I am trying to decide between the Dell Inspiron 9200 and the HP
zd8000.   I have to have the 17" display, so it's pretty much narrowed
down to these two models.  The processor on the zd8000 is faster but
it doesn't look like the battery will last very long.  The Inspiron
has a 9 cell battery option, but the processor is much slower (highest
available is 2.1 gigs).  Since this laptop will be a desktop
replacement for me, I'm not sure which model I want.  Both seem to
have their tradeoffs. Any thoughts on which might be the better
option?

---

Request for Question Clarification by siliconsamurai-ga on 17 Feb 2005 05:55 PST

You haven't said what factors are important to YOU, therefore there is
no way to answer the question. As you said, there are tradeoffs and to
do a cost-benefit analysis we need to know what various features are
worth, not to people in general, but to you.

About all I can says is that Dell currently has the best reputation
for support and initial quality but HP is also a good vendor.

---

Clarification of Question by nockmdead-ga on 19 Feb 2005 05:29 PST

I need a fast processor and the ability to run many programs at one
time.  I want a dvd writer, and long battery life would be nice since
this is a desktop replacement.  I'm just stuck on a 17" display
because I like the bigger display.  I also want a laptop that has the
1394ieee connection for a dv camera.

I have a HP zv5000 3ghz processor.  It has the smaller widescreen.  I
love it. It works. I did buy a USB mouse for it.  I hate all laptop
mouses.

My wife has a 2 ghz desktop.  I have a stock market trading program
that is VERY processor intensive.  I would run simulations on her 2
ghz desktop that would take about 8 mins to complete.  I would then
run the exact same simulation on the new 3ghz hp laptop. It took 7
minutes to complete.  Both processors are butt kickin fast.  So
depending on what you have to run the dell might be a better deal.  I
got my laptop at Best, and save a fair amount of $$$$.  I also looked
at the dell.  But, I wanted the 3 ghz machine.  I also upgraded to 1
gig of memory.  You might also want to check out the harddrive speed. 
Most laptop harddrives turn at around 4,400 rpm.  Which makes a BIG
difference in how fast programs load. (that is why I upgraded the
memory - less reads/writes to the harddrive - if you multitask
programs it's best if they can be loaded into memory and not stored on
the harddrive) As I recall Dell offers an upgraded harddrive that
spins at 7,200 rpm.  It would be a big power drain. But it would load
programs very fast.

So if it was me, and I was only doing spreadsheets and wordprocessing
- internet, email etc.  I'd go with the 2ghz machine with 1 gig
memory.  As I recall, the hp was still cheaper than the Dell and the
hp was the faster of the two.

Did you know that you can plug in a external screen?  You could run a
21 inch flattop if you wanted.

I hope this helps.

I recommend you dont buy either: HP's can be trouble ridden and Dell
is made from substandard parts.  Check out sager, fairly cheap and the
best specs available anywhere for the price.

http://www.sagernotebook.com/pages/notebooks/product.cfm?ProductType=9860

Fast, lots of memory for multiple programs, DVD recorder large screen,
and long battery life?

I know you didn't mention weight but still you simply can't do all of
those at the same time since all of them eat up a LOT of power.

Firewire is about the only specification which won't gobble power.

You keep saying this is a desktop replacement, then mention the screen
size. Why not just plug in a 21-inch monitor and keyboard when at the
desk? That way you could probably reduce the screen size. That's how I
use my TabletPC and only have to carry a few pounds on the road.

I don't really fight people over brand prefrences, but I will tell you
that the 2.1GHz Dell isn't any slower than the 3GHz HP. Why? The
2.1Ghz Dell is most likely a Centrino, a CPU designed to run quicker
at lower clock speeds than a Pentium 4. AMD designs their AthlonXPs
and Athlon 64s in a similar manner. Just to prove my point, check out
some benchmarks from AnAndtech.com. You will see that the clock speed
of a CPU is only useful in comparing two otherwise identicle CPUs.
Centrinos are also called Pentium M, so don't think they're different.

http://anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2342

Here is an article on anandtech.com showing the possiblity of bringing
the Pentium M to the dektop market. Ignore this, and jump to the
benchmarks. You will see that sometimes a 3Ghz P4 will be beaten by a
1.8Ghz Athlon 64 and a 2Ghz Pentium M. This may help your decision.
Good luck!