That is some serious overclocking!
Or did you mean 2.3GHZ
Apple may be considering an end to the production of 17in desktop-replacement laptops, but Samsung isn't. It just announced the 17.3in Series 7 Chronos 17. Samsung Series 7 Chronos 17 laptop Specs include a third-generation 'Ivy Bridge' quad-core Intel Core i7 processor, the 2.3GHz i7-3615QM, to be precise; 8GB of 1600MHz …
That is some serious overclocking!
Or did you mean 2.3GHZ
What do you think the Chronos name is there for? It compresses time around it self to appear to be 12.3GHz. No overclocking, just breaking physics.
It's from the future?
'Apple may be considering an end to the production of 17in desktop-replacement laptops, but Samsung isn't. '
Of course not, it's got to wait for Apple to do it first, prove it actually makes money to do so and then Samsung can do it while claiming it was their idea all along.
Back to your cave troll!
Apple are probably doing it because people can only be ripped off for so long, now that other companies are doing these high end sexy laptops at a fraction of the price, Apple's market is dwindling.
what's the casing made of? is that metal or plastic?
And yet *still* not enough pixels! Why is Apple the only company to make laptops with a decently high-resolution display?
Yup. Working on 1920x1200 17" MBP is a pleasure.
agreed!! on a screen that large - the pixels would look like lego blocks!!!
why wont people put more pixels in their machines!!???
What are you on about? 1280x1024 is still a very common desktop resolution for those with 4:3 monitors, and a 17" laptop screen is much smaller than even a small desktop monitor.
Agree with JDX.
I'm currently sat in front of a 23" widescreen with the same res as this 17" laptop.
I've got 20 / 20 vision so they tell me but I have to get within 10cm of the screen in order to see those pixels!
"And yet *still* not enough pixels! Why is Apple the only company to make laptops with a decently high-resolution display?"
I have an HP HDX. The 16" screen is 1920x1080 resolution; fairly high, and very nice to work with (except it's glossy). My wife has a 15" MBP; the default resolution is 1440x900. We paid extra for the "High resolution" screen and it's still only 1680x1050. So go and spout your anti-anything not Apple BS somewhere else please.
Apple the only ones???
Are you mad or just an idiot? One of the reasons I got a Dell Precision is that they ship with a better resolution 15" screen than most of the competition INCLUDING APPLE
Disagree as a general comment. I'm pushing 60 and can see the benefit of higher ppi at normal working distance so perhaps you need to retest that 20/20 claim!
What? I'd prefer 1920x1200, but 1920x1080 is absolutely fine.
Those damnable low resolution 1080 high -- sorry low -- screens are a royal pain in the butt to use. There's no earthly reason for fitting a low res screen in a high-end laptop.
I regularly turn my 24" 1920x1200 monitor sideways to make it 1200x1920 when coding.
It's those proxy shit-for-brains marketing gimps let out of the box again. I don't watch videos on a bloody work machine you utter kretins. I do write code and need to see as much screen area as possible. 1200 high is the minimum.
Nice specs, decent graphics, still not anywhere near my desktop, but def worth a looking at...all depending on the price. Would be tempted if its around £1,000. (realistic price would probably be around £1200-1500 i guess)
Less of the ultrabooks, more of this sort of thing please!
Dump my desktop for something far more expensive, less powerful, poorer screen, horrid keyboard and nasty pointing device? Not for a long time yet.
The best laptop keyboard is not as comfortable to use as a $5 dollar one from the supermarket.
A touch pad is probably the least awful laptop pointing device but a mouse is easier, more accurate and less likely to give me cramp.
To the various people here asking about screen resolution for this, have the look at the resolution of a nice 19" monitor. Alternatively, treat yourself to a 24" one that will leave every laptop looking like something out od the early 80s.
Mobile processors have a long way to go before they get to where desktop ones are now. By the time they do, the goalposts will have moved and they will still be behind,
How long to you intend to use a laptop. 2 hours?
If you are going to use it any longer than that,don't forget to take the power lead and remember to sit near a wall socket.
If you do use it that long, ignore the name and keep it off your lap! These things get hot. That's why you have such feeble processors.
If you travel a laptop is handy. If you have to connect to work from home by VPN they are essential (I use one for that). For the rest, they look very cool and everyone will think you are important. A bit like an iPhone but with more principles.
Why the hate for laptops? All the accessories you listed (monitor, keyboard, mouse) work just as well with a laptop as with a desktop. Sandy Bridge - let alone Ivy Bridge - mobile processors are blazing fast and few would feel they lack anything compared to a desktop, especially when paired with a SSD.
It seems like you haven't used a laptop since the early 80s. Laptops are relatively cheap, certainly fast and it doesn't take much of a productivity gain to justify the price-premium.
Perhaps you didn't read what I put then. I use one for working from home doing VPN and remote access. I haven't switched it on today but I may tonight if called. I did yesterday. "It seems" that I have used once since the 1980s. That is why I have an opinion.
No hatred there. Other than remote working, I am not clear on what productivity gain you get from most lap top users. I suspect that many business laptop users will be changing to tablets anyway.
If you bring me identically RRP laptop and desktop, you won't see the laptop win very often. Laptops are much faster than they used to be, no question. So are PCs. With a laptop, you are not sitting in a suitable position at the right range from the screen to proper focus. With a PC, you can.
Some people have to use laptops because of space constraints or something. They used to be very handy in meetings but now that is covered by tablets and smartphones.
That's a very easy question to answer and the answer is that I might want to compute in more than one place.
I might want to sit on the floor by the fire. I might want to show my daughter a video in her bedroom. I might want to read my emails while I'm eating my breakfast. I might want to watch a video in bed. Very occasionally I may even wish to sit at my desk, but I don't do that very often.
I may also take my laptop on holiday. Have fun getting that 24" monitor into your suitcase.
For something with an off-centre trackpad, it better be under £999.
If it was offset to the right side that would work for the majority of people, this device was obviously designed by someone a bit sinister.
Looking at the picture, it's in the middle of the 84-key keyboard rather than the dead centre of the bezel. A lot of the laptops with numerical keypads that I've seen share this "feature".
Being on the road a lot, I want portability but performace.
Currently my T500 with 15.3inch screen is nice, but 17inch would be fantastic.
Be able to have 2 apps on the screen at the same time.
Would just have to see how much it weighs, real battery life and could I get it in my laptop bag :)
So steal the looks and weight of an Ultrabook, but give me the power, battery and screen of a laptop...
I don't need a laptop to cook my breakfast on...
systemd'oh! DNS lib underscore bug bites everyone's favorite init tool, blanks Netflix
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2017