yeah, that's the one, and as I said before, the onboard is no slouch. It will play source games like a beast. My roommate played doom3 and counter strike source just fine with a decent resolution just find with his nvidia 6600M (which is the nvidia equivalent of intel's onboad).
I advocate small laptops because I owned a 4:3 15" thinkpad in 2005. I rarely brought it to classes because it was so big it took up my entire (tiny) desk, I had very little room to work around it, and I was required to carry it in a backpack if I wanted to go anywhere.

With my 9" netbook, I can just leave it in my pocket, and it's got enough room for me to also have a sheet of paper at least partially visible on the desk with my laptop. My 15" screen turned into a desktop more than anything, and since I already had a desktop, it was completely pointless, and cost me $1800. And don't start to call me a pussy because I can't carry weight: I lugged around a 40 lb sousaphone for 16 hours each week. If I could get the same sound out of a piccolo, I would have used that.

Post has been edited 1 time(s), last time on May 31 2011, 12:55 am by rockz.

Honestly, if you want to do video editing you're probably better off buying a good Desktop and a cheap Laptop and remoting into your Desktop for presentations. Laptops in my experience are terrible for anything intense.

I'd ratter not do that... I've got quite a few laptops like the one discussed above (I got one right beside me right now), and they work very well. Even though most people I know keep their laptop for around 3 years, I usually keep my stuff for way longer than the average. If I get a good laptop, it should last me for years and I won't want to have a remote desktop at all times (I'll just end up not using it.).

Why is there a tradeoff? Is that just due to money limits, or is there something else I don't know about?

Money. SSD's are orders of magnitude more expensive per GB than disk drives, especially in laptops. Even a 128GB SSD, probably the minimum you should have on a laptop you'll be using to store music, games, and programs, would likely cost hundreds more than a 500GB hard drive. I'm not saying it's not an option, but if CPU power is a hard requirement (and I suppose it is, for modelling), the trade-off might not be worth it. That said, until you get into the really intense modelling, which I don't know if Apos is going to be doing, even an older CPU might be more than enough, in which case I'd totally recommend SSD's. For example, if all he's using it for is SCII modelling...

Vrael, don't be jelly. If you think your 15 pounds is mobile, imagine what my three pounds are like.

Post has been edited 1 time(s), last time on May 31 2011, 1:43 am by Centreri.

This is *exactly* what I was talking about, Vrael. You buy a big laptop ("desktop replacement") because it's more powerful, but it ends up being so big and clunky that you never actually use it as it was intended. It's not really the weight that is the problem, but the bulkiness and size.

Obviously, your milage may vary. In your case you had no problem with a 17", but someone else (and I know I personally would) would find a 17" too big to be useful.

I'd say the opposite, that the weight would normally be more of an issue than screen size. I mean, the difference between my screen and Vrael's is four inches, or ~20% diagonally. The main difference is the weight (or, if he has an older one, his probably also has a huge bezel, which adds to the dimensions in to-me-unknown ways). You can always carry the laptop around - but when it gets heavy, you take it with you less because the trade-off isn't worth it. If it's larger than 'tiny' you'll want a backpack to carry it around, and as long as it fits into the same backpack...

Post has been edited 1 time(s), last time on May 31 2011, 2:06 am by Centreri.

Oh, if you get that i3 and do video editing you'll want to get some more RAM for it. The 2 GB really limits you if you do a lot of high resolution video editing with NLE software. It's good to have some breathing room when dealing with RAM hungry things. Video playback and internet browsing, along with the occasional source game however do not require much RAM. Video editing and servers are the only real reason to have 8 GB of RAM nowadays, unless it was only $75. You don't have to get it when you buy it, maybe later when ram drops even further. Changing ram in a laptop is easy, so long as it isn't a mac.

I remember I payed $109 for 1 GB of ddr2-667 in 2006, $20 for 1 GB in 2008, $50 for 4 GB in 2009, and $40 for 4 GB in 2010.

HDD storage prices are down to $0.04-$0.06 per GiB, and I've seen a few SSDs at the magic $1 per GB mark, though most are at $2 per GB.

Sure you want a laptop?

I would use a cloud computing to access a more powerful desktop through a laptop.

Not really too difficult to change the RAM in a Mac. Unless, of course, using a screw driver and reading a set of instructions is not something you're comfortable doing.

I believe opening the laptop would void the warranty, which would make it a better idea to get 4GB from the beginning.

That and adding much of anything to a laptop is a nightmare in and of itself. The parts aren't nearly as standardized.

I don't know if you're referring to Apple laptops, but if so, no, adding RAM to one does not void the laptop's warranty. I think that's probably the policy for most, if not all laptops too.

Warranty policy on all devices is that opening the device automatically voids it.

If we're still taking about Apple, I suggest you read this : http://docs.info.apple.com/article.html?artnum=13946

If I were talking exclusively about Apple, I'd say so.

You don't need to open the device. It's a little compartment specifically to let you upgrade RAM. You can get it done immediately after purchasing it and nobody cares.

If you break something in the process of upgrading the RAM, then that makes sense to void the warranty.

I know someone that uses the ASUS G73SW-XN2. He does some major video production and plays a few big games. I don't think he uses it for it's portability (His weight more than 9.5 lbs.)

Would someone be able to tell if it's better than the HP discussed above?

I'm starting to get an idea of what is good hardware or bad hardware (a little) so let's see if I can spot the advantages and disadvantages of it.
What I can see is that it has 8GB of ram but can hold up to 16GB, 500GB of storage.
I'm not sure if it has a better graphic card (I doubt it).
It seems to have less ports.
Better sound system.
Same CPU, but a bit slower?
Better screen resolution (Full HD)
In the end though, I'm not exactly sure which one is better. Based in these observations, I'd say it's the EliteBook, but I like what the other one offers too.

Am I missing something? Is it really adapted for my use? Is the ASUS going to last as long?

Most laptops produced by other vendors make upgrading memory an even less invested process. You'll often find doors held in by a screw or two holding in the system's memory/additional memory expansion slots. You're telling me that the hardware vendors who have designed these laptops so the system memory can be accessed will void your warranty if you do access it? Apple was brought up only because it is takes a different approach to system memory upgrades, and requires a more involved, yet equally simple process.

They don't even always have screws. I had a laptop were you just stick your fingernail in a little slot and the door pops open.