Andrew Lentvorski wrote: > James G. Sack (jim) wrote: > >> I'm thinking that the $400 kind would probably be rather disappointing, >> and the $2000 kind seem pretty excessive. But I don't mind something in >> the $1200 range, and maybe even a bit more. > > You know, the Dell's around $800 are Core 2 Duo's. I really can't see > you being disappointed with that ... > >> Does anyone have a wide-screen (16:9, 10:6, ..) format and regret it? > > It depends. How much do you truly value "portability"? > > If you just move from desk to desk with it then there won't be any > issue. If, however, you're like me and it gets hauled with you to do > presentations and stuff, then weight matters. Display size == glass == > weight. > >> I see resolutions like 1280x800 and 1680x1050. The latter sounds >> especially nice to me -- I tend to use multiple windows and like the >> real estate. Anybody have negative experiences with such res? > > The only issue is that the pixels get smaller. As long as you can scale > the icons/fonts in Your Favorite Window Manager, it's no big deal. > >> What do people think is a good overall screen size? What's the max that >> is still convenient to carry around, and actually fit on one's lap? See >> previous question re wide-screen. > > 15.1" is probably as big as you want, and it's normally pretty hefty > unless you get a thin laptop. >
Thanks, that's the kind of opinion I am glad to hear. The 15.1" is a diagonal measurement, I presume. Correct if wrong. Hmm, I thought of another Q Is 5400 or 7200 rpm a better choice for laptops. If performance is only somewhat important, and power (battery life) and maybe noise is more important, I would guess 5400. Would that be right Regards, ..jim -- [email protected] http://www.kernel-panic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/kplug-list
