My Celeron can get about 3-4 hours out of a battery aswell, with light office work.
I don't know how 'regular' development goes... But I generally develop D3D9-stuff on it, and when testing that, the CPU and GPU will be running at full speed, so that's probably not representative for other programs. I get about 1-1.5 hours out of it that way, depending on how much I code vs how much I compile/run, I suppose.
Posted on 2004-05-16 14:10:09 by Scali
I still think NVIDIA is best. ATI has been so bad ever since I first heard of them. Even with the Radeon series with Catalyst, ATI needs more work to catch up to NVIDIA.

Kuphryn
Posted on 2004-05-17 17:49:53 by kuphryn
Heh, kuphryn... nvidia had to cheat with their drivers to keep up with ATI. Things are changing with the latest nvidia monster GPU, though.
Posted on 2004-05-17 18:17:25 by f0dder
What's most important in a laptop? Efficient use of power I suppose.
ATi is WAY ahead there. And to boot, their chips perform way better than NV aswell. What part don't you understand about ATi being better than NV for laptops?
Posted on 2004-05-18 02:10:02 by Scali
How can you be so sure history wont repeat (ATI writes bloated, bad drivers)?

Kuphryn
Posted on 2004-05-18 09:45:54 by kuphryn
When was the last time you saw an ATi up close? I have one in my laptop, which I've had for well over a year now, I think, and I ran nearly all versions of drivers released in that time, never had a problem. My brother has been using a Radeon 8500 for at least 2 years now, he only encountered one problem in that time (NFS: Hot Pursuit 2), and it was fixed in the next release of the driver, only a few weeks later.

I KNOW ATi drivers work well, I use them everyday. They are not bad. Perhaps you should take a look at them.

And what is bloated? Last time I looked, both NV and ATi drivers were around 25 mb, for the international version (I also use a computer with a GeForce2 almost daily, and I develop D3D9 stuff on both the ATi and NV machines, so I am pretty familiar with how the drivers and performance relate to eachother).
25 mb may be a bit much for a display driver, but well, if both are the same, what's the use of only calling one bloated?

Also, why do you only question ATi? If you can't take for granted that ATi develops decent products, why do you take NV for granted? Why don't you question them? Can they not make a slip-up? I think they can, and have.
Posted on 2004-05-18 12:19:37 by Scali
I think NVIDIA is an all-around better video card and driver.

Kuphryn
Posted on 2004-05-18 12:51:15 by kuphryn
Hrm, if you compare the r9800xt series with the GeFX-whatever series, how can you think that? The ATI cards are "somewhat faster" :rolleyes: for SHM2.0 code... I haven't noticed any difference in driver stability between the detonators and the catalysts (except for that weird data corruption bug), and sizewise they're about the same.

But the games run faster with the ATi card. So, how exactly is nvidia better? It's been a while since ATi cheated in their drivers, nvidia do it all the time (shader recompilation using lower quality... if that isn't a cheat, I don't know what it is.)

The nvidia cards might have better fillrate for DX8 style applications, but both nvidia and ATi delivers very well there. And as soon as you start using SHM2.0, well, have a look at some benchmarks. NV6800 or whatever the latest monster with two molex power connection does seem interesting, though :)

(I have a GF2/GTS/32, GF4/Ti4200/64 and a r9600xt/256 around here, and I've used my share of different drivers - so I'm neither an ATI nor nvidia fanboy. I like the ATI card best because it delivers.)
Posted on 2004-05-18 12:56:03 by f0dder
I think NVIDIA is an all-around better video card and driver.


Why do you think that?
As I say, you can read plenty of reviews that conclude that ATi's mobile chipsets have more features, more performance AND give longer battery life.
What is it that makes NVIDIA better still?
Posted on 2004-05-18 13:00:25 by Scali
Back to notebooks...

I have two IBM thinkpads, one I use for development (T20 700Mhz P3) and a new one for business (T41 1.6 GHz Pentium-M) that my company purchased. I can't think of a better system than ThinkPad, I have dock that I can plug into and it essentially gives me a PCI slot and replicates all the ports. It has integrated anti-theft identification and is very expandable. I could never get used to the Toshiba/Compaq type touch-pad mice, preferring the IBM trackpoint as it feels more natural. The biggest thing you check for is that it is comfortable for you to use, is the keyboard the right distance, is it thin enough and light enough, do you think it will take too long to learn to use the integrated pointing system. These are all very important questions especially since all notebooks are very similar in features and power these days and in reality it is portability you are buying, the power of the notebook is not as important as for a desktop. The IBM thinkpads are at the high end of the price spectrum, especially the T series but they are IMHO the best that money can buy, coupled with a docking station and the level of service I get from IBM, they are unequalled.
Posted on 2004-05-18 13:49:52 by donkey
My laptop has a touchpad, but I rarely use it. It came with a compact optical USB mouse, and I use that, most of the time. Nothing can beat a mouse, if you ask me. Always carry one ;)
Posted on 2004-05-18 13:57:31 by Scali
Yeah, my Thinkpad has one too. I have never used it except when docked. The trackpoint is easy to use and I find it convenient not to have to carry a bunch of accessories. About the only external device I use is an Infosat satellite phone for internet access on site, but then I don't always have the convenience of a desk to work at.
Posted on 2004-05-18 14:13:14 by donkey
Well, optical mice work on pretty much any surface... My legs work fine, for example ;)
Posted on 2004-05-18 14:26:08 by Scali

Well, optical mice work on pretty much any surface... My legs work fine, for example ;)


Thats where the laptop is supposed to go.:) Seriously though, I don't find it convenient to use an optical mouse or any kind of mouse without a flat surface, it is much simpler just to use the trackpoint. But as I said in my original post, you look for the features you are comfortable with, not what someone else tells you is best. For myself I have only ever bought IBM for myself and Apple for my wife. I did try a Toshiba notebook for about a week and had to have a thinkpad shipped in to replace it, the keyboard was too far from the edge making it difficult to keep it stable as your whole hand has to be on the laptop, and the touchpad is unworkable as least for me. We once tried some compaq's adapted with touchscreens by ELO graphics (I think) but they didn't last long, a few drops at the mine site and they were boat anchors. My thinkpad has been dropped hard enough that the case is cracked and it still works 100%, that is difficult to match.
Posted on 2004-05-18 14:56:15 by donkey
My legs must be a lot longer than yours then :)
Posted on 2004-05-18 15:15:10 by Scali

How can you be so sure history wont repeat (ATI writes bloated, bad drivers)?

Kuphryn

Trust me I was a little skeptical about switching to ATI, but I don't regret it. Trust me ATI is doing well now. We're not in the Rage128 or Rage II days anymore lol
Posted on 2004-05-18 15:17:14 by x86asm
hahah

Kuphryn
Posted on 2004-05-18 15:21:51 by kuphryn
I don't really mind touchpads - when they work. However, with friends' cheap laptops, they have often worked *very* badly, jumping around, refusing to mouseclick or clicking when they shouldn't, etc. I would definitely go for a trackpoint if I went shopping for a laptop.
Posted on 2004-05-18 15:23:15 by f0dder
I'm forced to use a Radeon IGP-340M in my notebook. It is basically a radeon without T&L. The only way I've found it useful for graphics at all is by using DNA-Drivers, a replacement for bloated catalyst drivers.
Posted on 2004-06-14 17:44:15 by SpooK
hrm, "It is basically a radeon with T&L" - you mean without?
Posted on 2004-06-14 17:54:31 by f0dder