SPONSORED LINKS
> Basically, this is just the facts of life with respect to buying a >notebook machine. These are the tradeoffs you make to have something that >weighs 4 lbs. and is as thing as a spiral notebook. It will be the case, to >one extent or another, no matter *what* notebook machine you buy. An >equivalent CPU on any desktop machine is going to be faster, and sometimes a >slower CPU on a desktop, given faster "other" components (video, HD) is >going to be faster too. I think you are being to kind to the ibm. Several magazines have done comparison tests with other notebooks, and found the ibm lagging behind. In most cases the difference was attributable to the lack of an L2 cache, which in my opinion was a crucial and unbelievable mistake by ibm. It's a nice box, but it is slow in relative terms, even compared to other similar notebooks. I don't disagree with your premise, ie, that notebooks are usually slower than comparable desktops, but there's more to it with the 560. Take the compaq armada, for example. In its stripped down configuration, it weighs only 5 pounds, yet with an L2 cache should be much faster than a similarly equipped 560. Unless .9 lbs. is that crucial, why would one buy the ibm? Jim Gramling