Can't decide on a laptop, ARGH!

[Thalin]

I hope this is allowed here. I'm posting all over the web as I need as many opinions as possible

I'm looking for a new (well, first ever) laptop for uni this year. I am an art student so will be using it mainly for graphics software, image editing, and the normal music listening etc. Power to run games well would also be a plus. So I guess it's mainly a multimedia laptop. I don't want to be spending any more that 400/450 pounds to be honest.

I have my eyes mainly on http://www.ebuyer.com/UK/product/126338 , and http://www.ebuyer.com/UK/product/128979

The last one looks good, and it has XP rather than Vista, which is a plus for me (i'm sure many others would also agree), although I don't know much about the HP brand or the graphics card. The first also looks good, but I am worried about the lack of dual core, and whether it would really be an improvement over the HP one. Maybe another laptop would suit me more.
I've been advised towards Mac's, but would rather go with a Windows laptop to be honest.

Any advice is very much appreciated.

[[R-DEV]e-Gor]

Both my brother and father have HP laptops, and love them. Good build quality, good value, and good support. I'm gonna be getting one soon, too.

Another major difference between those two is the screen. Think carefully about what you're going to use it for - if you're going to be using it on the move, a 17" screen may well be too big. Pay attention to the weights, too - the acer (mainly because it's larger) weighs in at 3.7kg, as opposed to the HP one at 2.6 - so the latter will be a lot nicer to carry around or to use on your lap.

The processor in the HP one has a slower clock speed, but is dual core, which as you said is a bonus (although won't necessarily help much in games). Neither will run games wonderfully - but then at that price you'll have trouble finding anything better. The graphics cards are both good enough for general use and should run any games at the moment, just not on the highest settings. As to which is better out of the two cards, I don't know as I haven't kept up to speed on ATI cards recently.

Hope that's of some help.

[Thalin]

Very helpful, especially your encouraging first comment.
So the processors are about the same am I right? One having a higher clock speed but single core, the other lower but dual core. What would you say is better overall?
The 17" one is so tempting, especially considering i'll be using it for graphical things mainly. I'm not too fussy about the weight or it being too big.
Your comment on the graphics card is also helpful, as thats really the only thing i'm doubting about the HP one. But maybe its not all that different too the one in the Acer. I'm not going to be running graphically intensive games, maybe something like Guild Wars for example.

[A-10Warthog]

i suggest a Panasonic toughbook 30

http://www.panasonic.com/business/to...lly-rugged.asp

Full Magnesium Alloy Case with Hand Strap
Wide Area Wireless and GPS Capable
Intel®Core™ Duo Processor L2400
Moisture- and dust-resistant LCD, keyboard and touchpad
60 or 80GB shock-mounted removable HDD
in stainless steel case
1,000 Nit screen brightness for unparalleled
outdoor readability
Wireless ready for Alltel, AT&T, Sprint and Verizon Wireless networks

very dependable i think. hell if the cops/military use them. I'm getting one for college in a few years

[[R-DEV]eggman]

my Macbook Pro is by far the best laptop I have ever owned.

[[R-DEV]dbzao]

x2

[Thalin]

I went ahead and bought the HP laptop, although I am not overlly impressed, let me explain.

I reformatted straight away to get rid of all the **** I don't need, updated the drivers of everything etc, then ran a 3D Mark (free version) check. It gets scores of 600-800 at best, which from what i've researched is dismal because people with similar specs, or even worse specs, are getting atleast 2000.
I then proceeded to try some games. I was surprised that Half Life 2 ran quite well, with details on high, full HDR and AA it was smooth, until I got into outside areas where it dropped to 15 or so FPS. Without AA it improved and moved to about 25-30 fps or so. Not bad.
I then tried Battlefield 2, which was unbearable at high graphics but playable at medium, no AA. Dawn of War worked relatively well on high.

Games aside, the PC seems relatively fast, although not as fast as I expected.

Now this might be exactly right, and I have nothing to be concerned about. I'm rarely going to play games on it, but things like the 3D Mark score bother me, considering they are very poor compared to others I have seen with similar specs.