Weekend Open Forum: What's your ideal laptop size?

By on June 24, 2011, 8:27 PM

When shopping for a new laptop one of the main factors to consider is size. Whether you want a gaming powerhouse that will only move from your desk occasionally, something that hits the sweet spot between performance and portability, or simply the thinnest and lightest you can find regardless of the compromise in power and disk space.

Your preference will likely vary depending if it's going to be your primary machine or not. For example, a 11-inch netbook might be all you need for occasionally going online and taking on short trips, knowing that a powerful desktop and large monitor await at your desk when it's time for more serious computing tasks. For me 13-inch has turned out to be the sweet spot, as it gives me enough screen real estate to get some work done but it's still easy to carry around.

What about you: What's the ideal laptop size? You can cast your vote on the poll below but we'd also like to read your thoughts in the comments. Is portability more important than power for you when it comes to laptops? By the way, that monster up there is the Maingear Titan 17 we're currently testing next to the ThinkPad X1 we reviewed last month.




User Comments: 51

Got something to say? Post a comment
Xclusiveitalian Xclusiveitalian said:

17' is my favorite, any smaller size and you should just buy a tablet. 17' inch laptops normally have the better hardware, and the big screen is really nice for gaming or browsing alike. It fit's in a standard bookbag, so it's portable. It's not the lightest, but it's not heavy either. Bigger speakers built in as-well, so better for listening to music...mine even has a small bass subwoofer on the bottom.

bchen88c said:

I have a hp dv2000t (14 in) and a hp dv7t-4100 (17 in) by which both were listed as "entertainment" or "high performance" at their time. Personally, I like the 17 in better because it is not only newer with the better hardware, but the extra 3 in. diag fufills my need for organization in my job.

Guest said:

My laptops have been getting progressively smaller - first was a 15", then 13.3", and now I have a 11.6". I have tried a netbook 10" but the keyboards are annoyingly small. The keyboard on the 11.6" is perfectly useable and the screen res is good so I think this is ideal now, plus it is light at 1.4Kgs and battery life is excellent too. I don't miss an optical drive so I don't ever see myself going back to a bigger laptop.

treeski treeski said:

It really depends for me. If I'm going to be on the go a lot without staying in any particular place for long, I'll take a smaller screen, 11", to minimize weight.

If I'm going to be moving around but getting comfy for longer periods, I'll take something bigger, 17" if possible (although I've never owned one to date).

matrix86 matrix86 said:

I'm anywhere between 11-14. Bigger than a netbook, but still small enough to carry around. The sucky part is that when I find a laptop in that size range with the specs I want, it ends up being more expensive than another laptop with similar specs but with a larger screen size :-(

hitech0101 said:

None don't use em.

Route44 Route44, TechSpot Ambassador, said:

12"-14" for portability. Since I don't game on a laptop but on a PC the screen size is not an issue for me.

Archean Archean, TechSpot Paladin, said:

I prefer 15.x size screens over 14", because the difference is not significant enough to influence portability related issues too much. IMO if someone really is concerned about portability they should stick with 11/13" segment.

Zecias said:

14"-15" not too small, but not too large. good screen size that's also portable.

captaincranky captaincranky, TechSpot Addict, said:

I'm kinda thinkin' that "size doesn't matter", as much as the panel technology.

I have a 15.6" Toshiba Satellite, ($300.00), and the TN panel just plain sucks. My experience has been, the smaller you make a TN panel, the more acute the viewing angle issue becomes. That said, I suppose 15.6 is my ideal size, since the viewing angle issue is bad, and could get worse if I picked a smaller lappy.

The one thing I always say nice about Apple, (and it is absolutely the ONLY thing I say nice about Apple), is that they use IPS panels in everything.

But, when I realized that the insurance policy on a Macbook Pro, would be as much as I paid for my Toshiba, I decided to tough out the TN issue.

I actually don't need a laptop anyway, so it's all good.

Guest said:

9 inches.

Oh wait you're talking about laptops: 11" Inches

In no preferred order.

Scott8090 said:

I would say 15-16 inch for portibilty as well as any any below gaming requirements. While 15 to 17 for gaming would be fine.

IMO netbooks ruined the market. 1 gig memory with weak processors while running windows is asking for trouble. Haven't had any personal hands on experiance with netbooks but windows 7 running on those specs is a underpowered PC. Beyond that, introducing net books only allowed the market to be even more confusing and costly for the end user.

11,12,13,14 inch laptops became far more common while costing the end user vastly larger sums of cash. Its not uncommon to see laptops of all sizes with vastly different price tags. Price tags that generally don't add up to the specs of the Laptop.

captaincranky captaincranky, TechSpot Addict, said:

9 inches.

Oh wait you're talking about laptops: 11" Inches

In no preferred order.

Is this a question of disseminating too much information, or a "hope springs eternal" delusion.

Perhaps you should have just skipped Techspot, and logged into a porn site. Look up "shtick", maybe you'll get the pun, or not.

Guest said:

Yes, I disseminated too much information.

Staff
Julio Franco Julio Franco, TechSpot Editor, said:

For a desktop replacement type machine, the ideal size is 15 inches. But if portability is a concern, then a 13.3" ultraportable is best. Anything smaller than that and I start having issues with the size of the keyboard and the text on screen.

gwailo247, TechSpot Chancellor, said:

I had a work laptop a while back, but I never got around to buying one myself because by the time I found specs that I would be cool with, and priced it, I always concluded that I'd rather spend all that money on something else, such as hardware for my desktop.

But I'm going to need some kind of portable computer for school, but I'm probably going to get a tablet to double as an e-reader.

I dunno, I like to upgrade my computers, and you can't upgrade a laptop, so that's always been a big reason I never got one.

lawfer, TechSpot Paladin, said:

Guest said:

9 inches.

Oh wait you're talking about laptops: 11" Inches

In no preferred order.

I wouldn't have expected nothing more from Guest...

Punkid said:

Guest said:

9 inches.

Oh wait you're talking about laptops: 11" Inches

In no preferred order.

Guest = Troll

And i think 15 inch is an ideal size...

ET3D, TechSpot Paladin, said:

7" - 9". I'm comfortable enough with small keyboards and prefer them over an on-screen touch keyboard. I care a lot about size and weight. However I also want a high enough resolution and decent processing power and graphics. The latter is the main problem. Something like the processing power fo an AMD E-350 will be enough, I think.

veLa veLa said:

I have a 15.6" ASUS G51J

Serious gaming laptop, but it's showing a bit of age with the latest games though.

ess333 said:

17" widescreen is ideal for me

Muggs said:

I prefer 15-16" since they tend to be a bit lighter and they travel better. 17+ laptops are more luggables but are understandably more powerful. My current laptop is a 16" and super light and allows a bit of gaming as well as photoshop work on the road so I am happy. Walking through airports with luggables takes its tolls after awhile.

mosu said:

Due to my age, at least 17 inch and no need for 1920 res, a plus being the second hard drive on some configurations.

Guest said:

i voted for 15-16.. because it is more practical.. but i only buy gaming laptops, and prefer the biggest screen possible. i don't like carrying around the bulky 17" laptops but i only ever buy them.

Phate13 said:

Scott8090 said:

I would say 15-16 inch for portibilty as well as any any below gaming requirements. While 15 to 17 for gaming would be fine.

IMO netbooks ruined the market. 1 gig memory with weak processors while running windows is asking for trouble. Haven't had any personal hands on experiance with netbooks but windows 7 running on those specs is a underpowered PC. Beyond that, introducing net books only allowed the market to be even more confusing and costly for the end user.

11,12,13,14 inch laptops became far more common while costing the end user vastly larger sums of cash. Its not uncommon to see laptops of all sizes with vastly different price tags. Price tags that generally don't add up to the specs of the Laptop.

Ruined it? They made it so much more interesting. Since netbooks (which because of their weak performance were not that interesting, true) entered the market several things happened: Cheap ultraportables followed soon after (with decent performance) AND batterylife improved dramaticly.

Besides that, why would these lead to higher prices for the end user? You can pick up an E-350 11.6" laptop, which is more then enough for any normal use, starting at ?380 over here. How is that expensive?

And finally: Of course there are different price tags for differnt sizes. It wouldn't make sense if it was the same. Except for the screen, going smaller is more expensive. You can not put a high-end graphics card in a small laptop.

My brother, parents and I are ALL very happy with our 11.6" laptops with SU4100 or E-350, which are more then enough for every normal load. Besides using a normal pc of course. I wouldn't want to work on such a small screen for a whole day.

ColdPreacher said:

Im using a 15" Mackbook Pro. Ive used a 17" Macbook Pro and didnt like the bulk of it. 17" isnt portable enough for me to use it since i carry my laptop around constantly.

Guest said:

Sounds like a question girls ask when out on the town together. It's so subjective . . . I've been able to do more with a 14" XPS than most users with the most powerful towers and/or laptops available. It's really knowing which programs to use, when, why, and how to accomplish productivity tasks.

Guest said:

Actually, if you get the right hardware, you can upgrade a laptop. I am using a 17.3 inch ASUS G73JH-RBBOX Republic of Gamers Laptop and \i love it. The Radeon 5870 video card is discrete, so it is totally upgradeable if I chose to do so. It already has 8 Gig if DDR3 RAM and two 500 Gig HDD's, which are also upgradeable. It all comes down to you get what you pay for. I chose a gaming laptop with a future. I paid more, but it'll last me for a number of years.

Chuck

Kibaruk Kibaruk, TechSpot Paladin, said:

11.6" and I'm in love, its name is M11x.

princeton princeton said:

captaincranky said:

I'm kinda thinkin' that "size doesn't matter", as much as the panel technology.

I have a 15.6" Toshiba Satellite, ($300.00), and the TN panel just plain sucks. My experience has been, the smaller you make a TN panel, the more acute the viewing angle issue becomes. That said, I suppose 15.6 is my ideal size, since the viewing angle issue is bad, and could get worse if I picked a smaller lappy.

The one thing I always say nice about Apple, (and it is absolutely the ONLY thing I say nice about Apple), is that they use IPS panels in everything.

But, when I realized that the insurance policy on a Macbook Pro, would be as much as I paid for my Toshiba, I decided to tough out the TN issue.

I actually don't need a laptop anyway, so it's all good.

Apple uses IPS panels in everything, but they use glossy screens instead of matte ones. On a laptop a glossy screen is a nightmare, it smudges easier and it reflects like a mirror when you use the laptop outside. Still love the macbook pro though.

Guest said:

13" best of both worlds !!!

TorturedChaos, TechSpot Chancellor, said:

i like my 15.4' acer laptop just the right size for portability.

but the 17" are nicer for playing games on, they just don't have the battery life i like.

blackbellysheep said:

18.4" all the way...kick the desktop to the curb.. i just ordered my new alienware 18.4 cant wait..

Scott8090 said:

Phate13 said:

Scott8090 said:

I would say 15-16 inch for portibilty as well as any any below gaming requirements. While 15 to 17 for gaming would be fine.

IMO netbooks ruined the market. 1 gig memory with weak processors while running windows is asking for trouble. Haven't had any personal hands on experiance with netbooks but windows 7 running on those specs is a underpowered PC. Beyond that, introducing net books only allowed the market to be even more confusing and costly for the end user.

11,12,13,14 inch laptops became far more common while costing the end user vastly larger sums of cash. Its not uncommon to see laptops of all sizes with vastly different price tags. Price tags that generally don't add up to the specs of the Laptop.

Ruined it? They made it so much more interesting. Since netbooks (which because of their weak performance were not that interesting, true) entered the market several things happened: Cheap ultraportables followed soon after (with decent performance) AND batterylife improved dramaticly.

Besides that, why would these lead to higher prices for the end user? You can pick up an E-350 11.6" laptop, which is more then enough for any normal use, starting at ?380 over here. How is that expensive?

And finally: Of course there are different price tags for differnt sizes. It wouldn't make sense if it was the same. Except for the screen, going smaller is more expensive. You can not put a high-end graphics card in a small laptop.

My brother, parents and I are ALL very happy with our 11.6" laptops with SU4100 or E-350, which are more then enough for every normal load. Besides using a normal pc of course. I wouldn't want to work on such a small screen for a whole day.

Its not that there isn't enough power in "all" the laptops that have been released. Its the matter that the price tags put on laptops of similar specs are all vastly different. Example: Three laptops with roughly the same specs beside each other. You could have anywhere from 50 dollars difference to 500 dollars difference. That is the effects that net books introduction brought to the market. Vastly inconsistent pricing.

The Screen size directly effects the resolution of a Personal Computer. Truthfully 1024 x 768 is the bar min for the internet let along running applications smoothly with out major hick-ups. 1280 x 768 seems more where technology is going sooner than later. introducing Lower screen sizes+lower memory counts dampens the market not help the growth of the market. I am speaking with the end user in mind. Companies get increased profits due to individuals needs to upgrade as technology advances. Put your customers right on the border of non effective technology, It hurts the customer but provides more cash flow for the company. Do this with out the customer realizing it, you make big dollars. Tablets anyone? Netbooks anyone? And a bunch of the laptops released less than 15 inches.

Scott8090 said:

Princeton said:

captaincranky said:

I'm kinda thinkin' that "size doesn't matter", as much as the panel technology.

I have a 15.6" Toshiba Satellite, ($300.00), and the TN panel just plain sucks. My experience has been, the smaller you make a TN panel, the more acute the viewing angle issue becomes. That said, I suppose 15.6 is my ideal size, since the viewing angle issue is bad, and could get worse if I picked a smaller lappy.

The one thing I always say nice about Apple, (and it is absolutely the ONLY thing I say nice about Apple), is that they use IPS panels in everything.

But, when I realized that the insurance policy on a Macbook Pro, would be as much as I paid for my Toshiba, I decided to tough out the TN issue.

I actually don't need a laptop anyway, so it's all good.

Apple uses IPS panels in everything, but they use glossy screens instead of matte ones. On a laptop a glossy screen is a nightmare, it smudges easier and it reflects like a mirror when you use the laptop outside. Still love the macbook pro though.

I wouldn't be surprised, I am not certain but Don't they use Samsung or one of the other major providers for IPS panels? If they did use Samsung it would highly explain any sort of glare lol.

captaincranky captaincranky, TechSpot Addict, said:

I wouldn't be surprised, I am not certain but Don't they use Samsung or one of the other major providers for IPS panels? If they did use Samsung it would highly explain any sort of glare lol.
The glossy panels are a cheap trick to gain color saturation and contrast. This works the same in photographic papers. A glossy surface will give you jet black and maximum contrast, while a matte surface peaks at a dark battleship gray, with range of color depth compromised as well.

So, Apple knows that the glossy surface is a nuisance in use, but it has that, "why the colors jump right off the screen", look in the store, and that's what they're banking on to get it out the door.

As to your observation on Samsung, I have a 22" TN Samsung I bought because it pivots, don't use it, then replaced it with an IPS Dell. The Samsung is a turd that I never managed to get any sort of decent calibration out of. It heavily favors green, which is the worst situation imaginable for getting any decent skin tone.

Oddly, I have a 5 year old 22" Westinghouse, that reproduces skin tones way better than the Samsung. Go figure.

I think that LG makes a lot of the current crop of IPS panels also. The last high end Samsungs I saw were C-PVA.

To answer your original query, yes Apple uses suppliers, they don't grow their own. In fact recently, they were pulling some shady commodity dealings with panels, trying to control availability by over paying for them.

Here are 2 stories about this: [link] and [link]

Scott8090 said:

The glossy panels are a cheap trick to gain color saturation and contrast. This works the same in photographic papers. A glossy surface will give you jet black and maximum contrast, while a matte surface peaks at a dark battleship gray, with range of color depth compromised as well.

So, Apple knows that the glossy surface is a nuisance in use, but it has that, "why the colors jump right off the screen", look in the store, and that's what they're banking on to get it out the door.

As to your observation on Samsung, I have a 22" TN Samsung I bought because it pivots, don't use it, then replaced it with an IPS Dell. The Samsung is a turd that I never managed to get any sort of decent calibration out of. It heavily favors green, which is the worst situation imaginable for getting any decent skin tone.

Oddly, I have a 5 year old 22" Westinghouse, that reproduces skin tones way better than the Samsung. Go figure.

I think that LG makes a lot of the current crop of IPS panels also. The last high end Samsungs I saw were C-PVA.

To answer your original query, yes Apple uses suppliers, they don't grow their own. In fact recently, they were pulling some shady commodity dealings with panels, trying to control availability by over paying for them.

Thanks for the interesting information. Just replied back to another person on another article. Some times I over stretch on matters(Only human lol) so its nice to have views and opinions from others. I'm not very familiar with the core details concerning Displays to be honest. Its only of those subjects that went to the back of the list due to tones of others filling the spot. Stretching my knowledge to all aspects of computers makes keeping up with half of the stuff well time consuming. One of these days I'll probably research more into it. Will probably be when I get a new monitor

I remember Techspot talking about that apply attempting to buy out a large portion of the lcd displays. No sure if they ever accomplished it though.

nismo91 said:

im using 15" but i can settle for 12" at most. 10" makes me type slowly

fpsgamerJR62 said:

14" would be about right for me as long as it's bundled with upper mid-range discrete graphics.

Benny26 Benny26, TechSpot Paladin, said:

None don't use em.

Same here.

Although maybe i would prefer the 1mm 'Super Flat' version...That is: a Netbook that has had a nasty accident.

Guest said:

"17' is my favorite, any smaller size and you should just buy a tablet."

...and be handicapped by not having a keyboard? No thanks. 15.6' is perfect for me.

JohnnyNonStop said:

Way to not contribute to the relevancy of the article and question posed!

Nima304 said:

I currently have a 13.1" laptop, but my next one will definitely be a 14-16".

captaincranky captaincranky, TechSpot Addict, said:

Way to not contribute to the relevancy of the article and question posed!
This is a self appraisal no doubt.

treetops treetops said:

I didn't see a option for a watch that displays a hologram in the choices.

Zilpha Zilpha said:

Kibaruk said:

11.6" and I'm in love, its name is M11x.

I have its big sister - the m15x. How do you like the resolution on the m11x? I was concerned about the 1333x768 not being "sharp" enough for me. I got the 1920x1080 option on my 15x and things are nice and crispy small.

It's a bit heavier than I would like, but it's still reasonably portable.

Phate13 said:

scott8090 said:

Phate13 said:

Scott8090 said:

I would say 15-16 inch for portibilty as well as any any below gaming requirements. While 15 to 17 for gaming would be fine.

IMO netbooks ruined the market. 1 gig memory with weak processors while running windows is asking for trouble. Haven't had any personal hands on experiance with netbooks but windows 7 running on those specs is a underpowered PC. Beyond that, introducing net books only allowed the market to be even more confusing and costly for the end user.

11,12,13,14 inch laptops became far more common while costing the end user vastly larger sums of cash. Its not uncommon to see laptops of all sizes with vastly different price tags. Price tags that generally don't add up to the specs of the Laptop.

Ruined it? They made it so much more interesting. Since netbooks (which because of their weak performance were not that interesting, true) entered the market several things happened: Cheap ultraportables followed soon after (with decent performance) AND batterylife improved dramaticly.

Besides that, why would these lead to higher prices for the end user? You can pick up an E-350 11.6" laptop, which is more then enough for any normal use, starting at ?380 over here. How is that expensive?

And finally: Of course there are different price tags for differnt sizes. It wouldn't make sense if it was the same. Except for the screen, going smaller is more expensive. You can not put a high-end graphics card in a small laptop.

My brother, parents and I are ALL very happy with our 11.6" laptops with SU4100 or E-350, which are more then enough for every normal load. Besides using a normal pc of course. I wouldn't want to work on such a small screen for a whole day.

Its not that there isn't enough power in "all" the laptops that have been released. Its the matter that the price tags put on laptops of similar specs are all vastly different. Example: Three laptops with roughly the same specs beside each other. You could have anywhere from 50 dollars difference to 500 dollars difference. That is the effects that net books introduction brought to the market. Vastly inconsistent pricing.

The Screen size directly effects the resolution of a Personal Computer. Truthfully 1024 x 768 is the bar min for the internet let along running applications smoothly with out major hick-ups. 1280 x 768 seems more where technology is going sooner than later. introducing Lower screen sizes+lower memory counts dampens the market not help the growth of the market. I am speaking with the end user in mind. Companies get increased profits due to individuals needs to upgrade as technology advances. Put your customers right on the border of non effective technology, It hurts the customer but provides more cash flow for the company. Do this with out the customer realizing it, you make big dollars. Tablets anyone? Netbooks anyone? And a bunch of the laptops released less than 15 inches.

First of all, what do the inconsistent pricing have to do with screen size? There have always been quite big differences in pricing between different vendors. Besides that, the specs you see don't say everything. A bussiness laptop, with a beter housing and better warranty will cost more. And some fancy gadgets or a famous brand (or name) will do the same thing. That's how the market works. The relation with netbooks... I don't see it. (In my opinion, if you want to blame anyone for different prices for the same specs, blame Apple.)

Then, yes, screen resolution is what counts. But on all the laptops I mentioned, the resolution is 1366*768. And the demand (and reaction to that demand, creating these laptops), would never have been there without the netbook. And that resolution is plenty for a small notebook. If there's any resolution "the industry is going", then it's 1366*768. Sadly enough even 15.6" laptops started using that resolution. Before the whole HD hype, you would find slightly higher resolutions for that size. And next to that, 2GB is more then enough.

The issue that is to your concern is that you don't like small, weak, laptops like a 7", Atom, 1GB one, and you blame companies for ripping people of with that? What kind of response is that? Your argument why the companies would even do it, doesn't even make sens. Most of the vendors even lowered they're supply of netbooks because they hardly make any profit on them. Because they are so cheap. Why are you blaming the consumer when they buy such a 7" netbook costing barely anything, expecting the performance of a decent pc? That's like buying a scooter and expeting porsche-like performance. If you, as consumer, just would test that netbook for half a minute in a store, then you would notice how constricted it's usage really is. And finally it's hardly the manufacturer you should blame, if you buy your stuff in a computerstore where they lie to people about the performance of a pc. Well, then I would look out for an other store.

Scott8090 said:

First of all, what do the inconsistent pricing have to do with screen size? There have always been quite big differences in pricing between different vendors. Besides that, the specs you see don't say everything. A bussiness laptop, with a beter housing and better warranty will cost more. And some fancy gadgets or a famous brand (or name) will do the same thing. That's how the market works. The relation with netbooks... I don't see it. (In my opinion, if you want to blame anyone for different prices for the same specs, blame Apple.)

Then, yes, screen resolution is what counts. But on all the laptops I mentioned, the resolution is 1366*768. And the demand (and reaction to that demand, creating these laptops), would never have been there without the netbook. And that resolution is plenty for a small notebook. If there's any resolution "the industry is going", then it's 1366*768. Sadly enough even 15.6" laptops started using that resolution. Before the whole HD hype, you would find slightly higher resolutions for that size. And next to that, 2GB is more then enough.

The issue that is to your concern is that you don't like small, weak, laptops like a 7", Atom, 1GB one, and you blame companies for ripping people of with that? What kind of response is that? Your argument why the companies would even do it, doesn't even make sens. Most of the vendors even lowered they're supply of netbooks because they hardly make any profit on them. Because they are so cheap. Why are you blaming the consumer when they buy such a 7" netbook costing barely anything, expecting the performance of a decent pc? That's like buying a scooter and expeting porsche-like performance. If you, as consumer, just would test that netbook for half a minute in a store, then you would notice how constricted it's usage really is. And finally it's hardly the manufacturer you should blame, if you buy your stuff in a computerstore where they lie to people about the performance of a pc. Well, then I would look out for an other store.

Seems we both missed some of the logic in our comments.

When I spoke about the resolution being 1280x768, I meant that was becoming the "bare min" resolution to comfortably run windows on. A typo on my part concerning that matter. Screen size matters IMO because the Vastly inconsistent pricing was/has been effected by it.

Never said there hasn't been Vastly Inconsistent Pricing from brand to brand, style to style, purpose to purpose, casing to casing what ever you want to call it all. The Gap this Vastly Inconsistent pricing ranges from has increased due to the vast amount of options introduced into the market. Some hit it off well some didn't but all influenced the Change in the Gap of the inconsistent pricing.

I never stated I didn't like weaker systems...I stated:

Its not that there isn't enough power in "all" the laptops that have been released.

There is a bare min that's common knowledge of what "runs" windows "well" and what is the "bare min" that should even be bothered putting in a computer.

Your saying that a company releasing a laptop with amd turion 1.4 ghz dual core +1 gig memory+windows vista wasn't ripping the customer off? Your putting to much on the end user. The companies made the product to sell it. Part of the blame is the customers and part of the blame is the companies. That's like saying all the net books released companies made to just to say oh well we messed up...

quote:

The issue that is to your concern is that you don't like small, weak, laptops like a 7", Atom, 1GB one, and you blame companies for ripping people of with that? What kind of response is that?

Boils Down to I am looking at this in a very broad way and seems we both are losing each other on this matter =/.

PS: Not making assumptions helps in regards to discussions

greatman05 said:

I personally prefer 15-16" laptops. For me, they're the right amount of portability for the job without sacrificing too much performance compared to a larger laptop. Plus, they have a wide variety of configurations and are pretty cheap too. I have a Cyberpower Xplorer X6-7900 (the model with a ATI HD5650 1GB video card and a Core i5-560M processor), and it runs pretty fast. I don't game much on it (can't really afford to), but it runs Street Fighter IV pretty well and definitely screams on older games. Video and audio conversion is very speedy, I love the fact that I can watch FullHD videos on it (I have a 1920x1080 glossy panel) and the colors are definitely beautiful.

As far as netbooks go, I definitely think that they opened up the market more. Sure, they're underpowered and sometimes "cramped", but their relative inexpensiveness has made it easier for low-income folks to experience the power of computer technology. If nothing else, they show that it is quite possible to have a decent computer in a very small, portable package like smartphones have.

Load all comments...

Add New Comment

TechSpot Members
Login or sign up for free,
it takes about 30 seconds.
You may also...
Get complete access to the TechSpot community. Join thousands of technology enthusiasts that contribute and share knowledge in our forum. Get a private inbox, upload your own photo gallery and more.