SPONSORED LINKS
"At 1024x768, I think a 12+" screen is important, but at 800x600, I find the 10.4" screen of my 755cx to be adequately sized. I don't understand why the 560 test marketing found enormous screens to be so important. I don't think I'll be seriously tempted to buy a 560 until they come out with a 1024x768 model, though I hope that will be pretty soon. Alternatively, a thinner, lighter 701 with an 800x600 screen (10.4") would be nice. Also, CPU speed usually shouldn't be so important. Today's Pentiums are 100x faster than the vaxes some of us used to use, but they don't make us 100x more productive. I'd gladly stick with a 75 mhz Pentium (or even 486) instead of a 120 or 133 mhz model, if it added an hour or two to operating time on a battery charge." I agree that you only need the large screens at high resolutions, but that is where the industry is going, and the point is that the 701 form factor was bound to dead-end pretty soon. Also the 701 did not sell that well at its original pricing level. Sure, I know that lots of poeple (including several of my friends) who got great deals in the 701 fire sales, but it is not clear that IBM made much money from these, I would guess in fact that there is a fair write off associated with the 701 development. The 100x faster than the Vax is quite misleading, because todays software is orders of magnitude less efficient than what we used on the Vax. I see no reason to expect that a 120MHz Pentium should draw much more power than a 75Mhz chip. Perhaps you get a few minutes difference, but even if you turned off the CPU completely you would not get an extra hour!