to save, open/view, then manually delete and empty your recycle bin is just an unnessary and major annoyance.

 

[Genocidicbunny]

Chrome, Firefox 3.9 and the latest Opera are all much faster than IE8. Their layout and js engines are much better. Heck, IE8 only gets a 20/100 on Acid 3 which is horrible. Load times on script-heavy pages is also quite a bit better. You notice it once you've been on Firefox or Chrome for a while, IE just seems sluggish.

For PDF's, I still prefer to scan them before I open them. Not all of the vulnerabilities are js based, and blindly opening pdf's is just asking for trouble, even with Foxit.

 

[deanej]

IE8 isn't that slow as long as you didn't upgrade to it (it's true that IE8 is very sluggish if you upgraded to it from a copy of IE that's been used, but it's performance isn't bad on a clean install, ie if you have Windows 7 or upgraded to it before you did anything with your computer). Most of the performance "problems" only show up in benchmarks that are useless in gaging real world performance. Like I said, the only site I see a difference on is Google Maps. Even Gmail works perfectly fine (in fact, I can get to my inbox faster in IE8 than in Chrome!).

The vast majority of PDF problems are based either in JS or Acrobat's security vulnerabilities. As long as you don't open every attachment you get in your email you're probably fine.

It's interesting that you mention Acid3. Nobody but Acid3 uses the technologies the way they are used on the test, and few use them at all. In fact, the Acid2 test was designed to delibratly make IE6 look bad (and to make Opera look good), and Acid3 comes from a similar heritage; in fact, many of the "standards" tested aren't even ratified by the W3C yet! IE8 does, in fact, comply with every standard (since HTML 5 and CSS 3 have not yet been finalized and ratified).

In fact, most of IE's "problems" are just people looking for excuses to bash IE (because IE bashing is the in thing to do these days). Well, Chrome has too many annoyances for me to ever use it as a primary browser. Like I said, It's a good idea to have it on your computer for sites that need it or run better in it, but I really can't imagine using anything other than IE8 as my main browser (except for IE9, once it comes out, which currently gets an 83/100 on the Acid3 btw).

EDIT: I feel the need to point out that just about every test has its oddities so other than judging how well a browser renders for yourself, there's really no good way to do it. Even html5test.com, which I like, rated IE8 and IE9 platform preview 1 with the same score when I tested them in April, even though platform preview 1 rendered HTML5 and CSS3 better than IE8. Microsoft even has their own HTML5 test that rates IE9 perfectly and other browsers score less.

 

[Genocidicbunny]

Acid 3 tests CSS, and it tests it the same across all browsers. Bear in mind, when it was released, every browser failed it. It is also the essential defacto test for the layout engine of a browser.

IE has long been known to botch CSS, and while IE8 is better in that regard, its still an abysmal browser in my opinion. I mentioned the Acid 3 test offhand, as it is not my primary concern ( I never had too much issue with the layout engines as I am not a web developer). What is my primary concern is the javascript performance. With the amount of dynamic content on the web, faster js is better. IE8 lags behind the other major browsers in js performance. It may not be much -- 2 seconds vs 1 for a particular script, but when you look at the difference over the course of a day (or week or month..etc) then it begins to really add up.

IE8 is also based on an old, monolithic code base. Im guessing its horrible for development and updates.

To your edit -- Firefox 4.0b3pre currently gets a 97/100 on Acid3.

 

[GoodGame]

Lots of ram is needed for video editing no? I think over 2 GB RAM and a larger CPU cache would be appropriate, no?

I'd also guess you'd be multi-tasking during editing too? Never heard of triple core before, but that sounds like it might be even more appropriate (though dual core is as well). Why not consider quad-core?

Also should consider battery life etc... Assuming video editing takes a while to compile that might be an issue if you can't plug in.

 

[Genocidicbunny]

For actual video editing or for toying around with it? If you do actual video editing, a laptop isnt what you should be looking at.