Just jump. Future proof is relative IMO. At least the 8100 is on the leading edge of new tech. The only thing that kept me from buying one of 2+ dozen other very fine laptops was that they'd been out for 6 months or more. My leading edge Sager 8887 (see sig) was still going strong after 2 years when I sold it last month. There's new tech out about every 6 months. If quid is a consideration (and it is for MOST of us) then get the 8103 and upgrade the RAM later. You can also easily upgrade the HDD later. I personally doubt the graphics will be upgradeable, but if it is you'll be able to do that too. SOME people buy a new laptop every six months, and good for them, but again, not most of us.

Same for me. In England all the laptops out here seem to still have the same technology that has been out for a while, but I want something a bit more up to date. My PC an amdXP2000+ with 9600xt, I should still see better performance with a 8103

If you can bear to wait another month or 2 you'll probably have more choices that are at least as good as the 8100s. The new Dell XPS Gen 2 looks pretty hot, but very pricey. I like Clevo\Sagers and would probably have gone with a Clevo M400A, but it still has yet to fully appear. It, and others, may have the new NCQ hard drive caching technology, which is supposed to make the HDD faster. Good luck. Over and out.

MrMsyvc: I tottally agree with you dude, if we all waited for that next big thing, no one would buy anything.

I was going to wait 2 months for Sonama to be more established but I just took a leap of faith and what I've got is pretty decent for now and indeed in 6 months time

Truer words were never spoken. Dunno how many times in the last 2 years I've seen the post "should I buy now or wait?", to which I say "YES! Either!".

TM 4003
Pentium M 735 (1.7Ghz)
ATi Mobility Radeon 9700/64MB
60GB HDD (4200rpm)
1GB DDR (PC2700)

3Dmark03: 2790
3Dmark05: 584

Er... that can't be right either, can it? Well, if it is, then... man does it suck. Luckily I'm not a serious gamer. Any 4000 series users care to post their results?

My Inspiron 9300 gets around 4200 in 3dmark05... You can see in my sig that I've updated it a tad, but that still is quite a jump considering there is really no price difference between the two. Of course, I haven't heard Acer owners complain about crappy screens like we i9300 owners do...

4200 3dmark05 is nice for any notebook pc. Very cool. I will just be happy to be able to play a game in a resolution besides 800 x 600!

If I didn't mind having a 17" notebook to carry around with me all the time, I'd probably already have an I9300. But I've seen those in person, and they're just HUGE.

Happy gaming!
-Ransom

Yeah I was considering getting a i9300. It is pretty good performance wise, especially with the 6800go. That was until I realized that Dell's customer service / support sucks, Intel is an evil company, Dell's screens are always pretty bad, and the thing is HUGE and UGLY.

my scores in sig... even though im sure i can get higher.. but cant be asked to overclock no more...

Scores in my sig. Sarius your scores seem about right. Could be a little higher, but seems OK for a 64mb version of the 9700. If you had an ASUS I be a little worried since they seem to get the same score as the 128mb version w/ the 64mb version. Not really sure how they managed that.

I tweaked the x700 to 370/340

3dmark03 : 6380


default drivers

6380 huh? no artifacts? I'll try that when I get mine tommorow >=)

Just realised my card was underclocked by Acer.

ATI Mobility Radeon 9700, 64MB

Stock: 452/209
Tweaked: 452/263

Actually it's not considered overclocked, because that's what ATI specified the card was capable of (450/260). Correct me if I'm wrong.

3DMark2001
Stock: 11,155
Tweaked: 12,604

3DMark03
Stock: 2790
Tweaked: 3309

3DMark05
Stock: 584
Tweaked: 646

Not that much of an improvement, but still comparable to other systems with the same card when I checked the 3DMark database.

I'm getting 6850 on 3dmark 03 with the x700 now.