Best laptop for live aboard

[blackrose]

On 27/02/2014 at 14:29, lexicon said:

Looking for a reasonable screen size best battery life possible and a DVD drive.

 

DVD drive? Isn't that a bit 1998?

 

Do they still make laptops with DVD drives?

[Alan de Enfield]

18 minutes ago, blackrose said:

 

DVD drive? Isn't that a bit 1998?

 

Do they still make laptops with DVD drives?

 

Maybe they did when he posted some 9 years ago !

[doratheexplorer]

2 hours ago, Mike Hurley said:

I imagine that in the last 9 years since the original post that the OP has gone through several laptops/tablets.

Not necessarily.  I'm still using the same macbook air i was using 9 years ago.  People think Apple computers are expensive, but in the long run, they're not.

[Chris Lowe]

I still have the same Dell chromebook that is that old & it's still way quicker than any windows or apple computer.

[David Mack]

2 hours ago, doratheexplorer said:

Not necessarily.  I'm still using the same macbook air i was using 9 years ago.  People think Apple computers are expensive, but in the long run, they're not.

Not everyone would agree with you...

https://www.theguardian.com/money/2023/jun/05/apple-repair-macbook-pro-free-screens

[Hudds Lad]

Got a couple of Macs sat under my bench, an eMac i bought for a fiver which weighs a ton, and a MDD Tower with the worlds noisiest stock PSU, both still work perfectly. Fire them up occasionally to mess with old stuff, play some games, and marvel how i used to think one mouse button was better than two  

[MtB]

2 minutes ago, Hudds Lad said:

Got a couple of Macs sat under my bench, an eMac i bought for a fiver which weighs a ton, and a MDD Tower with the worlds noisiest stock PSU, both still work perfectly. Fire them up occasionally to mess with old stuff, play some games, and marvel how i used to think one mouse button was better than two  

 

ISTR back in the day when the Apple computer to get was the Apple Lisa. Long before the Mackintosh was invented and launched.

 

Never understood why they named their most successful computer after a rain coat. 

 

 

 

[Hudds Lad]

1 minute ago, MtB said:

 

ISTR back in the day when the Apple computer to get was the Apple Lisa. Long before the Mackintosh was invented and launched.

 

Never understood why they named their most successful computer after a rain coat. 

 

 

 

Happy days, booting original Photoshop off three floppy discs on a Plus or SE

 

So named after Jef Raskin's favourite variety of apple, the McIntosh, national apple of Canada

[doratheexplorer]

1 hour ago, buccaneer66 said:

I still have the same Dell chromebook that is that old & it's still way quicker than any windows or apple computer.

I find it hard to believe that a 9 year old chromebook is faster than ANY windows or apple computer.  Have you tried all the windows and apple computers out there just to be sure your claim is correct?

[Tony Brooks]

25 minutes ago, doratheexplorer said:

I find it hard to believe that a 9 year old chromebook is faster than ANY windows or apple computer.  Have you tried all the windows and apple computers out there just to be sure your claim is correct?

 

I suspect that you might be comparing apples and oranges, and probably ignoring cost to benefit. The chromebook runs a form of Linux, and it has been shown time and time again that computers that Window updates have rendered useless run perfectly adequately for the majority of ordinary users when Linux is installed. Admittedly, they would be excruciatingly slow running programs that impose a heavy processing load, but that sort of thing is for specialists with high spec systems.

 

The chromebook also probably uses some form of solid state memory that is far faster than spinning disks.

 

Unless you compare the tasks people want to do, the type of hard drive, and the processors involved, I don't see how anyone can claim any particular computer is faster at what it is doing than any other. A computer using an old Pentium processor or an AMD 386 on Windows 3.1 is perfectly capable of dealing with emails and probably a lot of social media.

[Chris Lowe]

It is, when you press the on button it's on there is no start up time, the ony problem is the apps available.

1 minute ago, Tony Brooks said:

Unless you compare the tasks people want to do, the type of hard drive, and the processors involved, I don't see how anyone can claim any particular computer is faster at what it is doing than any other. A computer using an old Pentium processor or an AMD 386 on Windows 3.1 is perfectly capable of dealing with emails and probably a lot of social media.

Unless users are running something that needs the computing power I agree Tony for what a lot of people do an old computer of any type would be suffiecient.

[robtheplod]

14 minutes ago, Tony Brooks said:

 

I suspect that you might be comparing apples and oranges,

i see what you did there Tony, very good!!! 😀

[Tony Brooks]

22 minutes ago, robtheplod said:

i see what you did there Tony, very good!!! 😀

 

Well, Tangerines perhaps, but then I am showing my age.

[doratheexplorer]

2 hours ago, buccaneer66 said:

It is, when you press the on button it's on there is no start up time, the ony problem is the apps available.

 

So you were specifically referring to start up time then.  In that case an Atari 2600 is probably the quickest computer out there.

2 hours ago, Tony Brooks said:

 

 

 

Unless you compare the tasks people want to do, the type of hard drive, and the processors involved, I don't see how anyone can claim any particular computer is faster at what it is doing than any other. A computer using an old Pentium processor or an AMD 386 on Windows 3.1 is perfectly capable of dealing with emails and probably a lot of social media.

I beg to differ.  I doubt you'd even get a modern browser to run properly on windows 3.1, nor would you get any anti virus software to run properly.  The processing power needed to use ordinary websites would mean any simple browsing would be a very time consuming and frustrating experience.  A cheap-end smartphone will have vastly greater computing power than any 386, 486 or pentium.

 

 

Edited June 6, 2023 by doratheexplorer

[Tony Brooks]

3 hours ago, doratheexplorer said:

So you were specifically referring to start up time then.  In that case an Atari 2600 is probably the quickest computer out there.

I beg to differ.  I doubt you'd even get a modern browser to run properly on windows 3.1, nor would you get any anti virus software to run properly.  The processing power needed to use ordinary websites would mean any simple browsing would be a very time consuming and frustrating experience.  A cheap-end smartphone will have vastly greater computing power than any 386, 486 or pentium.

 

 

 

I did not mention browsers directly, let alone a modern one that basically means bloatware. I seem to remember Outlook Express worked well enough, and will probably continue to do so for basic HTML websites. For many people, the applications used on W3.1 will still work perfectly well, unless Microsoft has crippled them with their OS upgrades.  In fact, they can be blisteringly fast on an old, but more modern computer.

 

The point is that for the majority of ordinary people modern computers are way over specified, but if you insist on running a closed/proprietary operating system that is the price you pay.

[doratheexplorer]

14 hours ago, Tony Brooks said:

 

I did not mention browsers directly, let alone a modern one that basically means bloatware. I seem to remember Outlook Express worked well enough, and will probably continue to do so for basic HTML websites. For many people, the applications used on W3.1 will still work perfectly well, unless Microsoft has crippled them with their OS upgrades.  In fact, they can be blisteringly fast on an old, but more modern computer.

 

The point is that for the majority of ordinary people modern computers are way over specified, but if you insist on running a closed/proprietary operating system that is the price you pay.

You mentioned using social media.  Any attempt to do that via windows 3.1 will require a browser.  If you decide to try it using an old enough browser that 3.1 will actually run it, you'll find that the browser does not support any of the scripts or plug-ins which any modern website will use.  In other words, it won't work. 

 

Outlook Express is a defunct and unsupported email client.  It might work for for a few basic text only emails, but they're pretty rare these days.  Things have moved on and OE won't recognise most of the commonly used file formats these days. You're welcome to try it and see how you go.

[dmr]

If you want to run a vintage OS then Win98 was pretty good and fast though realistically most people prefer XP.

I still write a bit of software for a living and recently stopped supporting XP, for the stuff that I do there is some functionality in win10/11 that is just not available in XP.

Constant change, some just for the sake of change, is not good but its the way of the world and there are bigger battles to fight.

 

I need a good Windows laptop and past experience is that its always the keyboard that gives up first. Space is also at a premium.

I have got a good Surface Pro and use a wireless easy to replace Logitech keyboard. The surface can also be used as a touch screen tablet and will charge directly from USB. (but is fussy). Its not cheap but it works for me.

(I find the detached keyboard really good and is less of a pain in the back and neck 😀)

[Jen-in-Wellies]

21 hours ago, Tony Brooks said:

 

I suspect that you might be comparing apples and oranges, and probably ignoring cost to benefit. The chromebook runs a form of Linux, and it has been shown time and time again that computers that Window updates have rendered useless run perfectly adequately for the majority of ordinary users when Linux is installed. Admittedly, they would be excruciatingly slow running programs that impose a heavy processing load, but that sort of thing is for specialists with high spec systems.

 

The chromebook also probably uses some form of solid state memory that is far faster than spinning disks.

 

Unless you compare the tasks people want to do, the type of hard drive, and the processors involved, I don't see how anyone can claim any particular computer is faster at what it is doing than any other. A computer using an old Pentium processor or an AMD 386 on Windows 3.1 is perfectly capable of dealing with emails and probably a lot of social media.

The laptop I'm using to post this is 10 years old. Was given to me as they wanted a new one and this was on Windows 7. I put Linux on it, but found it a bit slow. Less than £20 for a new solid state hard drive and a reinstall of Linux makes it very fast for pretty much everything I need. Much faster than the half its age laptop running Windows 10 I have access to. Up to date browser and other software. If I want to do something that is heavy on the processor, like video transcoding, then I have to be prepared for it to take a while. Perfectly adequate for my every day needs and saves a perfectly functional old laptop from the scrap heap. Hopefully get a few years out of it before something impractical, or uneconomic to replace inside goes phut.

[Hudds Lad]

57 minutes ago, Jen-in-Wellies said:

The laptop I'm using to post this is 10 years old. Was given to me as they wanted a new one and this was on Windows 7. I put Linux on it, but found it a bit slow. Less than £20 for a new solid state hard drive and a reinstall of Linux makes it very fast for pretty much everything I need. Much faster than the half its age laptop running Windows 10 I have access to. Up to date browser and other software. If I want to do something that is heavy on the processor, like video transcoding, then I have to be prepared for it to take a while. Perfectly adequate for my every day needs and saves a perfectly functional old laptop from the scrap heap. Hopefully get a few years out of it before something impractical, or uneconomic to replace inside goes phut.

It's quite surprising the difference an SSD and max RAM can make to a laptop, Daughter had a hugely screened gaming laptop that was on it's knees in terms of speed after many Windows updates, this upgrade kept it relevant for another 18months until she finally demanded a proper desktop.

Although whilst removing the keyboard to get at the guts it transpired its ribbon cable clip had become brittle with age and promptly snapped, had to fashion a shim from a takeaway tub lid  

[doratheexplorer]

1 hour ago, Jen-in-Wellies said:

The laptop I'm using to post this is 10 years old. Was given to me as they wanted a new one and this was on Windows 7. I put Linux on it, but found it a bit slow. Less than £20 for a new solid state hard drive and a reinstall of Linux makes it very fast for pretty much everything I need. Much faster than the half its age laptop running Windows 10 I have access to. Up to date browser and other software. If I want to do something that is heavy on the processor, like video transcoding, then I have to be prepared for it to take a while. Perfectly adequate for my every day needs and saves a perfectly functional old laptop from the scrap heap. Hopefully get a few years out of it before something impractical, or uneconomic to replace inside goes phut.

Ten years is generally fine.  Thirty years, not so much.

[Peanut]

As well as an SSD, it is worth putting the maximum RAM that the chipset will permit, assuming it is not soldered in.

[Jess--]

My go anywhere / do anything laptop is a 16 year old dell, it was bought new from Tesco's of all places and came with vista installed

vista was upgraded to windows XP and has since been upgraded through 7 & 10

Apart from 1 replacement battery everything is original and it's in daily use (currently running a co2 laser cutter) but recent excursions include tuning a supercharged v8 jaguar engine in a custom 4wd vehicle... from the passenger seat while doing stupid speeds & angles in a quarry.