Laptop of Power!

Because I plan on pursuing some kind of computer science field in college, I'll need a mobile PC and it has to be powerful because I plan on doing 3D design, among other things. Plus, the laptop will be used for gaming (of course) and other multimedia. Since laptops can't be cheaply and easily upgraded, it will need some staying power. I've never looked at laptops before so I'm pretty ignorant here. I want it to have a cost of not more than $3,000 unless there is a strong justification for spending a little more. I also want a big and high quality screen and the ability to connect to sound systems (which I think is standard anyway) and possibly PC monitors (which I don't think is standard).

One big problem is that I have a lot of stuff on my PC and I want to know the easiest and most efficient way to transfer that info, preferably WITHOUT using a network since I don't have one. But I'd also like to know how to do it with a network if that's the best way (and then I'll need to know how to make the network).

Ideas? Thanks in advance for your help!

Jam it back in, in the dark.

Thanks for the tips. Unfortunately, due to the circumstances I am now in, I won't be able to check my thread often. This will continue for several weeks, so don't despair and think I'm not paying attention.

Now it seems that I will in fact get a network so I'll probably just use that for data transfer. Of course, since I'll have a laptop (and my brother will, too), we'll get a wireless network but we've never played around with those before so we don't know what to do. We'll be connecting one desktop and two laptops.

There's nowhere I can't reach.

Slash, I meant that my parents decided to get a network so I'll use that for data transfer.

Why must processor manufacturers name their chips in a confused manner? There's the celeron M. There's the Pentium M. What's the difference? I assume M just means Mobile. So I'm okay with a Penitum M instead of Celeron M.

Many seem to be of the opinion that AMD is better than Intel. But I don't know of any major manufacturers that use AMD except for Alienware but they're too expensive. I'll probably get Dell.

This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it.

Interesting, I thought AMD was better. My brother and I keep arguing about am AMD-ATI setup versus an Intel-NVidia setup. I say to go with the latter because it's cheaper since Alienware is overpriced and an equivalent Asus seems to cost more than a Dell counterpart. He says AMD-ATI setups are way better but judging from reviews I've seen I personally don't think it makes so much of a difference anymore. There's not as big a split as there used to be. Now I'm something of a Dell fanboy but I'll just get whatever gets me the most performance and reliability for my money. Nvidia is releasing the new 7900 GPU soon so if I wait a bit the 7800 will become cheaper and drive down my laptop's price a bit. Then again, ATI is (of course) countering with their own chip so the same will happen with them.

I think I'm pretty set on getting a dell with an Intel Core Duo chip and Nvidia 7800 but I'm still open to other options. However, Dell is reliable so I don't think I'll switch to another manufacturer.

I am a dolphin, do you want me on your body?

I'm just wondering one thing: How come Dell's high-end gaming XPS-series laptops (which use Pentium M 740, 750, 760, 770, and 780, depending on the model) do not have dual-core processors while their lower-tech Inspiron line all use Core Duo processors of Intel's T-line? Does it not make sense to use a dual-core processor in a gaming laptop? Apparently Dell feels a single-core M chip is better for gaming than a dual-core T-chip. The T-line also has a faster FSB. I don't get it.

I was speaking idiomatically.

Well, Dell finally upgraded to Core Duo, but along with it came a bunch of pigeonholing that means that it costs too much for me. I posted this in another thread:

Quote:

Well guess what, buddy, the new dual core XPS just came out. However, it is expensive. Just for fun, I configured an XPS M1710 to the max with stuff like 4 gigs of DDR SDRAM at 667MHz and a 2.26GHz Core Duo at 667MHz bus, etc. It costs over $6,500. Dual core is nice, but it's retardulously expensive. The cheapest M1710 laptop is $2,600, mostly because the processor is now dual core (the cheapest is a Core Duo T2400 with a 2MB cach and 667MHz bus) and the only video card available is the new Geforce 7900. You can pay big bucks for the 512MB version.

What really iffs me is that I had configured a laptop before they upgraded the M170 line to M1710 that cost $2,400 and was loaded. Sure, it wasn't dual core and the video card was a 7800 but it's probably not too much of a difference between what I had configured and the entry-level M1710. Dell should offer some more flexibility with customization. For example, why can't you put a real video card (the only option I had was integrated Intel) in the M140 and yet you can put in 2 gigs of RAM? What if I want to buy an M1710 but I don't want to pay for the latest and greatest and I'll settle for a Pentium M and a GeForce 7800 GTX (which seems to be more powerful than the 7900GS)? Why does it cost $400 to upgrade your video card from the 7900GS (which, as I mentioned based on Nvidia's specs, seems to be less powerful than the 7800GTX. WTF?), which will push the price to 3 grand? Dell might think they'll get more money by limiting your choices and forcing you to pay more but I'll bet they'll get more sales if they give customers more options. Dell might be the best, but they cost too much now. I'm looking elsewhere, like WidowPC.

Ideas?

What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now?

Double Post! (I didn't make an edit since this is on a different subject than the previous one)

The Core Duo chipsets are not 64-bit. AMD has 64-bit notebook chips while Intel's (code-named Merom) are coming in the near (I hope) future. However, I have heard that 64-bit doesn't make much of a difference in gaming unless the game is optmized for it. But most PC games (if the developers are smart) are designed to work on a variety of machines because not everybody has an ubermachine. Thus one should expect that games should be playable on 32-bit computers for several years yet. Add in the fact that 32-bit only hits a limit where 4 Gigs of RAM is needed and it strengthens the case for 32-bit platforms being able to handle games for 3 or 4 years or more. On the other hand, future-proofing can be a good idea. But even though AMD offers a 64-bit CPU, my impression is that the Intel Core Duo is better, even if it's not 64-bit.

FELIPE NO

How does it make a difference whether I choose XP Home or Pro as far as computer science goes?

I thought Sony laptops were crap. But I've heard of at least two cases (saw them on the Dell forums) where Dell XPS M170 owners reported hearing a whirring or buzzing noise while gaming and lowering the laptop's power consumption solved the problem. It seems that Dells are not as ironclad as they used to be.

What, you don't want my bikini-clad body?