"Let me know Should I stay or should I go"
-
A Former User last edited by
One area to explore might be whether you are using a 'built-in' graphics processor.
Is it the same as "video-card"?
However, your system structure and power-supply capacity might not accommodate a separate plug-in graphics card which could bring some relief to both system RAM and CPU usage.
Means saving computing I drain the power sockets more, I guess.
If it can fit and supply such a card, it might be worthwhile checking out a cheap one.
Well, can this - videocard? - get sorta 'worn off'? I mean if it makes sense asking to have it checked up during my (still) pending hardware maintenance?
-
blackbird71 last edited byNo. A built-in graphics processor is a chipset built onto the mother board, and that by design shares your RAM as well as using borrowing CPU processing functionality to do some of its work, possibly slowing down the other things going on in the CPU for the rest of the computer. A video (or graphics) card is a plug-in card that has its own RAM and dedicated graphics 'CPU' so that it doesn't have to share much of anything with the main CPU other than handshaking. Unfortunately, it has to have its own power supplied, so it has to does present a load to your system's power supply. The PS's ability to supply that extra load depends on the 'surplus power margin' of the supply as well as the power demands of the graphics card. Video cards will have their own software drivers, which have to be installed into the OS.
A video card's power demands varies greatly, depending upon design and brand and typically driven by card performance capabilities (frame rate, shaders, on-card RAM, etc) and the media being played. Because of the power used in 'challenging' video applications for gaming and which must be dissipated as heat, many of the bigger cards have built-in air fans or are even dualed-up (requiring 2 adjoining plug-in sockets to physically install). Such large contraptions would be gross overkill for what you need, since all you would trying to do was supercede an onboard, low-performance chipset to save some RAM and CPU for playing simple video. So you'd be looking for a distinctly low-end, low-power video card from the various makers or distributors.
As far as 'wear' on a built-in graphics processor, that doesn't usually exist. Chipsets either work or not, they don't have a gradually-declining performance mode. About the only thing that really exhibits 'wear' are system-drives, chassis fans, and power supplies (whose internal capacitors, etc can age out of spec and show a fall-off in performance).
The real questions here are whether in fact you do have a built-in graphics processor, whether a plug-in card will physically fit in the case, do you have an available socket for it, and whether your power supply has enough margin to supply a simple-performance card.
-
A Former User last edited by
The real questions here are whether in fact you do have a built-in graphics processor, whether a plug-in card will physically fit in the case, do you have an available socket for it, and whether your power supply has enough margin to supply a simple-performance card.
How do I check it?
For the starters (right grammar?), it's anetbook, or 'nettop' - a smaller laptop, with a bit less major capacities as I reckon.
It's Samsung NP N-110. I can check it on the net or call the hotline, or both.
Anyway I reckon, a good maintenance with cleaning the fans etc. would help. To an extent. -
blackbird71 last edited by
The N-110 has a built-in graphics chipset (Intel GMA 945) which shares 128 MB of the computer's RAM. The netbook's small size just about guarantees you can't add a separate video card plug-in. The 110 has an 1.6 GHz Intel Atom processor, which is single-core (so my earlier guess about what you were seeing in the Task Manager display was in error). Such a netbook is fine for what it does with occasional regular video, but it will start to struggle for hi-definition or complex graphics tasks. There's simply no way you can get desktop-grade overall graphics performance from a netbook, if only because you can't apply a dedicated graphics card in such a small package, plus the limitations introduced by a single-core processor. The 110 is a computer optimized for portability and battery life, not for CPU/RAM-demanding apps.
-
A Former User last edited by
If I buy a new laptop, what parameters should I pay attention for if I want to watch videos up to a considerable quality while other processes are up and o'k, and play some, say, 3D games?
The processor's capacity? (Should be dual-core?) RAM? -
blackbird71 last edited by
Regarding a new laptop, probably your biggest issue will be cost, unfortunately. The key things you'll want are RAM, CPU horsepower, graphics card quality, and screen resolution - and those are often big cost drivers. RAM is major: I'd go at least for 4GB, and more if you can possibly afford it, aiming for DDR3 1600 or faster RAM chips. CPU: I'd aim for at least a quad-core - Intel Core i5, i7 or an AMD equivalent (A10), if you can afford it. Graphics card: seek a discrete GPU from Nvidia or AMD Radeon (though the graphics card is where you're most likely to have your cost-control veer off the rails, so it's hard to recommend a model since it's such a strong cost driver - get as good as you can afford containing/addressing as much Video RAM as you can afford). Screen resolution: high-def - 1,366 by 768 minimum with a goal of 1,920 by 1080 or higher. If you set up a laptop for top-notch graphics, it will consume more power compared to otherwise, so expect a lower battery life the more you push to the higher end of performance.
If cost is a critical issue, go for max RAM and highest CPU horsepower, then consider the best graphics chip or card with the most video RAM capacity you can afford after that.
-
blackbird71 last edited by
Java 7 has been "update at your own risk" since mid-2014 for Win XP users. That is, Java 7 updates aren't being tested with XP any more at Oracle... so what happens after that date with Java 7 is on the user's own head: it may or may not work, and it may or may not update. Java 8 isn't usable at all on Win XP. Considering that Java has historically been one of the great pathways for malware exploits because it is by nature a scripting language with full system access, any unpatched vulnerabilities in Java are a wide open pathway for possible exploitation from outside.
I've not run Java for a number of years on my systems, simply because it's been such a huge security problem (though I realize there are a few applications that some users may need it for). I seem to recall there being some way to block Java from outside access (at least via a browser?) using its control panel, and that would definitely be a minimum security measure going forward if it can't be updated any more. The question might still remain, however, if something did partially infect the system, might it still be able to search and call up Java from elsewhere to do its bidding? As I noted, it's been too long gone off my system to remember the answer. If it were me, I'd banish it completely as too great a risk if I were to keep using XP.
-
A Former User last edited by
Firefox got updated only to the 12th version.
Firefox is o'k now, actually
-
-
A Former User last edited by
Screen resolution: high-def - 1,366 by 768 minimum with a goal of 1,920 by 1080 or higher. If you set up a laptop for top-notch graphics, it will consume more power compared to otherwise, so expect a lower battery life the more you push to the higher end of performance.
If cost is a critical issue, go for max RAM and highest CPU horsepower, then consider the best graphics chip or card with the most video RAM capacity you can afford after that.Cost is an issue, yes.
What's with the resolution? What does it affect?
-
blackbird71 last edited by
What does exactly Java do, actually?
Java is a scripting-language platform most popular in the 1990's and early 2000's (and of course, not at all the same as JavaScript). It allows application programs and applets to be written in Java and to be run on a user system via the installed Java runtime software, even remotely via a website. It was originally developed by Sun Micro, but was later sold to Oracle (its current owner). Over the years, Java was quite useful at one point, but has unfortunately and consistently manifested more security holes than a sieve. Its biggest security 'issue' was for a long time its intentional failure to auto-uninstall a flawed/vulnerable older version when installing a newer patched version. This was done to avoid compatibility problems with some apps and applets that needed Java code processing from an older version that was deprecated in a newer version, but which left the system wide open to external attack of the security flaws in those older versions. That has since been altered in later versions, but security issues still arise frequently.
Unless you've got specific programs or websites that require and invoke Java, it doesn't do anything on a system - it just sits there with a big hack-me target painted on it. Some web games require Java, some web animations (eg: weather animations) required it at one time (though those are rapidly being replaced by other techniques), and some DSL speed test sites once required it (though many now have gone to HTML5). It still has application in various mostly-offline industrial apps software.
The soundest advice from a security standpoint is to completely remove it from a system unless it's absolutely required for something specific and important, but that remains a user's own call to make of course.
-
blackbird71 last edited by
What's with the resolution? What does it affect?
Used in this sense, 'resolution' is the number of dots or pixels of color that make up a display screen image of a given shape. The more dots in the image, the sharper, clearer will be the detail apparent in the displayed image. For displays, typically the first number is the number of pixel columns, the second is the number of rows of pixels. So, the higher the pixel count, the better the display should look (assuming the media source supports that level of detail in the original image). If a smaller display has its pixels spaced closer together, it can display a high-resolution image as clearly as a larger-sized display - only smaller in image size, so even small displays can potentially display high-resolution images if the screen and video system support it. If a high-resolution image source is displayed on a low-resolution display, the image will be more blurry by comparison with the original, so usually one wants his display to support as high a resolution as any media material he might view. Obviously, both the display and the video chip/card must both support a given resolution for it to display onscreen.
-
A Former User last edited by
The soundest advice from a security standpoint is to completely remove it from a system unless it's absolutely required for something specific and important, but that remains a user's own call to make of course.
How do I know if it's required, or by what if any? I'm not a geek.
-
A Former User last edited by
No, I meant if it affects the system load or not.
I don't give a crap if I can't see finest detail pointing a microscope onto the screen. I'm not sharp-sighted myself, and one usually can always use some zoom feature. -
blackbird71 last edited by
Regarding resolution, if you're running a video card, system loading probably won't be impacted much, if at all, by having it (other than the power supply). If the video is supported by a motherboard video chipset, then there will be loading of shared parts of RAM and CPU, depending on the amount of graphics detail involved in rendering a given image. If you don't care about resolution detail, then the only other reason to go for a more high-performance graphics system would be to support higher frame-rates (smoothness of apparent screen motion) in game playing - and if you're not talking about the typical high-complexity, modern, conflict-style action games, that's probably not something you'd need. So, that being said, you probably only need a run-of-mill graphics setup, though a generic or basic stand-alone video card would still relieve system loading even for routine graphics when compared with a mere on-board chipset that shares system resources.
As you've developed your description of your wants/needs during our dialogue, it increasingly appears you may be quite satisfied with whatever 'ordinary' graphics setup comes with a decent laptop, assuming that you get a model outfitted with plenty of RAM and a decent multi-core CPU. Your graphics demands increasingly seem not all that critical. Your earlier comment about gaming pointed my thinking toward the more critical graphics demands normally connected with "serious gaming", which involve rendering complex images at high frame rates to keep such games from stuttering or poorly rendering during gameplay.
Regarding Java, normally I'd say if you don't know if you need it, you probably don't need it. However, in some cases, it might break certain websites (games, animations, etc). One way to tell would be to make sure you have a backup installation/installer copy of whatever is on your system now and uninstall the existing Java. Then do your normal usage and see if anything is broken; if nothing fails, leave it off the system. If something does fail, decide whether it's worth the exposure risk of reinstalling the version you kept as a backup.
-
A Former User last edited by
Regarding Java, normally I'd say if you don't know if you need it, you probably don't need it. However, in some cases, it might break certain websites (games, animations, etc).
You mean Java might break or not having it might break?
One way to tell would be to make sure you have a backup installation/installer copy of whatever is on your system now and uninstall the existing Java.
You mean system image or just everything Java (and perhaps related to it?)?
If latter, should I simply use my system regular search to find everything? Like by "Java" (and "java"?)?
And then, after backing those up, just delete those same items? -
A Former User last edited by
Your earlier comment about gaming pointed my thinking toward the more critical graphics demands normally connected with "serious gaming", which involve rendering complex images at high frame rates to keep such games from stuttering or poorly rendering during gameplay.
For now, it's mostly some Tetris, plus usually certain car racing games.
I prefer the latter not very complicated but with a good realistic dynamics computation. And by recently, my system seemed to cope sufficiently with adequate performance, even for some 3D stuff......it increasingly appears you may be quite satisfied with whatever 'ordinary' graphics setup comes with a decent laptop, assuming that you get a model outfitted with plenty of RAM and a decent multi-core CPU.
Multi-core means what?
Will 2-core be enough? You suggested 4-core previously, didn't you?
Do there 3-core happen?
Or is it just that a new laptop simply won't have that 1- or 2-core but higher?So, RAM? 2 GB is not enough, isn't it?
The processor - 2 or more -core? Right? And like - 2 ...
Whoa, it says here, some "Intel(R) Atom(TM)", then "CPU N270 @<!--heck-->1.60GHz" and, next line, "798 МГц, 0.99 ГБ ОЗУ" ("798MHz and 0.99GBprobablyRAM"). You see, there are two "Herz" writings there - what the heck are they? -
blackbird71 last edited by
Sorry, my wording was poor. I meant that if you remove or somehow disable Java, certain websites that rely on it might 'break' or fail to work correctly. Most often, though, they'll give you some kind of error message about Java being absent.
Regarding Java removal, I meant that before you remove it, you might want to be sure to have a way to get it back, either a stored master copy of the Java installation program for your version, or a full system backup that can get you restored. My thinking is that if you remove it and then find out you need it for something important to you, you may want a way to get it back. I haven't messed with Java in several years, so I'm unfamiliar now with whether there's still an online Oracle archive of old Java versions that you could also access to re-install your older Java version.
Regarding the games, you certainly don't need a heavy-duty graphics system just to run things like Tetris or basic auto racing games. As you move into detailed 3D games, the graphics requirements can escalate as the image detail and shading/transparency-effects of the software increase, depending on the game design. Almost certainly, a modern combat simulation game like the Battlefield series, etc would demand a heavy graphics engine. From what you're saying about the games you play, you could probably get along OK with just about whatever graphics came with the laptop - just be sure to get a system with plenty of RAM and a good CPU.
Multi-core for a CPU means greater ability to speedily handle multiple processing tasks, which is increasingly important with modern systems that have all manner of things running in the background and when running multi-process software (like many modern browsers). There are basically CPU core choices of 1, 2, 4, and so on, increasing by 2-at-a-time above 2 to whatever limit the makers (and the chip's internal architecture) need to stop at. Regarding the two speeds sometimes quoted with certain processors, generally the higher one is the base clock speed the chip runs and computes at, the lower one is the bus speed of the processor (which moves data in/out, etc). Usually the higher speed is the single number most folks refer to in comparing CPU's, although such simple comparisons can be misleading with modern complex chip designs these days.
I'd seriously try to get a system with at least 4 GB of RAM (and probably 8 GB, if you ever plan on the system running Win8 or greater), if only to give yourself some usage lifespan in years to come as software continues growing in its demands. RAM, being a memory device, is like a hard drive in one sense - you will never, ever have too much size, especially as time goes by. But you certainly can find yourself with too little RAM if you don't plan ahead. This is especially true if the RAM is being shared by a built-in graphics chipset. E.g. if you run something like Win7 and a built-in graphics chipset which shares 256 Mb of your RAM, plus an AV, plus a handful of generic utility software, etc, you'll be chewing up 1.5-2.5 GB before you ever load an application or game program. Toss in a hearty browser with a few extensions and some graphics-rich tabs, and you'll be bumping 3-3.5 GB before you know it. Obviously, YMMV - but you don't want to hit a 2 GB RAM ceiling right after you get a new computer. If you hit a RAM ceiling, Windows will start continually swapping RAM in/out to your hard drive as virtual memory and that will REALLY slow things down.
-
A Former User last edited by
and a built-in graphics chipset which shares 256 Mb of your RAM
Megabits?
You meant to say megabytes, right? -
blackbird71 last edited by
and a built-in graphics chipset which shares 256 Mb of your RAM
Megabits?
You meant to say megabytes, right?Yep! It's a carry-over of old habits from a past career where the focus was almost totally on 'bits'. Almost every other time I type a data size entry, I have to go back and edit it - and apparently I missed one there. Old habits die hard..
