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 <marrie12@gmail.com> 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 <govsta@gmail.com <mailto:govsta@gmail.com>> 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:
https://www.marcozehe.de/2017/09/29/rethinking-web-accessibility-on-windows/ <>
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 refreshed.
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?
--Debee


Michael Capelle <mcapelle@...>
 

i am using an i5 with no issues, i have seen many i7's, and see no difference in speed or performance.

-----Original Message-----
From: Shaun Everiss
Sent: Saturday, December 02, 2017 10:53 PM
To: nvda@nvda.groups.io
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 <marrie12@gmail.com> 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 <govsta@gmail.com <mailto:govsta@gmail.com>> 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:
https://www.marcozehe.de/2017/09/29/rethinking-web-accessibility-on-windows/ <>
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 refreshed.
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?
--Debee


Brian's Mail list account <bglists@...>
 

I think the issue with laptops is that its often hard to find out exactly what the corner cutters did on a specific model and whether it will impact you. However if a core duo can still be usable with xp, and you are going to get 10 then one would at least hope the hardware now is going to be a lot better unless you get one of those cut down Cerleron heaps Argos seem to be selling at knock down prices in garish colours apparently with never heard of makers names on them. You probably get what you pay for!
Brian

bglists@blueyonder.co.uk
Sent via blueyonder.
Please address personal email to:-
briang1@blueyonder.co.uk, putting 'Brian Gaff'
in the display name field.

----- Original Message -----
From: "tim" <z2004a1@gmail.com>
To: <nvda@nvda.groups.io>
Sent: Sunday, December 03, 2017 4:34 AM
Subject: Re: [nvda] OT: selecting a new laptop is more difficult than before


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 <marrie12@gmail.com> 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 <govsta@gmail.com <mailto:govsta@gmail.com>> 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:
https://www.marcozehe.de/2017/09/29/rethinking-web-accessibility-on-windows/ <>

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 refreshed.

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?

--Debee


Brian's Mail list account <bglists@...>
 

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.
Brian

bglists@blueyonder.co.uk
Sent via blueyonder.
Please address personal email to:-
briang1@blueyonder.co.uk, putting 'Brian Gaff'
in the display name field.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Shaun Everiss" <sm.everiss@gmail.com>
To: <nvda@nvda.groups.io>
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 <marrie12@gmail.com> 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 <govsta@gmail.com <mailto:govsta@gmail.com>> 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:
https://www.marcozehe.de/2017/09/29/rethinking-web-accessibility-on-windows/ <>
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 refreshed.
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?
--Debee


The Gamages
 

Hello,
Regarding SSDs, as I understand it, there is a slight issue with these in that some memory can become un writable, it can still be read, but nothing further can be writtten into it.
I realise that this can take a long time to happen and, if the drive is a large capacity, it may never be an issue.
I am only raising this point because I don’t fully understand the consequences of this.
I was told by a computer engineer that it is not a good idea to de fragment a solid state drive for this reason, it can make some memory un writable if it is done regularly and is not really necessary  on this sort of drive.
 
Comments please, even if you shoot me down in flames,[smile]..
 
Best Regards, Jim.
 

From: Tyler Wood
Sent: Friday, December 01, 2017 6:43 PM
Subject: Re: [nvda] OT: selecting a new laptop is more difficult than before
 

Keep in mind AMD has just released their ryzen mobile processors, so that should be interesting. Similar to Intel, it will be Ryzen 3 = intel i3, ryzen 5 = intel i5, ryzen 7 = intel i7.

In these modern days, hard drives truly limit the speed of a computer. If you can afford it, even if it takes a little longer to save up, go for something with a solid state drive. You’ll never go back again. Even a cheap windows tablet with a 64 gb ssd is going to beat the socks off of that huge i5 with a 1 tb spinning hard drives in booting up, general snappyness around windows. Web browsing not so much but even so the solid state drive is what makes or breaks a computer and is why you can get by with a core i3 or equal from AMD.

Sean has a good point about soundcards these days, too. And even with headphones on it can still be painful with speech – so try and play with them in the store using narrator.

 

 

From: Brian's Mail list account via Groups.Io
Sent: December 1, 2017 4:29 AM
To: nvda@nvda.groups.io
Subject: Re: [nvda] OT: selecting a new laptop is more difficult than before

 

Is there a n equivelance chart somewhere for what Intel and AMD systems are

roughly the same as each other?

Brian

 

bglists@...

Sent via blueyonder.

Please address personal email to:-

briang1@..., putting 'Brian Gaff'

in the display name field.

----- Original Message -----

From: "Don H" <lmddh50@...>

To: <nvda@nvda.groups.io>

Sent: Thursday, November 30, 2017 6:23 PM

Subject: Re: [nvda] OT: selecting a new laptop is more difficult than before

 

 

>I think it is important to get at least a Intel I3 processor or its AMD

>equal.  If you can't afford a higher Intel processor you will find fast AMD

>processors cheaper and just as good as Intel.

>

> On 11/30/2017 12:16 PM, 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:

>>> https://www.marcozehe.de/2017/09/29/rethinking-web-accessibility-on-windows/

>>> 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 refreshed.

>>> 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?

>>> --Debee

>>

>

>

>

>

 

 

 

 


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: nvda@nvda.groups.io [mailto:nvda@nvda.groups.io] On Behalf Of Brian's Mail list account via Groups.Io
Sent: December-03-17 4:16 AM
To: nvda@nvda.groups.io
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.
Brian

bglists@blueyonder.co.uk
Sent via blueyonder.
Please address personal email to:-
briang1@blueyonder.co.uk, putting 'Brian Gaff'
in the display name field.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Shaun Everiss" <sm.everiss@gmail.com>
To: <nvda@nvda.groups.io>
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 <marrie12@gmail.com> 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 <govsta@gmail.com
<mailto:govsta@gmail.com>> 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:

https://www.marcozehe.de/2017/09/29/rethinking-web-accessibility-on-windows/
<>
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
refreshed.
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?
--Debee



Antony Stone
 

I would be very interested if you could post some links to the information
about SSDs becoming unwriteable.

Regarding defragmenting an SSD - there is absolutely no point.

The whole purpose of defragmenting a traditional spinning hard disk was to get
all the parts of a single file together, instead of being spread (fragmented)
across the drive, which happens when small files are deleted and then larger
ones are written into the gaps afterwards. Having the entire file together in
one place is much more efficient for reading it later than having it spread
around the disk (because it takes time for the mechanical heads to go and find
all the different parts).

With an SSD, accessing one part is just as efficient as any other - nothing
needs to move to get to the next part, so fragmented files are no less efficient
to read than complete ones.


Antony.

On Sunday 03 December 2017 at 11:35:19, The Gamages wrote:

Hello,
Regarding SSDs, as I understand it, there is a slight issue with these in
that some memory can become un writable, it can still be read, but nothing
further can be writtten into it.
I realise that this can take a long time to happen and, if the drive is a
large capacity, it may never be an issue.
I am only raising this point because I don’t fully understand the
consequences of this.
I was told by a computer engineer that it is not a good idea to de fragment
a solid state drive for this reason, it can make some memory un writable if
it is done regularly and is not really necessary on this sort of drive.

Comments please, even if you shoot me down in flames,[smile]..

Best Regards, Jim.

From: Tyler Wood
Sent: Friday, December 01, 2017 6:43 PM
To: nvda@nvda.groups.io
Subject: Re: [nvda] OT: selecting a new laptop is more difficult than
before

Keep in mind AMD has just released their ryzen mobile processors, so that
should be interesting. Similar to Intel, it will be Ryzen 3 = intel i3,
ryzen 5 = intel i5, ryzen 7 = intel i7.

In these modern days, hard drives truly limit the speed of a computer. If
you can afford it, even if it takes a little longer to save up, go for
something with a solid state drive. You’ll never go back again. Even a
cheap windows tablet with a 64 gb ssd is going to beat the socks off of
that huge i5 with a 1 tb spinning hard drives in booting up, general
snappyness around windows. Web browsing not so much but even so the solid
state drive is what makes or breaks a computer and is why you can get by
with a core i3 or equal from AMD.

Sean has a good point about soundcards these days, too. And even with
headphones on it can still be painful with speech – so try and play with
them in the store using narrator.
--
"In fact I wanted to be John Cleese and it took me some time to realise that
the job was already taken."

- Douglas Adams

Please reply to the list;
please *don't* CC me.


Tyler Wood
 

Sorry, longer post than I intended.

AMD has had a history of being behind Intel on instructions per clock (IPC) ever since the Pentium 4 gave way to the introduction of the core solo and core duo etc. This means that, in theory, a 4 GHZ AMD was on par with a 3.2 ghz Intel core i7. This last year, though, with the introduction of ryzen, things are shaping up to be quite snappy and ryzen is keeping up with if not beating the latest 8th gen processors from Intel on the desktop front at least. I’m running an AMD fx8350 in this thing for the last 4 years. Rock solid reliability. I’m switching to intel not by choice but because the dell xps 8930 that I’m getting did not come with an AMD equal. I like the compact design and for the price I got it at I can’t go wrong.

Also for the person saying AMD comes in with integrated cards, yes they do but so does Intel and, at least right now, Intel is really starting to ramp on the graphics front, too. Nothing is going to beat a dedicated Nvidia graphics card or AMD, but if you don’t play mainstream games this really isn’t an issue and you’re only wasting money on things that could otherwise come in handy like a bigger solid state drive. If going for long term usability, a large ssd is essential – the way the world is changing and growing a 256 today could turn into a 512 gb next year before you know it. Similarly, processors are never new. Sure, they upgrade, and when you do get the newest you’re saving a lot of money over the years on your electric bill if we’re talking desktop processors. These little mini desktops pack a lot of punch for those doing light productivity tasks or whatnot and even quite a bit of audio converting and the like. My transformer book t100 that, 3 years ago, was everything I wanted in a small tablet is just barely sufficient these days. Chrome itself snaps up processor like it’s going out of style for me – it could be my add ons, though - and when you add the complexities that are surely coming in the future why hamper yourself with hardware that’s going to be old in 6 months? I used to laugh about it. Now I understand. I got an i7 not because I do super huge video converting, but in 4 years who knows what multithreaded applications will be like? Maybe NVDA, jaws, narrator, firefox, google chrome, windows explorer, skype, windows defender, and even windows updates will use 4 threads at a time rather than limiting themselves to 2. Maybe we’ll see laptop processors with 8 cores and 16 threads by 2022 or 2023. Software is really going to be pushing the boundaries now that AMD has finally given Intel a reason to step out of the mould they’ve set for the last decade.

 

Saying all this, I might be paranoid. I might be delusional. I’m sure moors law will quickly find its breaking point with the cilicone of these processors. It’s just something you want to consider when buying a new machine – yes, that celleron processor with 2 gb of ram may look nice now for $200. A year or two later and you’ll be wishing you saved up the money or spent the money to get even the i5 with 256 gb of storage and 8 gb ram.

 

Just my thoughts though.

 

From: Monte Single
Sent: December 3, 2017 4:35 AM
To: nvda@nvda.groups.io
Subject: Re: [nvda] OT: selecting a new laptop is more difficult than before

 

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: nvda@nvda.groups.io [mailto:nvda@nvda.groups.io] On Behalf Of Brian's Mail list account via Groups.Io

Sent: December-03-17 4:16 AM

To: nvda@nvda.groups.io

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.

Brian

 

bglists@...

Sent via blueyonder.

Please address personal email to:-

briang1@..., putting 'Brian Gaff'

in the display name field.

----- Original Message -----

From: "Shaun Everiss" <sm.everiss@...>

To: <nvda@nvda.groups.io>

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 <marrie12@...> 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 <govsta@...

>>>> <mailto:govsta@...>> 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:

>>>>>

>>>>> https://www.marcozehe.de/2017/09/29/rethinking-web-accessibility-on-windows/

>>>>> <>

>>>>>   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

>>>>> refreshed.

>>>>>   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?

>>>>>   --Debee

>>> 

>> 

>

>

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


Tyler Wood
 

Hi,

I think this mostly applied to ssd’s that were out 6 or more years ago. I have had this one running steady – and I have not done anything like delete the page file, change temporary file location etc to a spinning hard drive. It still has 97^ life left, according to hw monitor and hw info. It’s coming up on 5 years old in March. They have nifty logic boards in them and everything – though as they say, your mileage may vary. This one has also been very close to full most of its life – it’s a 120 gb Intel ssd. I think the 520 series from 2013.

 

From: Antony Stone
Sent: December 3, 2017 4:42 AM
To: nvda@nvda.groups.io
Subject: Re: [nvda] OT: selecting a new laptop is more difficult than before

 

I would be very interested if you could post some links to the information

about SSDs becoming unwriteable.

 

Regarding defragmenting an SSD - there is absolutely no point.

 

The whole purpose of defragmenting a traditional spinning hard disk was to get

all the parts of a single file together, instead of being spread (fragmented)

across the drive, which happens when small files are deleted and then larger

ones are written into the gaps afterwards.  Having the entire file together in

one place is much more efficient for reading it later than having it spread

around the disk (because it takes time for the mechanical heads to go and find

all the different parts).

 

With an SSD, accessing one part is just as efficient as any other - nothing

needs to move to get to the next part, so fragmented files are no less efficient

to read than complete ones.

 

 

Antony.

 

On Sunday 03 December 2017 at 11:35:19, The Gamages wrote:

 

> Hello,

> Regarding SSDs, as I understand it, there is a slight issue with these in

> that some memory can become un writable, it can still be read, but nothing

> further can be writtten into it.

> I realise that this can take a long time to happen and, if the drive is a

> large capacity, it may never be an issue.

> I am only raising this point because I don’t fully understand the

> consequences of this.

> I was told by a computer engineer that it is not a good idea to de fragment

> a solid state drive for this reason, it can make some memory un writable if

> it is done regularly and is not really necessary  on this sort of drive.

>

> Comments please, even if you shoot me down in flames,[smile]..

>

> Best Regards, Jim.

>

> From: Tyler Wood

> Sent: Friday, December 01, 2017 6:43 PM

> To: nvda@nvda.groups.io

> Subject: Re: [nvda] OT: selecting a new laptop is more difficult than

> before

>

> Keep in mind AMD has just released their ryzen mobile processors, so that

> should be interesting. Similar to Intel, it will be Ryzen 3 = intel i3,

> ryzen 5 = intel i5, ryzen 7 = intel i7.

>

> In these modern days, hard drives truly limit the speed of a computer. If

> you can afford it, even if it takes a little longer to save up, go for

> something with a solid state drive. You’ll never go back again. Even a

> cheap windows tablet with a 64 gb ssd is going to beat the socks off of

> that huge i5 with a 1 tb spinning hard drives in booting up, general

> snappyness around windows. Web browsing not so much but even so the solid

> state drive is what makes or breaks a computer and is why you can get by

> with a core i3 or equal from AMD.

>

> Sean has a good point about soundcards these days, too. And even with

> headphones on it can still be painful with speech – so try and play with

> them in the store using narrator.

 

--

"In fact I wanted to be John Cleese and it took me some time to realise that

the job was already taken."

 

- Douglas Adams

 

                                                   Please reply to the list;

                                                         please *don't* CC me.

 

 

 


David Griffith
 

Ditto – I have been  using a Desktop with AMD for the last 5 years.

David Griffith

 

My Blind Access and Guide dog Blog
http://dgriffithblog.wordpress.com/
My Blind hammer Blog
https://www.westhamtillidie.com/authors/blind-hammer/posts

 

From: Monte Single
Sent: 03 December 2017 10:35
To: nvda@nvda.groups.io
Subject: Re: [nvda] OT: selecting a new laptop is more difficult than before

 

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: nvda@nvda.groups.io [mailto:nvda@nvda.groups.io] On Behalf Of Brian's Mail list account via Groups.Io

Sent: December-03-17 4:16 AM

To: nvda@nvda.groups.io

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.

Brian

 

bglists@...

Sent via blueyonder.

Please address personal email to:-

briang1@..., putting 'Brian Gaff'

in the display name field.

----- Original Message -----

From: "Shaun Everiss" <sm.everiss@...>

To: <nvda@nvda.groups.io>

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 <marrie12@...> 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 <govsta@...

>>>> <mailto:govsta@...>> 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:

>>>>>

>>>>> https://www.marcozehe.de/2017/09/29/rethinking-web-accessibility-on-windows/

>>>>> <>

>>>>>   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

>>>>> refreshed.

>>>>>   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?

>>>>>   --Debee

>>> 

>> 

>

>

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


Brian's Mail list account <bglists@...>
 

Yes I was told this as well. I think its just that the memory can wear out. Not a lot seems to be known about this, but it can happen. One of the Martian Rovers has started to exhibit this issue, and a service call to that particular installation is not going to be possible!
It seems mostly its flash ram ie ram that is non volatile, the refreshed memory takes current and has a refresh cycle that keeps the 1s and 0s as they were. I guess flash settings can just leak away over time.


I do on average every 6 months or so do a registry defrag and clean, as this seems to still impact boot up time. The other parts seem not to care.
Mine is a Samsung 250 meg one.
Brian

bglists@blueyonder.co.uk
Sent via blueyonder.
Please address personal email to:-
briang1@blueyonder.co.uk, putting 'Brian Gaff'
in the display name field.

----- Original Message -----
From: "The Gamages" <james.gamage@btinternet.com>
To: <nvda@nvda.groups.io>
Sent: Sunday, December 03, 2017 10:35 AM
Subject: Re: [nvda] OT: selecting a new laptop is more difficult than before


Hello,
Regarding SSDs, as I understand it, there is a slight issue with these in
that some memory can become un writable, it can still be read, but nothing
further can be writtten into it.
I realise that this can take a long time to happen and, if the drive is a
large capacity, it may never be an issue.
I am only raising this point because I don’t fully understand the
consequences of this.
I was told by a computer engineer that it is not a good idea to de fragment
a solid state drive for this reason, it can make some memory un writable if
it is done regularly and is not really necessary on this sort of drive.

Comments please, even if you shoot me down in flames,[smile]..

Best Regards, Jim.

From: Tyler Wood
Sent: Friday, December 01, 2017 6:43 PM
To: nvda@nvda.groups.io
Subject: Re: [nvda] OT: selecting a new laptop is more difficult than before

Keep in mind AMD has just released their ryzen mobile processors, so that
should be interesting. Similar to Intel, it will be Ryzen 3 = intel i3,
ryzen 5 = intel i5, ryzen 7 = intel i7.

In these modern days, hard drives truly limit the speed of a computer. If
you can afford it, even if it takes a little longer to save up, go for
something with a solid state drive. You’ll never go back again. Even a cheap
windows tablet with a 64 gb ssd is going to beat the socks off of that huge
i5 with a 1 tb spinning hard drives in booting up, general snappyness around
windows. Web browsing not so much but even so the solid state drive is what
makes or breaks a computer and is why you can get by with a core i3 or equal
from AMD.

Sean has a good point about soundcards these days, too. And even with
headphones on it can still be painful with speech – so try and play with
them in the store using narrator.





From: Brian's Mail list account via Groups.Io
Sent: December 1, 2017 4:29 AM
To: nvda@nvda.groups.io
Subject: Re: [nvda] OT: selecting a new laptop is more difficult than before



Is there a n equivelance chart somewhere for what Intel and AMD systems are

roughly the same as each other?

Brian



bglists@blueyonder.co.uk

Sent via blueyonder.

Please address personal email to:-

briang1@blueyonder.co.uk, putting 'Brian Gaff'

in the display name field.

----- Original Message -----

From: "Don H" <lmddh50@adams.net>

To: <nvda@nvda.groups.io>

Sent: Thursday, November 30, 2017 6:23 PM

Subject: Re: [nvda] OT: selecting a new laptop is more difficult than before





I think it is important to get at least a Intel I3 processor or its AMD
equal. If you can't afford a higher Intel processor you will find fast AMD
processors cheaper and just as good as Intel.
On 11/30/2017 12:16 PM, 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:
https://www.marcozehe.de/2017/09/29/rethinking-web-accessibility-on-windows/
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 refreshed.
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?
--Debee


Brian's Mail list account <bglists@...>
 

Of course it could be something that goes wrong elsewhere, say on the motherboards. Its got so many variables I wonder if anyone has actually disected the real reasons for failures.
Anyway, this is getting far off topic now compared to the speed needed to run nvda with real world apps on windows 10 on a new laptop, which was the original point here.
Brian

bglists@blueyonder.co.uk
Sent via blueyonder.
Please address personal email to:-
briang1@blueyonder.co.uk, putting 'Brian Gaff'
in the display name field.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Monte Single" <mrsingle@sasktel.net>
To: <nvda@nvda.groups.io>
Sent: Sunday, December 03, 2017 10:35 AM
Subject: Re: [nvda] OT: selecting a new laptop is more difficult than before


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: nvda@nvda.groups.io [mailto:nvda@nvda.groups.io] On Behalf Of Brian's Mail list account via Groups.Io
Sent: December-03-17 4:16 AM
To: nvda@nvda.groups.io
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.
Brian

bglists@blueyonder.co.uk
Sent via blueyonder.
Please address personal email to:-
briang1@blueyonder.co.uk, putting 'Brian Gaff'
in the display name field.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Shaun Everiss" <sm.everiss@gmail.com>
To: <nvda@nvda.groups.io>
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 <marrie12@gmail.com> 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 <govsta@gmail.com
<mailto:govsta@gmail.com>> 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:

https://www.marcozehe.de/2017/09/29/rethinking-web-accessibility-on-windows/
<>
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
refreshed.
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?
--Debee



Gene
 

At some point, perhaps as early as Windows 7, Windows won't even let you defragment SSD drives, as I recall. 
 
On another subject related to SSD drives, I consider sweeping statements such as, these days, everyone should have SSD drives to be far too prescriptive and overgeneral.  If you do things where speed matters, copying lots of large files, converting lots of large files, doing a lot of recording of long works and exporting the recording to a compressed format such as MP3, and other uses I haven't though of while at the moment, then it would make sense.  but if you mainly do things like word processing, web browsing, and other typical uses, I don't consider it important.  there are some people who just want everything to be very fast, they don't want programs to take one or two seconds to open, they want a program to open almost instantly.  If they want to spend the money for emotional satisfaction and indulgence, fine, but not everyone wants or needs hotrods, whetgher in computers, cars, or anywhere else. 
 
There may be another time when having an SSD drive might be important, others may wish to comment.  If you have a laptop, and are going to use it under conditions where it will be jostled and jolted somewhat severely or severely while in use, such as driving over rather rough or very rough roads, then I would think an SSD would be a good idea or  important. 
 
Gene
----- Original Message -----

Sent: Sunday, December 03, 2017 4:42 AM
Subject: Re: [nvda] OT: selecting a new laptop is more difficult than before

I would be very interested if you could post some links to the information
about SSDs becoming unwriteable.

Regarding defragmenting an SSD - there is absolutely no point.

The whole purpose of defragmenting a traditional spinning hard disk was to get
all the parts of a single file together, instead of being spread (fragmented)
across the drive, which happens when small files are deleted and then larger
ones are written into the gaps afterwards.  Having the entire file together in
one place is much more efficient for reading it later than having it spread
around the disk (because it takes time for the mechanical heads to go and find
all the different parts).

With an SSD, accessing one part is just as efficient as any other - nothing
needs to move to get to the next part, so fragmented files are no less efficient
to read than complete ones.


Antony.

On Sunday 03 December 2017 at 11:35:19, The Gamages wrote:

> Hello,
> Regarding SSDs, as I understand it, there is a slight issue with these in
> that some memory can become un writable, it can still be read, but nothing
> further can be writtten into it.
> I realise that this can take a long time to happen and, if the drive is a
> large capacity, it may never be an issue.
> I am only raising this point because I don’t fully understand the
> consequences of this.
> I was told by a computer engineer that it is not a good idea to de fragment
> a solid state drive for this reason, it can make some memory un writable if
> it is done regularly and is not really necessary  on this sort of drive.
>
> Comments please, even if you shoot me down in flames,[smile]..
>
> Best Regards, Jim.
>
> From: Tyler Wood
> Sent: Friday, December 01, 2017 6:43 PM
> To: nvda@nvda.groups.io
> Subject: Re: [nvda] OT: selecting a new laptop is more difficult than
> before
>
> Keep in mind AMD has just released their ryzen mobile processors, so that
> should be interesting. Similar to Intel, it will be Ryzen 3 = intel i3,
> ryzen 5 = intel i5, ryzen 7 = intel i7.
>
> In these modern days, hard drives truly limit the speed of a computer. If
> you can afford it, even if it takes a little longer to save up, go for
> something with a solid state drive. You’ll never go back again. Even a
> cheap windows tablet with a 64 gb ssd is going to beat the socks off of
> that huge i5 with a 1 tb spinning hard drives in booting up, general
> snappyness around windows. Web browsing not so much but even so the solid
> state drive is what makes or breaks a computer and is why you can get by
> with a core i3 or equal from AMD.
>
> Sean has a good point about soundcards these days, too. And even with
> headphones on it can still be painful with speech – so try and play with
> them in the store using narrator.

--
"In fact I wanted to be John Cleese and it took me some time to realise that
the job was already taken."

 - Douglas Adams

                                                   Please reply to the list;
                                                         please *don't* CC me.




Gene
 

Bootup time can be reduced to an almost nonexistent issue if people would use the tools Microsoft has made available since xp, reliably to almost eliminate the need to reboot, those features being sleep or hibernate.  I reboot my machines off and on to clear the memory and not have performance degredation caused by going too long between boots.  People may want to experiment to see how long their machines may go without rebooting.  I can use my machines for about five or seven days, maybe longer, before I start to have problems.  Others may need to reboot much more often.  I don't do anythingt such as registry defrags, even if they would speed bootup up, because I so seldom boot up.  Why should I when I can put a machine in sleep, and resume from sleep in two or three seconds?  Hibernate takes longer to resume from but it's much faster than booting up.  Windows 10 has fast boot and, if you use it, I don't know if there is any reason to use hibernate or sleep in a Windows 10 machine, but with all the emphasis on boot times for so many years, why have so few people used these Microsoft provided solutions that have been available and worked well for over a decade?
 
Gene

----- Original Message -----
Sent: Sunday, December 03, 2017 5:42 AM
Subject: Re: [nvda] OT: selecting a new laptop is more difficult than before

Yes I was told this as well. I think its just that the memory can wear out.
Not a lot seems to be known about this, but it can happen. One of the
Martian Rovers has started to exhibit this issue, and a service call to that
particular installation is not going to be possible!
 It seems mostly its flash ram ie ram that is non volatile, the refreshed
memory takes current and has a refresh cycle that keeps the 1s and 0s as
they were. I guess flash settings can just leak away over time.


I do on average every 6 months or so do a registry defrag and clean, as this
seems to still impact boot up time. The other parts seem not to care.
 Mine is a Samsung 250 meg one.
 Brian

bglists@...
Sent via blueyonder.
Please address personal email to:-
briang1@..., putting 'Brian Gaff'
in the display name field.
----- Original Message -----
From: "The Gamages" <james.gamage@...>
To: <nvda@nvda.groups.io>
Sent: Sunday, December 03, 2017 10:35 AM
Subject: Re: [nvda] OT: selecting a new laptop is more difficult than before


Hello,
Regarding SSDs, as I understand it, there is a slight issue with these in
that some memory can become un writable, it can still be read, but nothing
further can be writtten into it.
I realise that this can take a long time to happen and, if the drive is a
large capacity, it may never be an issue.
I am only raising this point because I don’t fully understand the
consequences of this.
I was told by a computer engineer that it is not a good idea to de fragment
a solid state drive for this reason, it can make some memory un writable if
it is done regularly and is not really necessary  on this sort of drive.

Comments please, even if you shoot me down in flames,[smile]..

Best Regards, Jim.

From: Tyler Wood
Sent: Friday, December 01, 2017 6:43 PM
To: nvda@nvda.groups.io
Subject: Re: [nvda] OT: selecting a new laptop is more difficult than before

Keep in mind AMD has just released their ryzen mobile processors, so that
should be interesting. Similar to Intel, it will be Ryzen 3 = intel i3,
ryzen 5 = intel i5, ryzen 7 = intel i7.

In these modern days, hard drives truly limit the speed of a computer. If
you can afford it, even if it takes a little longer to save up, go for
something with a solid state drive. You’ll never go back again. Even a cheap
windows tablet with a 64 gb ssd is going to beat the socks off of that huge
i5 with a 1 tb spinning hard drives in booting up, general snappyness around
windows. Web browsing not so much but even so the solid state drive is what
makes or breaks a computer and is why you can get by with a core i3 or equal
from AMD.

Sean has a good point about soundcards these days, too. And even with
headphones on it can still be painful with speech – so try and play with
them in the store using narrator.





From: Brian's Mail list account via Groups.Io
Sent: December 1, 2017 4:29 AM
To: nvda@nvda.groups.io
Subject: Re: [nvda] OT: selecting a new laptop is more difficult than before



Is there a n equivelance chart somewhere for what Intel and AMD systems are

roughly the same as each other?

Brian



bglists@...

Sent via blueyonder.

Please address personal email to:-

briang1@..., putting 'Brian Gaff'

in the display name field.

----- Original Message -----

From: "Don H" <lmddh50@...>

To: <nvda@nvda.groups.io>

Sent: Thursday, November 30, 2017 6:23 PM

Subject: Re: [nvda] OT: selecting a new laptop is more difficult than before





>I think it is important to get at least a Intel I3 processor or its AMD

>equal.  If you can't afford a higher Intel processor you will find fast AMD

>processors cheaper and just as good as Intel.

>

> On 11/30/2017 12:16 PM, 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:

>>> https://www.marcozehe.de/2017/09/29/rethinking-web-accessibility-on-windows/

>>> 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 refreshed.

>>> 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?

>>> --Debee

>>

>

>

>

>















Rui Fontes
 

Hello!


Às 10:52 de 03/12/2017, Tyler Wood escreveu:
Saying all this, I might be paranoid. I might be delusional. I’m sure moors law will quickly find its breaking point with the cilicone of these processors. It’s just something you want to consider when buying a new machine – yes, that celleron processor with 2 gb of ram may look nice now for $200. A year or two later and you’ll be wishing you saved up the money or spent the money to get even the i5 with 256 gb of storage and 8 gb ram.

Or why not change computer every each two or three years, instead of spending a lot of moneyeach every 5 or 6 years?

I have used a ASUS Transformer Book T100 by two and hal years, and now I am using a chinese similar PC with a better processor, a Intel(R) Core(TM) m3-7Y30 CPU @ 1.00GHz, with Turbo to 2.6GHz, and 4Gb of RAM instead of 2Gb from ASUS...

Probably, I will replace it in 2019... But, between both machines, I spent only US$700...
For 4 or 5 years, I think it is good value for the money... 

Rui


Gene
 

I don't follow these things in any systematic way and I'm not a tech, but I'm skeptical that suddenly, programs will be so demanding that all these four or five year old machines will be obsolete.  Things just don't change that fast, and what functions could a browser possibly perform that is going to make them require that much power, or a word processor, etc.  there may be prohgrams as time goes by that require enormous amounts of power for home use, things change and things may use more power to an extent if it is available.  But for years, we've had 64 bit Windows.  Most programs are still 32 bit.  they don't have to be 64 bit and program designers don't arbitrarily spend time designing new and more powerful versions of programs just because processors are more powerful.  I don't spend lots of extra money because, maybe, in a few years, I'll have to buy something new based on nothing but speculation when I've never seen such patterns in the past.  Why should such patterns suddenly change in the next few years? 
 
Gene

From: Rui Fontes
Sent: Sunday, December 03, 2017 10:44 AM
Subject: Re: [nvda] OT: selecting a new laptop is more difficult than before

Hello!


Às 10:52 de 03/12/2017, Tyler Wood escreveu:
Saying all this, I might be paranoid. I might be delusional. I’m sure moors law will quickly find its breaking point with the cilicone of these processors. It’s just something you want to consider when buying a new machine – yes, that celleron processor with 2 gb of ram may look nice now for $200. A year or two later and you’ll be wishing you saved up the money or spent the money to get even the i5 with 256 gb of storage and 8 gb ram.

Or why not change computer every each two or three years, instead of spending a lot of moneyeach every 5 or 6 years?

I have used a ASUS Transformer Book T100 by two and hal years, and now I am using a chinese similar PC with a better processor, a Intel(R) Core(TM) m3-7Y30 CPU @ 1.00GHz, with Turbo to 2.6GHz, and 4Gb of RAM instead of 2Gb from ASUS...

Probably, I will replace it in 2019... But, between both machines, I spent only US$700...
For 4 or 5 years, I think it is good value for the money... 

Rui


 

Well I have used amd video hardware for ages, right now amd switched chipsets putting a lot of older cards such as mine and one in the other system I have out of business.

The new drivers settings app crash windows but as long as you don't need to run it it works.

I have never had any machine with amd hardware fail on me due to the processer.

I have had syncs become degreased, dust full systems, busted fans and psus, and even busted video and tuner cards mangling systems and hard drives as well as ram and boards but never cpus.

On 3/12/2017 11:35 p.m., Monte Single wrote:
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: nvda@nvda.groups.io [mailto:nvda@nvda.groups.io] On Behalf Of Brian's Mail list account via Groups.Io
Sent: December-03-17 4:16 AM
To: nvda@nvda.groups.io
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.
Brian

bglists@blueyonder.co.uk
Sent via blueyonder.
Please address personal email to:-
briang1@blueyonder.co.uk, putting 'Brian Gaff'
in the display name field.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Shaun Everiss" <sm.everiss@gmail.com>
To: <nvda@nvda.groups.io>
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 <marrie12@gmail.com> 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 <govsta@gmail.com
<mailto:govsta@gmail.com>> 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:

https://www.marcozehe.de/2017/09/29/rethinking-web-accessibility-on-windows/
<>
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
refreshed.
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?
--Debee






enes sarıbaş
 

hi,

I respectfully disagree. The speed difference from an ssd is so massive that, even with very simplistic daily tasks, getting an ssd can be a massive time saver. I agree that anyone who can aford it should get an ssd.


On 12/3/2017 5:48 PM, Gene wrote:
At some point, perhaps as early as Windows 7, Windows won't even let you defragment SSD drives, as I recall. 
 
On another subject related to SSD drives, I consider sweeping statements such as, these days, everyone should have SSD drives to be far too prescriptive and overgeneral.  If you do things where speed matters, copying lots of large files, converting lots of large files, doing a lot of recording of long works and exporting the recording to a compressed format such as MP3, and other uses I haven't though of while at the moment, then it would make sense.  but if you mainly do things like word processing, web browsing, and other typical uses, I don't consider it important.  there are some people who just want everything to be very fast, they don't want programs to take one or two seconds to open, they want a program to open almost instantly.  If they want to spend the money for emotional satisfaction and indulgence, fine, but not everyone wants or needs hotrods, whetgher in computers, cars, or anywhere else. 
 
There may be another time when having an SSD drive might be important, others may wish to comment.  If you have a laptop, and are going to use it under conditions where it will be jostled and jolted somewhat severely or severely while in use, such as driving over rather rough or very rough roads, then I would think an SSD would be a good idea or  important. 
 
Gene
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Sunday, December 03, 2017 4:42 AM
Subject: Re: [nvda] OT: selecting a new laptop is more difficult than before

I would be very interested if you could post some links to the information
about SSDs becoming unwriteable.

Regarding defragmenting an SSD - there is absolutely no point.

The whole purpose of defragmenting a traditional spinning hard disk was to get
all the parts of a single file together, instead of being spread (fragmented)
across the drive, which happens when small files are deleted and then larger
ones are written into the gaps afterwards.  Having the entire file together in
one place is much more efficient for reading it later than having it spread
around the disk (because it takes time for the mechanical heads to go and find
all the different parts).

With an SSD, accessing one part is just as efficient as any other - nothing
needs to move to get to the next part, so fragmented files are no less efficient
to read than complete ones.


Antony.

On Sunday 03 December 2017 at 11:35:19, The Gamages wrote:

> Hello,
> Regarding SSDs, as I understand it, there is a slight issue with these in
> that some memory can become un writable, it can still be read, but nothing
> further can be writtten into it.
> I realise that this can take a long time to happen and, if the drive is a
> large capacity, it may never be an issue.
> I am only raising this point because I don’t fully understand the
> consequences of this.
> I was told by a computer engineer that it is not a good idea to de fragment
> a solid state drive for this reason, it can make some memory un writable if
> it is done regularly and is not really necessary  on this sort of drive.
>
> Comments please, even if you shoot me down in flames,[smile]..
>
> Best Regards, Jim.
>
> From: Tyler Wood
> Sent: Friday, December 01, 2017 6:43 PM
> To: nvda@nvda.groups.io
> Subject: Re: [nvda] OT: selecting a new laptop is more difficult than
> before
>
> Keep in mind AMD has just released their ryzen mobile processors, so that
> should be interesting. Similar to Intel, it will be Ryzen 3 = intel i3,
> ryzen 5 = intel i5, ryzen 7 = intel i7.
>
> In these modern days, hard drives truly limit the speed of a computer. If
> you can afford it, even if it takes a little longer to save up, go for
> something with a solid state drive. You’ll never go back again. Even a
> cheap windows tablet with a 64 gb ssd is going to beat the socks off of
> that huge i5 with a 1 tb spinning hard drives in booting up, general
> snappyness around windows. Web browsing not so much but even so the solid
> state drive is what makes or breaks a computer and is why you can get by
> with a core i3 or equal from AMD.
>
> Sean has a good point about soundcards these days, too. And even with
> headphones on it can still be painful with speech – so try and play with
> them in the store using narrator.

--
"In fact I wanted to be John Cleese and it took me some time to realise that
the job was already taken."

 - Douglas Adams

                                                   Please reply to the list;
                                                         please *don't* CC me.





Lenron
 

Agreed even when doing simple things an ssd is faster. This is just facts.

On 12/3/17, enes sarıbaş <enes.saribas@gmail.com> wrote:
hi,

I respectfully disagree. The speed difference from an ssd is so massive
that, even with very simplistic daily tasks, getting an ssd can be a
massive time saver. I agree that anyone who can aford it should get an ssd.


On 12/3/2017 5:48 PM, Gene wrote:
At some point, perhaps as early as Windows 7, Windows won't even let
you defragment SSD drives, as I recall.
On another subject related to SSD drives, I consider sweeping
statements such as, these days, everyone should have SSD drives to be
far too prescriptive and overgeneral.  If you do things where speed
matters, copying lots of large files, converting lots of large files,
doing a lot of recording of long works and exporting the recording to
a compressed format such as MP3, and other uses I haven't though of
while at the moment, then it would make sense.  but if you mainly do
things like word processing, web browsing, and other typical uses, I
don't consider it important.  there are some people who just want
everything to be very fast, they don't want programs to take one or
two seconds to open, they want a program to open almost instantly.  If
they want to spend the money for emotional satisfaction and
indulgence, fine, but not everyone wants or needs hotrods, whetgher in
computers, cars, or anywhere else.
There may be another time when having an SSD drive might be important,
others may wish to comment.  If you have a laptop, and are going to
use it under conditions where it will be jostled and jolted somewhat
severely or severely while in use, such as driving over rather rough
or very rough roads, then I would think an SSD would be a good idea
or  important.
Gene
----- Original Message -----
*From:* Antony Stone <mailto:antony.stone@nvda.open.source.it>
*Sent:* Sunday, December 03, 2017 4:42 AM
*To:* nvda@nvda.groups.io <mailto:nvda@nvda.groups.io>
*Subject:* Re: [nvda] OT: selecting a new laptop is more difficult
than before

I would be very interested if you could post some links to the
information
about SSDs becoming unwriteable.

Regarding defragmenting an SSD - there is absolutely no point.

The whole purpose of defragmenting a traditional spinning hard disk
was to get
all the parts of a single file together, instead of being spread
(fragmented)
across the drive, which happens when small files are deleted and then
larger
ones are written into the gaps afterwards.  Having the entire file
together in
one place is much more efficient for reading it later than having it
spread
around the disk (because it takes time for the mechanical heads to go
and find
all the different parts).

With an SSD, accessing one part is just as efficient as any other -
nothing
needs to move to get to the next part, so fragmented files are no less
efficient
to read than complete ones.


Antony.

On Sunday 03 December 2017 at 11:35:19, The Gamages wrote:

Hello,
Regarding SSDs, as I understand it, there is a slight issue with
these in
that some memory can become un writable, it can still be read, but
nothing
further can be writtten into it.
I realise that this can take a long time to happen and, if the drive
is a
large capacity, it may never be an issue.
I am only raising this point because I don’t fully understand the
consequences of this.
I was told by a computer engineer that it is not a good idea to de
fragment
a solid state drive for this reason, it can make some memory un
writable if
it is done regularly and is not really necessary  on this sort of
drive.

Comments please, even if you shoot me down in flames,[smile]..

Best Regards, Jim.

From: Tyler Wood
Sent: Friday, December 01, 2017 6:43 PM
To: nvda@nvda.groups.io <mailto:nvda@nvda.groups.io>
Subject: Re: [nvda] OT: selecting a new laptop is more difficult than
before

Keep in mind AMD has just released their ryzen mobile processors, so
that
should be interesting. Similar to Intel, it will be Ryzen 3 = intel i3,
ryzen 5 = intel i5, ryzen 7 = intel i7.

In these modern days, hard drives truly limit the speed of a
computer. If
you can afford it, even if it takes a little longer to save up, go for
something with a solid state drive. You’ll never go back again. Even a
cheap windows tablet with a 64 gb ssd is going to beat the socks off of
that huge i5 with a 1 tb spinning hard drives in booting up, general
snappyness around windows. Web browsing not so much but even so the
solid
state drive is what makes or breaks a computer and is why you can get
by
with a core i3 or equal from AMD.

Sean has a good point about soundcards these days, too. And even with
headphones on it can still be painful with speech – so try and play
with
them in the store using narrator.
--
"In fact I wanted to be John Cleese and it took me some time to
realise that
the job was already taken."

 - Douglas Adams

                                                   Please reply to the
list;
                                                         please
*don't* CC me.



--
Lenron Brown
Cell: 985-271-2832
Skype: ron.brown762


enes sarıbaş
 

not just faster, much much faster.

On 12/4/2017 9:05 AM, Lenron wrote:
Agreed even when doing simple things an ssd is faster. This is just facts.

On 12/3/17, enes sarıbaş <enes.saribas@gmail.com> wrote:
hi,

I respectfully disagree. The speed difference from an ssd is so massive
that, even with very simplistic daily tasks, getting an ssd can be a
massive time saver. I agree that anyone who can aford it should get an ssd.


On 12/3/2017 5:48 PM, Gene wrote:
At some point, perhaps as early as Windows 7, Windows won't even let
you defragment SSD drives, as I recall.
On another subject related to SSD drives, I consider sweeping
statements such as, these days, everyone should have SSD drives to be
far too prescriptive and overgeneral.  If you do things where speed
matters, copying lots of large files, converting lots of large files,
doing a lot of recording of long works and exporting the recording to
a compressed format such as MP3, and other uses I haven't though of
while at the moment, then it would make sense.  but if you mainly do
things like word processing, web browsing, and other typical uses, I
don't consider it important.  there are some people who just want
everything to be very fast, they don't want programs to take one or
two seconds to open, they want a program to open almost instantly.  If
they want to spend the money for emotional satisfaction and
indulgence, fine, but not everyone wants or needs hotrods, whetgher in
computers, cars, or anywhere else.
There may be another time when having an SSD drive might be important,
others may wish to comment.  If you have a laptop, and are going to
use it under conditions where it will be jostled and jolted somewhat
severely or severely while in use, such as driving over rather rough
or very rough roads, then I would think an SSD would be a good idea
or  important.
Gene
----- Original Message -----
*From:* Antony Stone <mailto:antony.stone@nvda.open.source.it>
*Sent:* Sunday, December 03, 2017 4:42 AM
*To:* nvda@nvda.groups.io <mailto:nvda@nvda.groups.io>
*Subject:* Re: [nvda] OT: selecting a new laptop is more difficult
than before

I would be very interested if you could post some links to the
information
about SSDs becoming unwriteable.

Regarding defragmenting an SSD - there is absolutely no point.

The whole purpose of defragmenting a traditional spinning hard disk
was to get
all the parts of a single file together, instead of being spread
(fragmented)
across the drive, which happens when small files are deleted and then
larger
ones are written into the gaps afterwards.  Having the entire file
together in
one place is much more efficient for reading it later than having it
spread
around the disk (because it takes time for the mechanical heads to go
and find
all the different parts).

With an SSD, accessing one part is just as efficient as any other -
nothing
needs to move to get to the next part, so fragmented files are no less
efficient
to read than complete ones.


Antony.

On Sunday 03 December 2017 at 11:35:19, The Gamages wrote:

Hello,
Regarding SSDs, as I understand it, there is a slight issue with
these in
that some memory can become un writable, it can still be read, but
nothing
further can be writtten into it.
I realise that this can take a long time to happen and, if the drive
is a
large capacity, it may never be an issue.
I am only raising this point because I don’t fully understand the
consequences of this.
I was told by a computer engineer that it is not a good idea to de
fragment
a solid state drive for this reason, it can make some memory un
writable if
it is done regularly and is not really necessary  on this sort of
drive.

Comments please, even if you shoot me down in flames,[smile]..

Best Regards, Jim.

From: Tyler Wood
Sent: Friday, December 01, 2017 6:43 PM
To: nvda@nvda.groups.io <mailto:nvda@nvda.groups.io>
Subject: Re: [nvda] OT: selecting a new laptop is more difficult than
before

Keep in mind AMD has just released their ryzen mobile processors, so
that
should be interesting. Similar to Intel, it will be Ryzen 3 = intel i3,
ryzen 5 = intel i5, ryzen 7 = intel i7.

In these modern days, hard drives truly limit the speed of a
computer. If
you can afford it, even if it takes a little longer to save up, go for
something with a solid state drive. You’ll never go back again. Even a
cheap windows tablet with a 64 gb ssd is going to beat the socks off of
that huge i5 with a 1 tb spinning hard drives in booting up, general
snappyness around windows. Web browsing not so much but even so the
solid
state drive is what makes or breaks a computer and is why you can get
by
with a core i3 or equal from AMD.

Sean has a good point about soundcards these days, too. And even with
headphones on it can still be painful with speech – so try and play
with
them in the store using narrator.
--
"In fact I wanted to be John Cleese and it took me some time to
realise that
the job was already taken."

 - Douglas Adams

                                                   Please reply to the
list;
                                                         please
*don't* CC me.