MacBook computer for SecondLife.

[NayNayFaith]

Would this computer be good for sl? I want to know other people’s opinions

[Wulfie Reanimator]

There's not nearly enough information on that page.

"It has a processor and a graphics card." Awesome..

[NayNayFaith]

Just now, Wulfie Reanimator said:

There's not nearly enough information on that page.

"It has a processor and a graphics card." Awesome..

Should I just buy a regular hp computer along with my USB flash drive and call it a day? Or do I need to have those graphics? 

[Lyssa Greymoon]

No, it's not. It has an AMD GPU, which is good, but they're all defective, which is not so good. It's obsolete and can't run new versions of the mac OS. It's an expensive, obsolete computer with a graphics card that will eventually self destruct.

[NayNayFaith]

1 minute ago, Lyssa Greymoon said:

No, it's not. It has an AMD GPU, which is good, but they're all defective, which is not so good. It's obsolete and can't run new versions of the mac OS. It's an expensive, obsolete computer with a graphics card that will eventually self destruct.

Should I just buy a regular hp computer along with my USB flash drive and call it a day? Or do I need to have those graphics? 

 

 

[Alwin Alcott]

45 minutes ago, NayNayFaith said:

Would this computer

you started a thread with the same question 17 hours ago... use that instead of new posts?..keeps the info together.

[Wulfie Reanimator]

40 minutes ago, Alwin Alcott said:

you started a thread with the same question 17 hours ago... use that instead of new posts?..keeps the info together.

To be fair, the other thread is in the "People Forum," where it doesn't really belong. (Edit: It got moved since I said this.)

Either way, I understand that OP knows just about nothing about computers, so the best/only useful advice would be direct links to specific products.

"HP computer" is not anything specific. There's a big difference in each computer sold by HP, and there's no guarantee any of them would "run fast" enough for SL.

Heck, the chances of finding any laptop under $700 that can handle SL "smoothly" and "without any problems" as they say is going to need a small miracle. Even powerful desktop computers built for gaming will experience low framerates depending on the location, that's just the reality of SL.

Edited September 7, 2019 by Wulfie Reanimator

[Alwin Alcott]

13 minutes ago, Wulfie Reanimator said:

To be fair, the other thread is in the "People Forum," where it doesn't really belong.

it's both in the GD section .. unless there's even a 3rd around

[Lyssa Greymoon]

1 hour ago, NayNayFaith said:

Should I just buy a regular hp computer along with my USB flash drive and call it a day? Or do I need to have those graphics?

It would probably be good to see how SL runs on some different computers to get an idea about what people are going on about with CPUs and graphics cards.

I have a bunch of computers around here, and one of them is a "regular" HP (just a plain jane 17" Pavillion) with an AMD A8 like one of those you asked about in the other thread. A8-4500 (1.9GHz quad core), 8GB RAM and a 240GB SSD. It's not a bad computer, but it's not a "gaming" computer by any stretch of the imagination. You can dial in the graphics settings so that SL is usable, but it's very slow (I was getting around 9fps in a moderately busy region with plain, undemanding builds). Can you run SL on it? Yes. Would I use one for my daily driver? No way. If you're going to use SL a lot, you want the fastest CPU and best GPU you can afford.

[NayNayFaith]

1 minute ago, Lyssa Greymoon said:

It would probably be good to see how SL runs on some different computers to get an idea about what people are going on about with CPUs and graphics cards.

I have a bunch of computers around here, and one of them is a "regular" HP (just a plain jane 17" Pavillion) with an AMD A8 like one of those you asked about in the other thread. A8-4500 (1.9GHz quad core), 8GB RAM and a 240GB SSD. It's not a bad computer, but it's not a "gaming" computer by any stretch of the imagination. You can dial in the graphics settings so that SL is usable, but it's very slow (I was getting around 9fps in a moderately busy region with plain, undemanding builds). Can you run SL on it? Yes. Would I use one for my daily driver? No way. If you're going to use SL a lot, you want the fastest CPU and best GPU you can afford.

Alright thank you I just wanted something simple and that I can afford so I asked around and Hp is what I’m going with I just don’t want it to be slow as the computer I’m using now that’s my only concern for it to not be as slow and not as glitchy

[Rolig Loon]

17 minutes ago, Lyssa Greymoon said:

If you're going to use SL a lot, you want the fastest CPU and best GPU you can afford.

This is the bottom line.  SL demands a lot from a graphics card.  Getting anything more than mediocre performance means having a system that is designed for gaming, not for e-mail, web browsing, and watching YouTube videos.  That, in turn, means paying a fair chunk of money.  If you cannot afford to pay more than $1000 for a computer, that's understandable, but be prepared to reset your personal standard for "acceptable" performance.  My own advice would be to stick with whatever machine you have at the moment and save your pennies until you have enough to buy a computer that you will be truly pleased with.  Otherwise, my bet is that the best you can expect is a new computer that is only slightly less "glitchy" than the one you already have.

[Alyona Su]

People like to proclaim that the performance of SL requires a powerhouse computer and that's not the whole story.

It cracks me up how it is always proclaimed that you must have a Bugatti-powered gamer computer to run SL with any kind of performance. This simply is not true. Your graphic settings and window-size directly control the performance you get. The computer shown by the OP can run SL swimmingly, at minimum graphic settings.

What people are really suggesting, but not saying, is: If you want a decent 1600+ pixel-size display at ultra-level graphics with all features maxed out and a draw distance of 500 m2 then yes: you need a Bugatti-powered computer and GPU. The simple fact is people always presume this is what everyone wants. To me, performance is as little lag as possible and as high FPS as possible. Turn of Basic Shaders and see what happens! Though, if this is unacceptable tom you then yes: you need to invest more money into your equipment.

So let us look at it this way: You can get great performance out of SL on most 2019 computers. However, the visual experience of SL directly correlates to the amount of money you invest into that computer.

[Rolig Loon]

27 minutes ago, Alyona Su said:

What people are really suggesting, but not saying, is: If you want a decent 1600+ pixel-size display at ultra-level graphics with all features maxed out and a draw distance of 500 m2 then yes: you need a Bugatti-powered computer and GPU. The simple fact is people always presume this is what everyone wants. To me, performance is as little lag as possible and as high FPS as possible.

This isn't a bad restatement, but I think the reality for many people lies somewhere between what I wrote and what you just said. SL is indeed a complex graphical world.  That's something that most of us don't begin to appreciate before we arrive and start exploring. We're accustomed to the relatively static backdrop imagery of video games and the cinematic beauty of an on-line movie, but are not familiar with a world created by its residents -- a world that changes in real time. 

I remember my reaction when I entered SL on a Gateway Colorbook laptop, back in 2007. It was a pretty good computer at the time, competitive in its market and widely used on college campuses.  I discovered quickly that I could change my field of view by increasing draw distance, and could get greater clarity by increasing with Quality slider, but I did it at a price. Images loaded slower and I started walking in molasses.  I lived with the compromise for a while, but got increasingly frustrated. I didn't like having to choose between seeing a small world close up and experiencing the larger panorama that I knew was beyond it.  I had to trade up to a new machine.  Other people I met at the time chose to give up SL instead.

Over my years in SL, I have upgraded several times, in a sort of arms race between my budget and the technology that would let me experience all that SL could offer.  I have made many compromises, usually because my budget won.  I think a lot of SL residents are in the same arms race and making the same compromises, and some give up on SL because their budget (or poor choice in computers) won't let them keep up with their expectations.  Hence, the advice that Lyssa gave:

16 hours ago, Lyssa Greymoon said:

You can dial in the graphics settings so that SL is usable, but it's very slow (I was getting around 9fps in a moderately busy region with plain, undemanding builds). Can you run SL on it? Yes. Would I use one for my daily driver? No way. If you're going to use SL a lot, you want the fastest CPU and best GPU you can afford.

Expectations change with time, and technology and budget limitations always create a tension that keep us just short of reaching our expectations in SL. Linden Lab increases the stakes by adding new features too.  So, you choose among uncomfortable options: (1) upgrade frequently and at some cost, or (2) become accustomed to a growing gap between performance and your expectations, maybe finally leaving SL.  My own solution is to plan ahead, buying the equipment that I can afford today without putting myself in the poorhouse while knowing that I will have to do it again in a year or two. As I said earlier,

16 hours ago, Rolig Loon said:

My own advice would be to stick with whatever machine you have at the moment and save your pennies until you have enough to buy a computer that you will be truly pleased with. 

If you enjoy SL enough to want to stay, explore, and share its cultural life, enter the arms race on your own terms. Don't settle for a cheap machine if you can afford one that is a better match to your expectations.  Throwing money into an OK machine today is silly if you have a realistic hope of getting a better one by saving for another few months.  It's either that or

16 hours ago, Rolig Loon said:

be prepared to reset your personal standard for "acceptable" performance.

 

[Alyona Su]

18 minutes ago, Rolig Loon said:

I could change my field of view by increasing draw distance, and could get greater clarity by increasing with Quality slider, but I did it at a price. Images loaded slower and I started walking in molasses.

Precisely and this is my main point that many who give computer specification advice always tend to forget.  Obviously, SL will not work on a Chromebook. And it would barely run on the system the OP is asking about, but it would run, albeit with graphics set to a 2003 look. There is always a trade-of: "performance" versus "look of the world", to put it bluntly. As always, we must find the right balance that satisfies each of us.

Part of the issue is that the viewers are basically "ports" of windows apps to macOS and not 100% from-the-ground-up native. But this is the case with many apps (including the other direction).

I suppose the first response to people asking for system advice should probably be "What is your balance between performance and pretty?" Because in the end, that's how it always turns out. Unless you buy a new $20,000 Mac Pro, then you can have your cake and eat it, too and then some!. LOL

[Lyssa Greymoon]

1 hour ago, Alyona Su said:

People like to proclaim that the performance of SL requires a powerhouse computer and that's not the whole story.

It cracks me up how it is always proclaimed that you must have a Bugatti-powered gamer computer to run SL with any kind of performance. This simply is not true. Your graphic settings and window-size directly control the performance you get. The computer shown by the OP can run SL swimmingly, at minimum graphic settings.

Sure, so will a lot of computers that don’t cost almost $400 and cook their own GPU. If I spend that kind of money on a computer, it had better be able to run basic shaders.

[Wulfie Reanimator]

1 hour ago, Alyona Su said:

The simple fact is people always presume this is what everyone wants.

We have to, when the requirements were "smoothly and without problems for $400"

What is smooth? What kind of problems? This is (no offense) a useless description of their expectations.

Instead, if they said "I want to get at around 20 FPS without shadows or advanced lighting," there would be more options to suggest. Probably not for $400, but closer, and it goes without saying that the exact performance depends heavily on what kinds of places you hang out at. Lots of people = bad time no matter what.

Edited September 8, 2019 by Wulfie Reanimator

[Syo Emerald]

23 minutes ago, Alyona Su said:

Unless you buy a new $20,000 Mac Pro, then you can have your cake and eat it, too and then some!. LOL

And even to that I would say: If you got 20k to spend on a computer, its wasted on a Mac 😂

[Alyona Su]

3 minutes ago, Syo Emerald said:

And even to that I would say: If you got 20k to spend on a computer, its wasted on a Mac 😂

/me rolls eyes

[Syo Emerald]

Just now, Alyona Su said:

/me rolls eyes

Shall I rather comment on how you criticize people for assuming that the OP wants to run SL under at least somewhat decent conditions for the next few years?

[Alyona Su]

1 minute ago, Syo Emerald said:

Shall I rather comment on how you criticize people for assuming that the OP wants to run SL under at least somewhat decent conditions for the next few years?

/ne rolls eyes again.

[Madelaine McMasters]

1 minute ago, Alyona Su said:

/ne rolls eyes again.

...hands you a bottle of eye drops.

[Alyona Su]

1 minute ago, Madelaine McMasters said:

...hands you a bottle of eye drops.

LOL. Thanks. Needed it.

[Rolig Loon]

I'm going to avoid falling into the ancient platform wars. If you like a Mac, use a Mac.  If you like a PC, use a PC.  What counts is that you choose a computer that lets you meet your expectations.  The pothole in the road is that if you're like me, you can't always see far enough around the next corner to know what your expectations will look like a year or two from now. So get the best you can afford, or save until you can afford it.

There's another part to the puzzle that I should have mentioned before.  Plan flexibility.  You can't really prepare for the future, because you will never know what THE future holds.  However, you can prepare for A future by keeping your options open. 

I have a good laptop, but the computer that I use most of the time is a desktop that has kept evolving for a long time. It started as a bunch of components that my son's ex-wife's father jammed into a case for me as sort of a "well, we're all in one happy family" offering. It was much better than I could have bought off the shelf if I had paid half again the price. (That's more than I can say for my son's ex-wife, but that's another story.)  As time went by, I replaced the graphics card with a better one, and then another one.  I swapped out disc drives and replaced a floppy drive with a CD/DVD drive.  I went through three monitors and a pile of keyboards and mice.  And speakers, modems, and routers. When I replaced the graphics card again three years ago, the new one wouldn't fit on the motherboard, so I replaced the motherboard -- and a new case, because the motherboard didn't fit in the old case. 

In my mind, this is the same custom desktop I got in 2010.  It just has a bunch of new stuff in it -- like .... everything.  Except for that big overhaul that resulted in a new motherboard and case, it all happened gradually.  I didn't plan for the system I have now, but I did plan from the start to have a system that I could adapt one piece at a time as technology and my expectations evolved.  I stayed within my budget and kept my eye on as much of the future as I could guess at.

[Lindal Kidd]

My Resident Geek builds all the computers at our house.  I'm not sure he saves us money over buying them pre-built, but he enjoys his little hobby.  (Until things don't work right, then he mutters and curses and growls a lot.)

There is a great site called PC Parts Picker, where you can pick out all the parts to build a computer, see the cheapest places to buy them, and check to see if they will all work together.  You can save your selections and come back to them later, which lets you go read product reviews on them.  You can see builds made by others, and see how they like them.

[Arduenn Schwartzman]

21 hours ago, NayNayFaith said:

Would this computer be good for sl?

I have exactly one like that and yes, you can play SL with it. Is it fun? Absolutely not. For a decent frame rate, you'll have to set to absolutely horrible low graphics. Also, if something inside breaks (which is likely to happen with an 8 year-old laptop), it's a total economic loss. It may seem cheap, but it's not worth it.

The whole problem with trying to use a cheap computer (as proposed in this, and another recent thread by the same OP--why is this a new thread anyway?) for SL is that all content in SL has evolved with PC technology. Old computers were fine for SL in their day. For a fairly acceptable SL experience, you'll need to invest at least 700-800 US$. But consider all the other cool things you can do with such a computer then.