I was recently asked by a family-member to look for a decent study-laptop for my sister. I'll admit I was kind of thrilled. I was playing around with the idea of finding a low-budget laptop, with decent specifications. Having done a machine-architecture report for school (x86/x64) last year, I had become thoroughly aware of what AMD has been doing lately.
I have always been a fan of AMD. Mainly because of their support for hardware-hacking (NOTE: this voids any warranty) and / or chip overclocking (in many cases also voids any warranty), and their clever innovation of techniques (amd64/APUs). And last but not least, their open and full support of FOSS.
In my report, I wrote about AMDs budget-line processors; the "Fusion" C-series and E-series, direct competitors to Intels "Atom" budget-line processors. In fact, the C-chips match similar Atom-chips in both TDP (Thermal Design Power) and clock-frequency (GHz). Whereas the E-series is higher clocked, resulting in a higher TDP, but also making it more similar to an Atom-chip system paired with a dedicated GPU (e.g. ION2).
My sisters computing-needs do not require massive number-crunching abilities, but it shouldn't be sluggish in operation either, so I went for the high-end mobile-solution: AMD E-450 (codename: Zacate) APU (Accelerated Processing Unit) used in a 13,3" LED-screen Asus model U32U laptop with 4GB DDR3 RAM.
The AMD E-450 is a 64-bit dual-core ("Bobcat" low-power x86-cores @ 1,65GHz) processor with an integrated Radeon HD 6320 GPU on the same die (which AMD markets as a so-called APU-chip), with a total TDP of 18 watts.
(The basic idea behind this type of system, is that: the stripped, low-power x86-cores (x2) does most of the general-purpose processing, but, hands over floating-point unit calulations to the GPU-cores on the same die, thereby eliminating both process load-balancing and CPU-GPU inter-communication delays.)
Asus product-link:
https://www.asus.com/Notebooks_Ultrabooks/U32U/
When unboxing the machine, I was pleasantly surprised :-) with the battery firmly locked-in the thing didn't weigh more than
1,55 kg! Didn't take up much space when closed either so it was a perfect carry-on companion and study-tool.
First boot took a few minutes, Windows always does at "
first-boot".
Running Windows Update took around 4,5 hours to complete from a fresh install, after downloading everything that is (on a 2Mbps cable-DSL connection no less :-P *shrug*).
Installing Microsoft Office 2010 (with the help of an external USB 2.0 CD-ROM drive) actually didn't take all that long, and it ran like a dream.
Overall the CPU-response was acceptable when installing and pretty good in operation. It won't blow away anything with 4GB of RAM, but in combination with AMDs
Fusion (referred to as a:
Heterogeneous System Architecture by AMD) chipset and APU-chip, it didn't do half bad for an
ultrabook-like laptop.
This was my first
ultrabook-like experience, and I must say, I am impressed :-) I want one! Strictly speaking, the U32U does not fit the
ultrabook-specification (being an Intel-trademark, and the U32U being AMD-based).
Personally (speaking as a
poweruser), I would probably cram
at least 8GB of RAM into the machine afterwards. And replace the 320GB HDD with an
SSD for both system-speed and machine-weight. But for my sister, it was perfect! :-)
I might also add that I actually own two machines with
Atom-processors, and the
E-450 blew them both away on graphics and processing-power.
Edit:
I had to add a total of 8GB DDR3 RAM modules to the machine. She complained that it was getting sluggsish after a period of time. I had apparently not anticipated her usage-patterns good enough. 4GB of RAM was a little weak, especially if you want to run office-suites and similar resource-hogging software.
Posts
You're wrong and probably never worked for a software company.
Software versions are charactized by version numbers, in my case, when I worked for Bentley Systems, a version was designated by numbers like 05.07.01.22.
Software, like Firefox makes versions for Windows and Linux among others. Basically the core parts of the program operate in the same manner and the API is different to work on Linux and adjustments are made for libraries, directories, etc.
The dirty little secret here at ZDNet and among the shills is that they blame an application for allowing an intrinsic problem or vulnerability with the OS to be accessed. Shills, Ed, and ZDNet are great at blaming the application, such as Chrome or Firefox for the problem and not addressing the core Windows vulnerability. Then, they read documentation and without knowing anything about how things are done, blame the Linux counterparts, because they are listed.
The problem is that items present in the application allow the core Windows vulnerability to be used to infect Windows. The application issue may also be present in the Linux version, but because Linux is so much more secure than Windows, there is no problem or infection with Linux. The only way Linux could be infected is if the malware could read the mind of the user and get his password.
Developers review the Windows version issue and make adjustments so it does not allow the Windows vulnerability to be addressed and also make the change across the board to all sister versions to maintain consistency. Because you are naive and see Ubuntu listed as affected, it does not mean Ubuntu ever had a security issue at all, the Ubuntu version is just having the code changed for consistency. In other words, no application for Windows is ever going to fully prevent all the Windows critical flaws from being accessed. Those application characteristics causing the Windows issues may be present the Linux version, but can't be used to attack Linux, but are being changed anyway. In most cases, the change may be an operating improvement and be more efficient.
It's so silly to ZDNet pull the same BS over and over again, year after year. If you want to believe it, you are only following the ZDNet propaganda trail, Do yourself a favor, pour yourself a strong one, and install Ubuntu or Mint on a second machine, run it as a Live DVD, or install it as a dual boot and your primary computer. Then, install, Chrome, Opera or any other open source program you like and try to get infected. Then come back here and post the Website and how you got infected. That's something that no one, in all these years of accusations has ever been able to do. Once you see that you don't get infected you;ll begin to see how ZDNet twists information and is just a stooge for Microsoft.
As far as you referencing Linux Torvalds and the linux.com issue it was related to stolen passwords. Anyone who gets poorly secured passwords an attacks a system can't be stopped. Most times the admins are storing their login information on a Windows box, that gets easily hacked by a zero-day or a crafted emai that allows access. Remember the big ZDNet push for articles about Google, which runs 100% Linux getting hacked? Well, two Chinese employees were storing data on a Windows notebook and it easily got hacked. Since then, Google forbids employees from using Windows or work. you don't hear about that anymore here, do you? Forbidding employees to do company work on Windows is the single most important any manager can make.
If you dig deeply into these articles against open source and Linux, you will find, as I have, that the core problem is Windows and you will see a critical update down the road, at a later time to silently correct the Windows problem. But that is never brought up here.