«

"impossible" <> wrote in message
news:vWuVi.160372$Xa3.129472@attbi_s22...
>
> Is this some kind of quiz you're running where we're supposed to keep
> guessing what you want?

No, I was in chat mode at this point, responding to the last point made in
this thread.

> You clearly have some definite specs in mind. Why don't you just go
> shopping yourself?

I am, concurrently to this thread. But being human, we have this advantage
of being able to share experiences and extrasomatic knowledge with each
other, and I was interested in the opinions of others. So shoot me!

Wake up on the wrong side of the bed this morning did we?

In message <fg5u90$b9$>, Nik Coughlin wrote:

> "impossible" <> wrote in message
> news:vWuVi.160372$Xa3.129472@attbi_s22...
>>
>> [bad-tempered snipe]
>
> Wake up on the wrong side of the bed this morning did we?

Don't worry about it, impossible is normally like that.

"Nik Coughlin" <> wrote in message
news:fg5u90$b9$...
>
> "impossible" <> wrote in message
> news:vWuVi.160372$Xa3.129472@attbi_s22...
>>
>> Is this some kind of quiz you're running where we're supposed to keep
>> guessing what you want?
>
> No, I was in chat mode at this point, responding to the last point made in
> this thread.
>
>> You clearly have some definite specs in mind. Why don't you just go
>> shopping yourself?
>
> I am, concurrently to this thread. But being human, we have this
> advantage of being able to share experiences and extrasomatic knowledge
> with each other, and I was interested in the opinions of others. So shoot
> me!
>
> Wake up on the wrong side of the bed this morning did we?

No, just puzzled why you throw out an open-ended request for suggestions,
then procede to shoot each one down based on prior conditions you'd already
settled on but hadn't bothered to tell anyone about. Better you should
follow some of the links I suggested to orient yourself to what's available
and what they cost, and then pose some specific questions you'd like
feedback on.

Somewhere on the interweb "Nik Coughlin" typed:
> "impossible" <> wrote in message
> news:vWuVi.160372$Xa3.129472@attbi_s22...
> >
> > Is this some kind of quiz you're running where we're supposed to
> > keep guessing what you want?
>
> No, I was in chat mode at this point, responding to the last point
> made in this thread.
>
> > You clearly have some definite specs in mind. Why don't you just go
> > shopping yourself?
>
> I am, concurrently to this thread. But being human, we have this
> advantage of being able to share experiences and extrasomatic
> knowledge with each other, and I was interested in the opinions of
> others. So shoot me!
> Wake up on the wrong side of the bed this morning did we?

He has a point Nik. You gave a lot less information in your first post than
was later forthcoming. Consequently, this sharing of extrasomatic knowledge
that you were hoping to benefit from has in fact wasted time for people
sharing. When they take the time to give you advice which, on further
'sharing' on your part, was a total waste of time it's no wonder that
someone might express frustration.

Way to **** people off. You have specifics in mind for this purchase that
you didn't mention initially, (and possibly more that you haven't
mentioned). If you want this sharing thing to be mutually satisfying then it
pays to give as much info as possible in your initial post. Otherwise you
leave people who were trying to be accomodating and help you feeling as if
they've been used and then dismissed.

The world used to be a lot more polite and considerate place. You use the
term "but being human.." as an explaination for your actions. One wonders
what that term means these days. Little by little we become less and less
"human". Instead of realising that impossible has a valid point and that you
have marginalised people in this thread, you insinuate that /he/ is in fact
the transgressor.

I fear for the future of the human race. It's little things like this that
define us, not cataclysmic events. The more it becomes acceptable to do the
easy thing, in this case get defensive, as opposed to thinking it through
and realising that you could in fact have done things differently, and
apologise, (or at least not get 'snarky') the less pleasant society becomes.

And so it goes....
--
TTFN

Shaun.

"~misfit~" <> wrote in message
news:fg61hl$s76$...
>
> I fear for the future of the human race. It's little things like this that
> define us, not cataclysmic events. The more it becomes acceptable to do
> the easy thing, in this case get defensive, as opposed to thinking it
> through and realising that you could in fact have done things differently,
> and apologise, (or at least not get 'snarky') the less pleasant society
> becomes.
>
> And so it goes....
> --
> TTFN
>
> Shaun.

Don't disagree but this coming from you nearly made me fall off my chair, if
only you took your own advice the world would indeed be a better place, I am
referring to my previous dealings with you of course where you couldn't be
more opposing the advice that you give here.

"impossible" <> wrote in message
news:BPvVi.177500$Fc.165655@attbi_s21...
>
> "Nik Coughlin" <> wrote in message
> news:fg5u90$b9$...
>>
>> "impossible" <> wrote in message
>> news:vWuVi.160372$Xa3.129472@attbi_s22...
>>>
>>> Is this some kind of quiz you're running where we're supposed to keep
>>> guessing what you want?
>>
>> No, I was in chat mode at this point, responding to the last point made
>> in this thread.
>>
>>> You clearly have some definite specs in mind. Why don't you just go
>>> shopping yourself?
>>
>> I am, concurrently to this thread. But being human, we have this
>> advantage of being able to share experiences and extrasomatic knowledge
>> with each other, and I was interested in the opinions of others. So
>> shoot me!
>>
>> Wake up on the wrong side of the bed this morning did we?
>
> No, just puzzled why you throw out an open-ended request for suggestions,
> then procede to shoot each one down based on prior conditions you'd
> already settled on but hadn't bothered to tell anyone about. Better you
> should follow some of the links I suggested to orient yourself to what's
> available and what they cost, and then pose some specific questions you'd
> like feedback on.

I have looked through most of those links, thanks. I've got a bad cold so
I'm not thinking too clearly today, I'm sorry if I was short with you (funny
really, I was accusing you of being short with me).

I don't have any specs in mind as anything that's sold new at the moment
will be powerful enough. My main concern is reliability at the low end of
the price range.

The last laptop that she had (it's for my girlfriend) was an Acer and she
had no end of trouble with it, and then had trouble getting it fixed. They
dragged their feet about even repairing it under CGA, as the warranty had
expired. Then they took weeks to get it back to her, at which point she had
to return it to be fixed again as they hadn't actually done anything.

Is the build quality likely to be the same regardless of brand at that price
level?

Does anyone have any particular brands to recommend for their build
quality/durability?

notebookreview didn't seem to have much or anything about most of the cheap
models being sold here at the moment.

I tried a Google search for these to try and get comments, which was
interesting:

"Dell laptops are"
"Toshiba laptops are"
"Compaq laptops are"
etc.

Probably was that there were disparaging remarks for all of the brands. You
can't please all of the people all of the time I guess

"thingy" <> wrote in message
news:5c1iv4-...
> Nik Coughlin wrote:
>> Hi, looking for advice or recommendations on a laptop with the optimum
>> balance of cheap and reliable. Does not have to be powerful, will mainly
>> be used for web browsing and running Office.
>>
>> Thanks!
>
> Depends on how cheap and reliable you want!
>
> The bottom end laptops at $800~$900 from DSE look very good value for
> money....I'd look at the Asus ones as they have a 2 year warrantee as
> standard (I believe).

I like Asus, I have one that is 5 or 6 years old, doesn't get much use any
more but is still working fine. Not worried about warranty, Consumer
Guarantees Act for the win Will look into them further

"Nik Coughlin" <> wrote in message
news:fg63m9$ell$...
>
> "impossible" <> wrote in message
> news:BPvVi.177500$Fc.165655@attbi_s21...
>>
>> "Nik Coughlin" <> wrote in message
>> news:fg5u90$b9$...
>>>
>>> "impossible" <> wrote in message
>>> news:vWuVi.160372$Xa3.129472@attbi_s22...
>>>>
>>>> Is this some kind of quiz you're running where we're supposed to keep
>>>> guessing what you want?
>>>
>>> No, I was in chat mode at this point, responding to the last point made
>>> in this thread.
>>>
>>>> You clearly have some definite specs in mind. Why don't you just go
>>>> shopping yourself?
>>>
>>> I am, concurrently to this thread. But being human, we have this
>>> advantage of being able to share experiences and extrasomatic knowledge
>>> with each other, and I was interested in the opinions of others. So
>>> shoot me!
>>>
>>> Wake up on the wrong side of the bed this morning did we?
>>
>> No, just puzzled why you throw out an open-ended request for suggestions,
>> then procede to shoot each one down based on prior conditions you'd
>> already settled on but hadn't bothered to tell anyone about. Better you
>> should follow some of the links I suggested to orient yourself to what's
>> available and what they cost, and then pose some specific questions you'd
>> like feedback on.
>
> I have looked through most of those links, thanks. I've got a bad cold so
> I'm not thinking too clearly today, I'm sorry if I was short with you
> (funny really, I was accusing you of being short with me).
>
> I don't have any specs in mind as anything that's sold new at the moment
> will be powerful enough. My main concern is reliability at the low end of
> the price range.
>

Reliability with any of the new products is about the same, I think, whether
the prie is high or low -- by which I mean that most of the components are
much of a muchness across all brands and the build quality is pretty even.
For each brand, you'll be apt to find some model that turns out to be a real
clunker, which is why I think it's always good to read independent
reviews -- and also to browse the user forums that most of the major
manufactuers have on their sites. But this is seldom a matter of price.

> The last laptop that she had (it's for my girlfriend) was an Acer and she
> had no end of trouble with it, and then had trouble getting it fixed.
> They dragged their feet about even repairing it under CGA, as the warranty
> had expired. Then they took weeks to get it back to her, at which point
> she had to return it to be fixed again as they hadn't actually done
> anything.
>
> Is the build quality likely to be the same regardless of brand at that
> price level?
>

As I say, build quality is pretty good across all brands and price ranges.
Everyone has their horror stories to report, but these are always exceptions
to the rule, as far as I can tell, and I would never base my buying
decision on anecdotes like that. Having said that, I'm reluctant to ever
recommend that people count on the CGA to protect themselves when it comes
to laptops. You need written warranties from the vendor, and be sure to look
at the fine print so you know what you're getting into. In many cases, it's
simply not worth it to pay big money for a long-term total-care warranty.
Most faulty components reveal themselves within a few days or weeks, and
leading vendors typically make it easy to recover your purchase price in
full (or to get a total replacement) for a period of thirty days or so --
for free. I'd really insist on that kind of provision first up. Beyond that,
it's a lot like taking out insurance on anything -- risky no matter which
choice you make.

> Does anyone have any particular brands to recommend for their build
> quality/durability?
>
> notebookreview didn't seem to have much or anything about most of the
> cheap models being sold here at the moment.
>

Yeah, reviewers tend to focus on the higher-end models, that's true. I was
mainly recommending those sites just to give you a better idea of what some
of the different considerations might be with all newer hardware
combinations out there. In any case, for what you seem to be after, I
wouldn't worry too much. Dell, Asus, HP -- they're all (probably) going to
give you a decent entry-level machine. So just try to work up some
comparison of all the basic components on offer -- cpu, memory, hard drive
speed and capacity, display -- and see what you're going to get for your
money. Deals come and go nowadays on a regular basis, so it's hard to
predict what the best one for you will turn out to be.

> I tried a Google search for these to try and get comments, which was
> interesting:
>
> "Dell laptops are"
> "Toshiba laptops are"
> "Compaq laptops are"
> etc.
>
> Probably was that there were disparaging remarks for all of the brands.
> You can't please all of the people all of the time I guess
>
>

Yes, and as I've tried to indicate here, the whole of idea of trying to
compare "Dell laptops " with "Toshiba laptops" is mistaken. Each brand has
produced their share of successes and failures over time -- model by model,
reputations change. I really think that, on balance, you can't go wrong with
any of the major brands nowadays -- unless of course you simply pay too much
Good hunting!

Somewhere on the interweb "blanking" typed:
> "~misfit~" <> wrote in message
> news:fg61hl$s76$...
> >
> > I fear for the future of the human race. It's little things like
> > this that define us, not cataclysmic events. The more it becomes
> > acceptable to do the easy thing, in this case get defensive, as
> > opposed to thinking it through and realising that you could in fact
> > have done things differently, and apologise, (or at least not get
> > 'snarky') the less pleasant society becomes.
> >
> > And so it goes....
>
> Don't disagree but this coming from you nearly made me fall off my
> chair, if only you took your own advice the world would indeed be a
> better place, I am referring to my previous dealings with you of
> course where you couldn't be more opposing the advice that you give
> here.

If I was wrong I apologise. However, obviously, I didn't think I was, or at
least, less "wrong" than you were.
--
TTFN

Shaun.

Somewhere on the interweb "Nik Coughlin" typed:
> "thingy" <> wrote in message
> news:5c1iv4-...
> > Nik Coughlin wrote:
> > > Hi, looking for advice or recommendations on a laptop with the
> > > optimum balance of cheap and reliable. Does not have to be
> > > powerful, will mainly be used for web browsing and running Office.
> > >
> > > Thanks!
> >
> > Depends on how cheap and reliable you want!
> >
> > The bottom end laptops at $800~$900 from DSE look very good value
> > for money....I'd look at the Asus ones as they have a 2 year
> > warrantee as standard (I believe).
>
> I like Asus, I have one that is 5 or 6 years old, doesn't get much
> use any more but is still working fine. Not worried about warranty,
> Consumer Guarantees Act for the win Will look into them further

I'll second Asus. They are a PC component manufacturer themselves (with a
good reputation) so I'd think that most laptop components are made in-house,
giving them a lot of control over the whole process. Unlike Dell, HP etc.
who out-source extensively.

That said, I've never owned a laptop made this century. However, if/when
I buy a laptop I'll be looking into Asus' offerings first, as I do when I
buy PC components.
--
TTFN

Shaun.