Re: OT: selecting a new laptop is more difficult than before

Monte Single

I have had desktops with a m d processors for 15 years. None of these machines had a processor problem; they just got old.
I think the talk of a m d processors being a problem is a myth.
I could be wrong.
Show me.

-----Original Message-----
From: [] On Behalf Of Brian's Mail list account via Groups.Io
Sent: December-03-17 4:16 AM
Subject: Re: [nvda] OT: selecting a new laptop is more difficult than before

Do you find that reliability is worse on AMD? I have had a couple of these just die on me in desktop machines in the last year, it has to be said both were second user and one cannot know what abuse has gone before of course.
Sent via blueyonder.
Please address personal email to:-, putting 'Brian Gaff'
in the display name field.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Shaun Everiss" <>
To: <>
Sent: Sunday, December 03, 2017 4:53 AM
Subject: Re: [nvda] OT: selecting a new laptop is more difficult than before

Well what I like about amd chips is that they usually have an intergrated
radion card in them.

On 3/12/2017 5:34 p.m., tim wrote:
You AMD equal to Intel is wy off, because I7 is 7 gen, I5 is 6 gen and I3
is 8 gen. Anything below this is slow and very out dated. Now only the I7
supports hyperthreding and the I5 only has quad turboboost and the I3 is
only dual core.
So I5 or better is good with Intel.
now AMD just go by the processor speed.
Now if your building a box like I am now. You try to get that CPU as high
as you can in a already built box to lower the cost. If your just getting
something like a Dell it don’t really matter your going for price.
Now I’m just wanting everything except drives and ram. I can get those
cheaper then a Dell box has and better.
On Dec 2, 2017, at 1:33 AM, Sarah k Alawami <> wrote:

I have a machien wiht 32 gigs of ram and an I think i5 4ghz processer
and 6 gig graphics card. It rocks and nvda runs just swimingly on it.

Take care

On Nov 30, 2017, at 10:16 AM, Governor staten <
<>> wrote:

One thing is for sure. You need at least 6 or 8 gb of ram. Netbooks no
longer cut it, at all. You could possibly find some refurbished
computers on Amazon.

I have an Asus netbook with 4 gb of ram (not expansible), 500 gb hard
drive, 2.16 ghz dual-core Intel Celeron processor. Graphics and audio
are built-in. I need to get a new computer, as well. I'm interested in
this discussion for that reason.

On 11/30/2017 11:26 AM, Deborah Armstrong wrote:
** This was also cross-posted to Cavi-discuss ***
As a screen reader user, I'm finding selecting a new laptop is more
difficult than ever before. I'm very curious to see what others think,
so please post your thoughts.
It used to be that I didn't feel I needed a super fast computer,
because I wasn't editing video. And nowadays if you look at reviews of
laptops, you'll see that people who edit photos, use CAD systems,
create art or engage in heavy gaming need fast machines. But for those
who just surf the web, read email and do some light word processing,
reviewers maintain that a slower and cheaper laptop will work just
fine. In fact, reviews of chromebooks are often mixed in with reviews
of inexpensive Windows laptops for just that reason.
In 2012 my Acer netbook (An AO-756) was the fastest ultraportable I
could buy for under $500. Its processor, a 1.4GHZ Intel Celeron 877
was a dual core from the Sandy Bridge family -- the slowest one in
that family, but it wasn't a much slower Atom. It had a reasonable
fast 500GB hard drive. I added 8GB of RAM making it even more useful
at running multiple tasks efficiently. I could use Word, Excel and
Outlook without latency and of course I did a lot of web surfing.
Compared to the computers at work, it was a bit slower, but like the
reviewers said, it didn't matter, since I didn't do computation-heavy
tasks at home.
What's changed today might best be covered in this post:
which discusses how screen readers access the web. Today, if I have
to work with a dynamic website, my little ACER is unbearably slow,
despite my having carefully maintained it so it doesn't run
unnecessary background tasks, and so that Windows is regularly fully
I am convinced the problem is not so much that the PC is slow, but
that the screen reader has become a palace built on a shack's
foundation. It needs everything it can squeeze out of the processor to
handle the new, dynamic web. Seems both NVDA and JAWS fail miserably
on slower processors.
But if a task does not depend on a screen reader, the machine is
still fairly fast. For example, when I OCR something in Kurzweil
1000, the laptop is just as fast as my much more powerful desktop
computers at work. And running something like Handbrake is indeed
slower on my laptop but not so slow it cannot be used. A video that
takes an hour to convert on my desktop at work might take fifteen
extra minutes on the laptop. Handbrake is often used as an informal
benchmarking tool.
But where instant responsiveness counts, my Netbook falls short. I
expect to hear something when I press a key. Often, today, I don't --
seems like I am always waiting for the screen reader to pull itself
together and find the focus, or cope with a dynamic partial page
refresh, or the next column in the spreadsheet, or read my next email
in Thunderbird.
The Acer actually got fractionally faster when I upgraded to Windows
10, but even so, I mostly wait after pressing a key to hear something
read back to me.
My work computers which run Core i7 Pentiums respond immediately,
even though they are saddled with far more background tasks required
by my job.
So if I were to trust reviews, this claim that for the kinds of
things I do at home on the laptop I don't need a very powerful
machine, I'd buy something with an Atom processor, a 128GB SSD and 2GB
of RAM. Clearly that would result in a machine that's even slower than
my existing laptop. Plus, it would have a quarter of the storage!
I guess the dilemma I'm struggling with here is how to avoid
spending a fortune and still get an ultraportable that has no latency
when I use a screen reader.
What do others think?

Join to automatically receive all group messages.