I'm choosing a laptop to buy, and will be using the latest version of Fedora as my operating system. Does anyone have any recommendations on what the best brands or models of laptops would be in terms of hardware compatibility and overall working best with Fedora? As well as other things like ability to plug in a second monitor and use it too, etc. Thanks.

Not Fedora-specific, but I would avoid if I could a model with proprietary video hardware; e.g., Nvidia, Radeon and the like. Pretty much everybody uses Intel graphics chips for the base and those don't require any proprietary drivers or screwing around (and, hey, no extra cost!). I've had good service from Dell (both laptops and towers).

Hope this helps some.

Might look at enterprise companies that offer some version of Red Hat on their systems.

go for any asus laptop.


because i am using asus lap with FC16.

there is no trouble with it .in terms of performances really amazing .
FC16 take only max of 300 MB RAM.

thanks
Rajesh

So only crappy laptops with poor graphics performance work with Linux then? If that's the case I suggest the OP buy a Macbook or use Windows 7 because you can use decent hardware with them.
Sorry, that is a little flippant, but to my mind there is no point using Linux if you have to compromise from day one.

What exactly is bad about integrated Intel graphics in a laptop? They are low power consumption, low heat and have reasonable performance, perfect for a laptop. I have an older Intel 4500MHD in my Thinkpad X200 and it does everything I could possibly want in a laptop.

Also, Nvidia stuff works fine with proprietary drivers, but they don't officially support the new hybrid systems with Intel and Nvidia graphics.

If you just want the eye candy like Compiz, even an ancient Intel 945GMA can handle a lot of it. I can even play 1080p video on my Atom powered Eee netbook with the 945GME chipset.

I used the word crappy to emphasize -- there's nothing inherently bad about built-in graphics. If you want to play 3D accelerated games though, or other applications, a dedicated GPU will work better.
What I was objecting to was the suggestion that using Linux means doing without a decent GPU and making do with a lesser model, since it's not uncommon for the higher-specification and desktop-replacement type models to include a separate GPU alongside the faster processor, more RAM and better resolution screen.

Well, no, that's not the case at all. Built-in Intel graphics work just fine in my desktops and laptops -- all of them fairly high-end, high-performance units. I've had various boxes with various GPU cards in them that I was underwhelmend by when it came to graphics (I do not play games other than solitaire every so often, especially the need for acquiring, installing and debugging proprietary drivers). More trouble than they're worth, methinks.

I want to watch a DVD? No problem. Watch something or other on YouTube? No problem. Want to keep the heat down? No problem. Do I get a nice, sharp display on a (large) LCD monitor? Oh, yeah. Do I get eye-candy? Well, no, but, then, I don't miss it either.

I do not believe that I've compromised on anything -- I just don't want to pay for or put up with the latest and greatest thingy that I don't need, don't really want and am just as happy without.

Only that and nothing more.

If somebody wants to game, they'll need a GPU. You don't want to, and that is fair enough. Why should everyone be like you though? Must Linux users all not game? Must we all use only built-in graphics regardless of what we actually want to do?
I'll admit I've not looked hard but if you can find some machine with built-in GPUs that have better processors and general specifications than ones with separate GPUs I'll be surprised.

He didn't say that all linux users must be like him. In fact, he said:

See the "I" in there (twice, in fact)? Maybe you should stop projecting.

Adam

My apologies, perhaps the inference was just mine. However, I don't see the usefulness of telling a new Linux user that "I just use the cheaper kit and it works".
This thread is not "what do you use and like" it is "what can I run Linux on".
I could say "Well, I have a 5 year old PC and a tatty netbook and they do me proud, other things don't work so well with Linux". I don't though because it's of no help.

The OP never mentioned gaming, he said he wanted good Linux compatibility with the ability to use a second monitor.

True, but why rule it out?
Is Linux support that bad for separate graphics cards that a new user should be told a knowledgeable user chooses to avoid them?

Hi just for the record, i'm running intel HD Graphics 3000. I use kwin, and eye candy works flawlessly. I don't play many games, but the hd graphics 3000 handles Diablo 1 and Majesty flawlessly, so games aren't completely out of the question for us intel graphics users.
I am more than happy too, and recommend intel too.

No, but Intel is by far the least troublesome of the lot, since the drivers are open source and work great out of the box in most cases. Newer Nvidia and ATI chipsets require the closed source drivers to be installed for optimal performance and these aren't always kept up to date quickly with the changes to the kernel and Xorg. The ATI open source drivers are getting better, but they still have a long way to go.

Also, there are non-Linux related issues with laptops and Nvidia, not sure about ATI though. Remember the problems HP had with the DV series laptops with Nvidia chips? The solder joints under the chip would fail. It wasn't just HP either, they just happen to be the most known.

1 members found this post helpful.