Asus S56CA-DH51 15.6" Notebook, Intel Core i5-3317U 1.7 GHz, 6GB DDR3 RAM, 750GB 5400 rpm HDD + 24GB SSD, Windows 8 $550 + Free Shipping (Ebay Daily Deal)

Quote from syn0s : Not 1600p??? Pfft I'll pass.. 15" needs a minimum of 1080p

You need to elevate your standards. Don't accept anything less than 4k.

Quote from SlickTEC : Dated November 2009. Wonder how reliable that report is in 2013.

Agreed. It's too bad SquareTrade hasn't posted any updated reports.

But I doubt it could change a whole lot (relatively) over the past 4 years. I don't know of any significant changes in the type of hardware and services those laptop manufacturers have made in that time; nothing big like someone pushing out new market (Asus EeePC netbooks) or acquisitions (Lenovo buying IBM's ThinkPad division).

Quote from Bobby_Pro : That's pretty decent if it lasts for 4.5 hours. I wouldn't complain even if it lasts just 3 hours.

Got this while ago $214 ,amazing solid laptop and battery last me 6+ hours !!
http://slickdeals.net/f/5803706-L...214-tax-FS

Quote from culbeda : Not SC2. WoW might work on lower settings. Minecraft should work at around 30 FPS be passable with "fewer" particles and a couple of other tweaks. You'll want a dedicated GPU for that kind of games that you want to play.

This guy doesn't know what he's talking about.. Intel's 4000 series can play all of those games low-medium settings.

Proof -> http://www.notebookcheck.net/Inte...168.0.html

Quote from jammer : This is pretty much all that needs be said. Perfectly fine resolution for a 12" device or people who don't have that great of vision or who pay $500 for a computer to just watch movies on, but not that great of a productivity tool. Although I'd kind of argue that higher resolution makes it better for people with poor eyesight since the text will look much more sharp if it is enlarged to be the same size as the text at native resolution on a low-res screen. The PC manufacturers will eventually get on board since Apple has been taking more market share these past few years with their retina displays.

Well, I use 1366x768 on a 13.3" ultrabook. It's really not that bad for work productivity.
You can fit enough information from a webpage on the screen (aren't they for the most part still made for a base resolution of 1024x768?), most productivity apps fit fine in that resolution.
Now obviously more pixel space/screen estate to work in would be nice, but I'm glad to trade that for better battery life, portability and lower price. I'm much happier with having a i5 2.4lb laptop that I can usually get more than 6 hours out of that only cost me around $500-600.
And I can always plug it into a 1080p monitor when I'm not on the run.

But yes with 1600x900 and higher you definitely do feel it. It's a lot more comfortable to work with.
Like another guy in another thread said, 1080p doesn't seem like a huge benefit until you get to >17" though. For people who don't like icons/text small, it seems to be worse for them and takes time to adjust to. Also, changing DPI/icon size is a kludge.

Quote from junhao123 : Well, I use 1366x768 on a 13.3" ultrabook. It's really not that bad for work productivity. Now obviously more pixel space to work in would be nice, but I'm glad to trade that for better battery life, portability and lower price. I'm much happier with having a i5 2.4lb laptop that I can usually get more than 6 hours out of.

A higher resolution wouldn't affect battery life, portability, or weight.

Quote from Enz0 : A higher resolution wouldn't affect battery life, portability, or weight.

more led wattage consumption maybe?

Quote from De-Cuss : more led wattage consumption maybe?

No -- it's all about the backlight, and the backlight is the same.

Quote from Enz0 : A higher resolution wouldn't affect battery life, portability, or weight.

Realistically, it does. At the very least, for equivalent quality panels it will raise the price significantly.

Also, apologize in advance for edits I made. I wanted to add more details.

Quote from TDRacin : What's with the "24GB SSD" drive? How does that work?

Usually to make the pc boot up faster, the ssd is used. The os and drivers are installed on the ssd. The larger hd drive is for your data. SSD drives are much faster then regular hd drives.

Quote from Enz0 : No -- it's all about the backlight, and the backlight is the same.

or more leds functioning to produce the higher resolution...but pixels are not about backlight.

Quote from junhao123 : 1366x768 resolution More info: http://www.amazon.com/ASUS-S56CA-...B009AEVMH2 and before the whole which brand is more reliable flame wars and/or trolls start: http://www.squaretrade.com/laptop...lity-1109/

Data is of 2009, so I say it's not very accurate.

Quote from Enz0 : A higher resolution wouldn't affect battery life, portability, or weight.

Definitely affects the battery life, more pixels to push means the graphics chip needing to run at a higher clock rate. That's not even considering the tax on your CPU and GPU from Windows drawing frames with those higher pixel counts.

Quote from niku4u4 : Usually to make the pc boot up faster, the ssd is used. The os and drivers are installed on the ssd. The larger hd drive is for your data. SSD drives are much faster then regular hd drives.

So is there space for 2x 2.5" drives? (I know what an SSD is and its benefits). I'm wondering if it can be upgraded to a larger SSD.