With regards to gaming and video-editing, a desktop wins hands-down as the superior workstation.
As for school projects, a laptop is pretty much a necessity for me to have for face-to-face group discussions and to work on Google Docs/Slides together.
Desktop > laptop for serious gaming and internet use, not sure how much portability matters if you work and school mostly from home like me.
It is only the case because of the pricing of the hardware and the peak performance, on a serious gaming device I wouldn't go portable even if I was rich because of the amount of heat that they produce, it's harder to keep them cool and worse, the parts are much more annoying to replace if any of them fail in a laptop, it can be done, but oftentimes just isn't worth the effort.
Gaming laptops do exist, but as you alluded to earlier you can get better value per dollar for desktops.
I do own a laptop but it's for basic stuff only now, it was okay for light gaming and still is now, but it's nothing special.
Meanwhile Stacks with his crappy 2004 laptop and me with my 2 potato PCs (both of them also laptops):
"Hey did Optifine work without BSOD?"
"Yes."
"Perfect, now try running KSP (which, as far as I know, has very detailed graphics) without a VM and see what happens!"
"Good idea!"
Cooling pads also exist for laptop users, but the fact these have to be used at all with some people's laptops, especially if they are worried about battery longevity which can also be affected by the base of the laptop becoming too hot over extended use, means they're not really good for gaming.
Gaming laptops do exist but that doesn't mean they're the ideal solution
I learned a long time ago that desktops are better, I used to be stuck with a laptop back in my late teens and I've regretted spending my money on it ever since, if I wasn't so clueless back then and bought a desktop instead that had a dedicated GPU for the same amount of money, lag wouldn't have been anywhere near as much of a problem. The horrible piece of junk lagged even when playing NFS Underground, an old game even a PS2 ran without issue.
It still would've needed Windows XP at the time but that wasn't the problem,
I had nothing against using newer OS's if it meant better options in terms of software.
Cooling pads also exist for laptop users, but the fact these have to be used at all with some people's laptops, especially if they are worried about battery longevity which can also be affected by the base of the laptop becoming too hot over extended use, means they're not really good for gaming.
Gaming laptops do exist but that doesn't mean they're the ideal solution
I learned a long time ago that desktops are better, I used to be stuck with a laptop back in my late teens and I've regretted spending my money on it ever since, if I wasn't so clueless back then and bought a desktop instead that had a dedicated GPU for the same amount of money, lag wouldn't have been anywhere near as much of a problem. The horrible piece of junk lagged even when playing NFS Underground, an old game even a PS2 ran without issue.
It still would've needed Windows XP at the time but that wasn't the problem,
I had nothing against using newer OS's if it meant better options in terms of software.
Nor do I, but the newer versions have too much bloat in my opinion.
And for the moment I don't need them, for now I have enough with xp.
Once my laptop breaks, we'll see.
And in fact, currently I need backwards compatibility the most, so I do better with outdated stuff. Plus I don't like to update and it can also run some newer programs I use. Did I mention I don't like updates?
Nor do I, but the newer versions have too much bloat in my opinion.
And for the moment I don't need them, for now I have enough with xp.
Once my laptop breaks, we'll see.
And in fact, currently I need backwards compatibility the most, so I do better with outdated stuff. Plus I don't like to update and it can also run some newer programs I use. Did I mention I don't like updates?
Windows XP was known for its user friendliness and being fast, but it is outdated and support for it was dropped a long time ago
Last I remember Windows XP wasn't the greatest when it came to backward compatibility either, if you tried to run DOS games on it, command prompt had very poor emulation of MSDOS and you usually needed to use DOSbox to make it work, but DOSbox also works on Windows 10 and 11.
I do have some DOS games in my collection, I might have to buy a USB external floppy for a DOS game I wish to play after purchasing it from Ebay, Cool Spot. But I do see the reasons why a minority of people are running legacy OS's, as far as Windows 9x games went, XP was hit and miss, in some cases the games would work, but in some others the games simply wouldn't open or install, but even for games that did work, the aforementioned issue with DOS games in command prompt means that even if you did get them to work, they would run too slow, have bad sound quality or both. DOSbox would solve most of those issues, but that's not a perfect emulator either, I have encountered issues with it when attempting to run Micro Machines.
Probably because I'm lucky and because since I discovered it still exists I run them through command.com.
Oh and it's way more stable, I got 3 bsod's on windows 10, but only 1 on xp.
Probably because of using less ram... because I ran 10 on a vm, so I was limited by my host. And you know, bloatware.
EDIT: They just keep adding more and more with each update
The thing I didn't like about XP is the aforementioned poor DOS emulation though, I am aware it wasn't critical for the functionality of Windows XP itself as the operating system was running on an entirely different codebase, but compatibility is important for people.
We know it's possible to do backwards compatibility right because Windows 10 and 11 still use WOW64, which allow 32bit software to run on 64bit hardware and most of the time this is done without incident, but when it comes to 16bit applications you're in for a world of hurt if you intend on getting your DOS library to work, this is why things like third party emulators or virtual machines are so useful. One thing I don't like is an entire legally purchased software collection being rendered useless as a result of a hardware change. There are times when it's acceptable, such as the use of antivirus software or disk optimization programs, but in other cases it's an inconvenience that causes people to be reluctant to upgrade their OS and PC.
I have five desktops, five laptops and four servers. I need to buy another server so it will be all fives, lol. Best depends on your use case, it isn't a "one size fits all" answer. I prefer desktops, but when I travel I don't like packing up my large PCs. Having a powerful laptop comes in handy then. Ultimately though I gravitate towards desktops as I like the ease of upgrade. You don't get that with a laptop.
I have five desktops, five laptops and four servers. I need to buy another server so it will be all fives, lol. Best depends on your use case, it isn't a "one size fits all" answer. I prefer desktops, but when I travel I don't like packing up my large PCs. Having a powerful laptop comes in handy then. Ultimately though I gravitate towards desktops as I like the ease of upgrade. You don't get that with a laptop.
Like a lot of people, including yourself if portability is my prime concern I go with laptop which I do have one,
If performance is the prime concern as is the case with gaming PC's, I pick desktop.
Well actually a Laptop (Aspire 7730G) but im saving for a Desktop PC
Depends on the brand. If it's windows, then both good.
-
View User Profile
-
View Posts
-
Send Message
Retired StaffDepends on what you're using them for.
With regards to gaming and video-editing, a desktop wins hands-down as the superior workstation.
As for school projects, a laptop is pretty much a necessity for me to have for face-to-face group discussions and to work on Google Docs/Slides together.
Laptop.
Not even my hello world works :'C
(But powerpoint does xd)
Btw what does api stand for?
Both my main and secondary computers are laptops, so...
Guess I like portable stuff.
*Accidentally messes up the entire kernel*
Desktop > laptop for serious gaming and internet use, not sure how much portability matters if you work and school mostly from home like me.
It is only the case because of the pricing of the hardware and the peak performance, on a serious gaming device I wouldn't go portable even if I was rich because of the amount of heat that they produce, it's harder to keep them cool and worse, the parts are much more annoying to replace if any of them fail in a laptop, it can be done, but oftentimes just isn't worth the effort.
Gaming laptops do exist, but as you alluded to earlier you can get better value per dollar for desktops.
I do own a laptop but it's for basic stuff only now, it was okay for light gaming and still is now, but it's nothing special.
Well...
Normal people:
"Desktop better for intensive use!
Laptop can't do that!"
Meanwhile Stacks with his crappy 2004 laptop and me with my 2 potato PCs (both of them also laptops):
"Hey did Optifine work without BSOD?"
"Yes."
"Perfect, now try running KSP (which, as far as I know, has very detailed graphics) without a VM and see what happens!"
"Good idea!"
*Accidentally messes up the entire kernel*
Cooling pads also exist for laptop users, but the fact these have to be used at all with some people's laptops, especially if they are worried about battery longevity which can also be affected by the base of the laptop becoming too hot over extended use, means they're not really good for gaming.
Gaming laptops do exist but that doesn't mean they're the ideal solution
I learned a long time ago that desktops are better, I used to be stuck with a laptop back in my late teens and I've regretted spending my money on it ever since, if I wasn't so clueless back then and bought a desktop instead that had a dedicated GPU for the same amount of money, lag wouldn't have been anywhere near as much of a problem. The horrible piece of junk lagged even when playing NFS Underground, an old game even a PS2 ran without issue.
It still would've needed Windows XP at the time but that wasn't the problem,
I had nothing against using newer OS's if it meant better options in terms of software.
You nailed it
Nor do I, but the newer versions have too much bloat in my opinion.
And for the moment I don't need them, for now I have enough with xp.
Once my laptop breaks, we'll see.
And in fact, currently I need backwards compatibility the most, so I do better with outdated stuff. Plus I don't like to update and it can also run some newer programs I use. Did I mention I don't like updates?
Not even my hello world works :'C
(But powerpoint does xd)
Btw what does api stand for?
Windows XP was known for its user friendliness and being fast, but it is outdated and support for it was dropped a long time ago
Last I remember Windows XP wasn't the greatest when it came to backward compatibility either, if you tried to run DOS games on it, command prompt had very poor emulation of MSDOS and you usually needed to use DOSbox to make it work, but DOSbox also works on Windows 10 and 11.
I do have some DOS games in my collection, I might have to buy a USB external floppy for a DOS game I wish to play after purchasing it from Ebay, Cool Spot. But I do see the reasons why a minority of people are running legacy OS's, as far as Windows 9x games went, XP was hit and miss, in some cases the games would work, but in some others the games simply wouldn't open or install, but even for games that did work, the aforementioned issue with DOS games in command prompt means that even if you did get them to work, they would run too slow, have bad sound quality or both. DOSbox would solve most of those issues, but that's not a perfect emulator either, I have encountered issues with it when attempting to run Micro Machines.
Idk why, but for me they always work.
Probably because I'm lucky and because since I discovered it still exists I run them through command.com.
Oh and it's way more stable, I got 3 bsod's on windows 10, but only 1 on xp.
Probably because of using less ram... because I ran 10 on a vm, so I was limited by my host. And you know, bloatware.
EDIT: They just keep adding more and more with each update
Not even my hello world works :'C
(But powerpoint does xd)
Btw what does api stand for?
The thing I didn't like about XP is the aforementioned poor DOS emulation though, I am aware it wasn't critical for the functionality of Windows XP itself as the operating system was running on an entirely different codebase, but compatibility is important for people.
We know it's possible to do backwards compatibility right because Windows 10 and 11 still use WOW64, which allow 32bit software to run on 64bit hardware and most of the time this is done without incident, but when it comes to 16bit applications you're in for a world of hurt if you intend on getting your DOS library to work, this is why things like third party emulators or virtual machines are so useful. One thing I don't like is an entire legally purchased software collection being rendered useless as a result of a hardware change. There are times when it's acceptable, such as the use of antivirus software or disk optimization programs, but in other cases it's an inconvenience that causes people to be reluctant to upgrade their OS and PC.
Well/let's/leave/this/topic.
I/need/a/new/keyboard!!!
Now/it/types/slashes/instead/of/spaces.
Not even my hello world works :'C
(But powerpoint does xd)
Btw what does api stand for?
I have five desktops, five laptops and four servers. I need to buy another server so it will be all fives, lol. Best depends on your use case, it isn't a "one size fits all" answer. I prefer desktops, but when I travel I don't like packing up my large PCs. Having a powerful laptop comes in handy then. Ultimately though I gravitate towards desktops as I like the ease of upgrade. You don't get that with a laptop.
Like a lot of people, including yourself if portability is my prime concern I go with laptop which I do have one,
If performance is the prime concern as is the case with gaming PC's, I pick desktop.