Originally Posted by
CessnaJock
If so, the only figure of merit that deserves consideration is battery life.
Unless a laptop is going to be used a lot for computation-intensive apps as a substitute for a desktop, the only thing that matters is how long it will run before requiring a recharge. It amazes me how users beg for more and more CPU and GPU power, and then are disappointed when the sucker has to be plugged in everywhere they go - as if their supercomputer-with-a-handle didn't devour batteries.
For my portable word processing and email, I use a 386/16 with 1024k that will run all day without recharging - and it has a spare battery pack that can be populated with 8 throwaway AA cells.
If I'm going to be doing Windows application development on the road, then I take the Vaio - and plan on swapping the battery in two hours. P.I.A.
Whilst I agree about battery longevity, how does this affect processor choice in this case? And isn't the Intel supposedly less power hungry and thus allows batteries to last longer.
She doesn't really do all THAT much portable work - it's a 17" laptop - not exactly a road warrior model
It's her desktop replacement ( we don't have desktops in the family).
As for applications, the most common use if Photoshop/Lightroom - does that qualify as "computation-intensive apps"?