As a CAD tech / project manager, this would be great for client presentations or onsite work. I agree that no really massive work could be done but site sketches, or the nuts and bolts presentations would be easier.
Well, on the idea of performance for value, the hardware is probably fairly placed for the money, cause probably woud cost more for more, or to do more. In terms of gaming, its hard to find one with the idea of two screens anyways unless you find the interest of course, but probably hard founf against just a company release. Like im sure a GTS 250M is still twice as fast as my computer alone almost. Maybe more towards Graphics side of course, but it. Would be able to run some intersting games twice over.
Battery life yes probably the one issue of it all, of course, but still. Laptobs i dont think are the same, hence the GTS 250(m) rather that mtters or not, who knows. Could just be there for something different.
This is a workstation, not a gaming rig. having 2 screens that close to the keyboard would drive a person mad being so close to the inside bezels of each monitor. Subtract the bezels and it'd be pretty sweet.
On the same vein, does anyone know of a truly portable LCD (ruggedized, with built in cover and compacting stand)? Thats really the thing this tries to solve. Why make a laptop and be constantly chasing CPU/GPU specs when you can just focus on the screen? If they made a compact display that was about the same form factor as a laptop it would be fantastic.
It would be the perfect power-rig for road warriors (not unlike myself) who find long hours hunched in front of a laptop in a hotel room to be quite tiring. One (or more) nice big screen and a way to raise it to appropriate eye level would be absolutely stunning.
Is it just me, or is the screen on the left matte and the screen on the right glossy? Why oh why do they continue to make Glossy screens? I mean, maybe visual developers, artists, etc.. might like glossy, but for 99% of computer users out there, matte just makes more sense.
And why does the more expensive computer have a slower processor? The cheaper one has a [dual-core?] Core i5 running at 2.66GHz, while the more expensive one has a quad-core running at 1.76GHz. I understand more cores means more work at a single time, but in what instance is two more cores going to balance out the fact that you are running 1 Gigahertz slower?