<p>I’m just curious at your school what do you think the % of students that have a laptop is compared with having a laptop? This can be out of the people you know or your approximation of the campus. thanks for your help:)</p>
<p>I’d say 80% laptop from what I’ve seen by hanging in other people’s rooms. This will widely vary though…</p>
<p>I know a lot of people are bringing both. Like me.</p>
<p>***i forgot can you also put where you go to schooL? thanx</p>
<p>Embry-Riddle Prescott</p>
<p>i have a desktop which works fine, but id say about 70% have laptops</p>
<p>UMich - Vast majority have laptops, only know a handful of people who use desktops. Because laptops are so powerful now, it’s not a major loss in terms of a “step-down” from desktops, and I also find them useful for people who live far from home or take their computers with them class.</p>
<p>“Because laptops are so powerful now, it’s not a major loss in terms of a “step-down” from desktops”</p>
<p>Depends. If you play PC games, laptops and desktops aren’t even comparable really.</p>
<p>My laptop is far more powerful than most people’s desktop, but I got an expensive one. It depends how much you want to put into it. Obviously a $500 laptop would underperform in graphic-intesive games, where a $2500 laptop would not.</p>
<p>I can spend $5,000 in a laptop and not have it perform half as well as my desktop. The best hardware out for laptops simply does not come close to the best hardware out for desktops.</p>
<p>again the democrat is an idiot.</p>
<p>mavin is corrent, whil you may think it comes close MatthewM04</p>
<p>It just does not.</p>
<p>no laptop will be able to beat my system.</p>
<p>Just not possible.</p>
<p>what did you spend big bucks on an Alienware or Voodoo or dell and think its just awsome./</p>
<p>Pay no attention to Vincent, he’s angry about getting shown up.</p>
<p>For ~$4000, the best Dell laptops have a 2.13 GHz Pentium M Processor, Microsoft XP Professional, 17 inch UltraSharp Wide Screen UXGA Display with TrueLife, 2GB Dual Channel DDR2 SDRAM at 533MHz 2 Dimm, 100GB hard drive, 8x CD/DVD burner (DVD+/-RW) with double-layer write capability, 256MB NVIDIA® GeForce Go 6800 Ultra, and PCMCIA Sound Blaster® Audigy® 2 ZS Notebook sound card w/ Inspire.</p>
<p>If you really feel like you <em>must</em> have something with that than tell NASA you’re gonna need to borrow their supercomputers. I never said desktops were not more powerful, just saying that laptops are at a sufficient level where they can meet any task a desktop could do sufficiently. It’s like saying someone with a 36 ACT is far greater than someone with a 35 ACT because the difference is not sufficiently meaningful.</p>
<p>hmm that is why u got owned in the last thread,</p>
<p>like i said your a looser who doeant believe in America and should leave/</p>
<p>Mobility 6800 Ultra.</p>
<p>My system at home</p>
<p>AMD fx55
2gb OCZ 2-2-2 special
ATI radeom x850XT
2x 36gb WD raptors in raid 0</p>
<p>I can go on.</p>
<p>and ur still a noob becasue u bought a dell.</p>
<p>Those laptop specs you listed would result in a substantially worse game performance than in an even cheaper desktop.</p>
<p>Maybe our problem here is that we have different ideas of what a substantial improvement is. I consider, say, a 10 FPS increase at the highest visual settings rather substantial. There are desktops that could give quite a bit greater than 10 FPS increases over the laptop you listed.</p>
<p>The games will play virtually the same. Whether it takes 0.01 seconds or 0.001 seconds to load something doesn’t really matter. As the human eye cannot differentiate anything that moves much faster than 1/30 of a second, having frame rates of 50+ is just a waste of resources. The fact is that decent computers from a few years ago will be able to play any game that comes out for your undergraduate career.</p>
<p>MatthewM04…not to be harsh, but you are obviously out of your league here. There is a substantial difference between high end desktops and that highest end laptop you listed. I’m not talking about loading times either. I’m talking about video quality and performance in high end PC games. And in those, there is a difference. Trust me.</p>
<p>And frame rates over 50 do impact the human perception of video. While the eye can’t discern over 50 fps, per se, frame rates over 50 do make for a smoother appearance. It’s hard to explain, and I don’t understand it fully myself as I’m not a biologist, but I could probably dig up a link on the topic if you’re interested.</p>
<p>And yes, you are right. Most computers from a couple years ago can play the games of today. However, those computers can’t play them nearly – not NEARLY as well – as more modern, high end computers.</p>
<p>Actually matt it has been proven that the human eye can see faster than 220hz</p>
<p>Have a fun read
<a href=“http://amo.net/NT/02-21-01FPS.html[/url]”>http://amo.net/NT/02-21-01FPS.html</a></p>
<p>The democrat is alwasy wrong,.</p>
<p>Hey guys this is off the original topic. please take your arguements elsewhere 
thanks</p>