On Fri, 25 Jan 2008 14:39:03 -0500, Ian Burgmyer <spe### [at] gmailcom> wrote:


>Heh, I probably wouldn't use an Alienware laptop if one were given to me 
>(well, I might use it, but I probably wouldn't enjoy it).  Last 
>Alienware laptop I used got so hot it hurt my legs and its battery life 
>was so horrid that they should have just left the battery out of the design.

We must read different books but I do remember that laptop :)


>
>My laptop is rather large (hurray, 17" screen!), but it doesn't have a 
>full-sized keyboard and all.  That would just be excessive. :P
>

I don't know about that. It makes a big difference to me.

>Also, pics please.  I'd like to see your little goliath.

Sorry, no can do. It is a K8T800 motherboard if that helps?

>> So I want to go for something lighter. Most of the laptops on the market seem to
>> be dual processors with a lower clock speed.  As I use Ver 3.6 and don't want to
>> use the beta because my modeller is a beta too. 
>> What to do? I don't know what I want.
>> So fix that, please :)
>
>I CAN'T! :(
>
>hrm...
>
>As far as the clock speed issue is concerned, it all depends on what 
>you're comparing it to.  Since the Pentium M, Intel's completely 
>rethought their strategy, focusing on efficiency rather than pumping the 
>clock speed as high as they possibly can.  I did some informal tests on 
>my systems and my laptop's Pentium M (Dothan core) 1.73GHz CPU is faster 
>than my desktop's Pentium 4 (Prescott core) 2.80GHz CPU (FSB on both 
>systems is 533MHz).  If you're thinking in terms of a Pentium 4 or 
>Pentium D, a 2.4GHz Core 2 is going to mercilessly kill just about any 
>of them (with fire).  To make the situation even better, they don't get 
>as hot.  My laptop's processor runs cooler under load (with the fan in 
>my laptop set to "low") than my Preshott does idle (whose case has a 
>bazillion fans in it).
>
>So really, even if you're only using a single core on a modern laptop, 
>odds are you're going to wind up with a system that performs exceedingly 
>well.
>

Thanks for that. I think I lost track when they went to 16 bit :)



>As far as the whole megapixels thing goes, it seems as though everyone 
>gets into that.  In my class, a bunch of people got on my case for 
>paying $550 for a camera that "only" takes 6.1 megapixel shots.
>
>When you do the math, there really isn't much of a difference between 6 
>megapixels and 8 megapixels.  To double the resolution of a 6 megapixel 
>camera, you'd have to use a 24 megapixel camera.
>
>I'd rather pay more for a camera that takes *damn good* 6 megapixel 
>shots than a camera that's $50 less that takes crappy 10 megapixel shots 
>that need to be scaled down to eliminate all of the artifacts in the 
>picture.  If I wanted to have to scale down photos to make them look 
>less crappy I'd use my cell phone camera.
>

And the lens don't forget the lens.

>> And to be fare to my wife, she didn't actually say that to the salesman. It is
>> just what she wanted to say. 
>
>Sure, sure... ;)
>

Ok it's what I wanted her to say :)


>Ah well, I'm still going to be in Tampa for about a month and a week, so 
>it's all good.

It sounds so exotic :)
That is a long course it must cover a lot? Is it a campus and do you get out at
night? :)

Regards
	Stephen

Post a reply to this message