Laptops forum

General discussion

Buying my first laptop. Want it to be Vista compatible.

by gamergirl0218 / March 22, 2006 4:59 AM PST

I am buying my first ever laptop. I travel overseas a lot and will mostly be using the laptop to connect to Skype to call back home cheaply. The laptop will also be used for web surfing, e-mail, and some gaming by the children on vacation, but not much else.

I also want the computer to be Vista compatible when Vista comes out in the Fall. I like the security upgrades that come with Vista. What gives me pause is that the laptops of today all seem to have integrated graphics chips, and I am not sure how well those will work with Vista. Will Vista require a video card separate from the main board, or will a powerful integrated video card suffice? I've looked at two computers: 1) Sony Vaio SZ110 with a NVIDIA GeForce Go7400 graphics card and 2) HPdv1000t with a Intel Graphics Media Accelerator 950. I know the NVIIDIA graphics card is better, but will it be good enough to fully run Vista? Any advice I would appreciate.

Discussion is locked
You are posting a reply to: Buying my first laptop. Want it to be Vista compatible.
The posting of advertisements, profanity, or personal attacks is prohibited. Please refer to our CNET Forums policies for details. All submitted content is subject to our Terms of Use.
Track this discussion and email me when there are updates

If you're asking for technical help, please be sure to include all your system info, including operating system, model number, and any other specifics related to the problem. Also please exercise your best judgment when posting in the forums--revealing personal information such as your e-mail address, telephone number, and address is not recommended.

You are reporting the following post: Buying my first laptop. Want it to be Vista compatible.
This post has been flagged and will be reviewed by our staff. Thank you for helping us maintain CNET's great community.
Sorry, there was a problem flagging this post. Please try again now or at a later time.
If you believe this post is offensive or violates the CNET Forums' Usage policies, you can report it below (this will not automatically remove the post). Once reported, our moderators will be notified and the post will be reviewed.
Collapse -

If you want that your laptop be compatible with Windows Vista, you need the x64 bits intructions sets. Only the mobile AMD Turion 64 has this intructions set. It's a very nice mobile processor with a low battery consumption, but the mobile Intel Pentium M processor take less battery power than the Turion but this last delivers better performances as I saw in some benchmarks.

For your GPU question, both Intel and ATi integrated graphics chipset are compatible with Vista. But the ATi Radeon Xpress is much and much better than the Intel's chipset.

A dual-core laptop is too much for you. Think that you'll use only the 1/4 from the total performances of the dual-core. A single core is a better choice for your use. Don't take Sony laptops. They are too expensive for nothing. Sony laptops are made for mobility and workers ( they only weight a little 3 pounds ! ).

Think to take 1*512 MB of memory for future upgrades.

The Compaq Presario v2000z is probably the best choice you can make. This laptop is for students, but your utilisation is like a student. I'm 14 and tomorrow, I'll buy my Compaq Presario laptop. I did many research about it and it seems like the best quality/price ratio.

Collapse -
64 bit is not must
by aiglehawk / March 22, 2006 9:07 PM PST
In reply to: Re

64 bit is not must for Vista, make it clear, as Vista will be shipped in 32 and 64 bit versions. How many of people ahve 64 bit capabel PCs, less than 50% sure, so do u think Microsoft is so stupid taht it will launch something taht will not run on 32 bit.
Secondly I will advice you to go for dual core as single core is going to be old technology, why to buy an old one, when u can buy latest will just a minimal fifference in price.
For vista 128-256 MB dedicated video memeory is safe.

Collapse -
Ghost has been given this infomation in the past, but
by togus / March 22, 2006 9:27 PM PST
In reply to: 64 bit is not must

seems to forget or ignore it. He's pretty torqued up about 64 bit computing, so this selective information retention is understandable.

It will be interesting to see if Vista ever gets launched, I understand Microsoft is now saying early 2007 for a roll out.

Collapse -
I know that !

But I'm pretty sure that 85% of people will have more fun with the 64 bits edition than the 32 bits !

Collapse -
I don't agree with you... Sorry
by Ghost26-20878886633866019035262628200812 / March 23, 2006 4:55 AM PST
In reply to: 64 bit is not must

You said ...

" (...) I will advice you to go for dual core as single core is going to be old technology (...) "

I don't agree with your statement. A single core processor will be , in certain cases, as powerful as a dual core. All depends of your utilisation, what you do with it. Don't come and see me and say : A dual-core is needed to do web sufing and e-mail ! Wwe survived before the era of the dual-core. We had a AMD Athlon 64 3700+ and it was working very fine. Dual-core is for person who really need it.

Exemple : My aunt have an AMD K6 or something like this clocked at 250 MHz I think with 128 MB of RAM. What's her use ? Listen to music, she goes sometimes paid her account on Internet, read news, e-mail with her friend. And she survives. She doesn't need an upgrade for a super Pentium D 9xx or an AMD Athlon 64 X2 4200+ for her utilisation !

This is the samething for the person you started this post. She wants to surf on the internet, do a little bit of gaming, e-mail... He doesn't need a dual-core processor for this ! Wink

But I agree with your last sentence : For vista 128-256 MB dedicated video memeory is safe.

But you must know that Integrated ATi's and Intel's graphics chipset are compatible with Windows Vista because both corporations work in partnership with Microsoft.

Collapse -
ok but
by aiglehawk / April 16, 2006 8:48 AM PDT

u try to understand my point. If all i have to surf the web and do office i can do even on P-2 or p-3. My point is that when u have a new technology that is not so costly, why go for older. Who knows after 1 year u need to do smoething more than just surfing?
About 64 bit I am very much clear it is not going to catch for at least few years. Even Vista( i wonder if Microsoft will be able to release it as promised- and how many bugs will come out in intial one year) will go 32 bit mostly. 64- bit is still very premature.

Collapse -
"64- bit is still very premature." ???
by R. Proffitt Forum moderator / April 16, 2006 8:53 AM PDT
In reply to: ok but

Really? I use such to my advantage today.

Should I stop?


Collapse -
x64's not required
by makorsha / June 9, 2006 12:19 AM PDT
In reply to: Re

check the microsft website...a 64 bit processor is not required to run windows intel 950g chipset with a core duo processor would be a decent enough laptop (provided ur not into playing games)

Popular Forums

Computer Newbies 10,686 discussions
Computer Help 54,365 discussions
Laptops 21,181 discussions
Networking & Wireless 16,313 discussions
Phones 17,137 discussions
Security 31,287 discussions
TVs & Home Theaters 22,101 discussions
Windows 7 8,164 discussions
Windows 10 2,657 discussions


Your favorite shows are back!

Don’t miss your dramas, sitcoms and reality shows. Find out when and where they’re airing!