like i said my laptop is a gaming laptop.look at these stats and give me your opinion
my laptop has
2G ram (DDR2)
Intel(R) Core(TM) Duo processor T2450 2.0GHz,2mb L2 cashe,533 MHz FSb
256 MB NVIDIA(R) GeForce(R) Go 7400
280GB 5400RPM hard drive
6 cell lithium battery
and of course vista home premium 32-bit
is this a gamers laptop.
in my opinion laptops are becoming more like gaming computers and desktops are becoming more like media/websurfing/picture computer
Sorry, but no. A "gamers laptop" would have at least a GeForce x700 processor, or x600 for a "budget gamers laptop" or "small gamers laptop" (as many x700+ cards require a 17-inch laptop).
Here is an example of a gamer's laptop. It comes with either a nVIDIA 8700 or 7950 GTX, and can have multiple video cards, desktop processors (including quad-core), overclockable processors, and 7200 RPM hard drives. It also starts at twice the cost of yours and doubles again when you increase the specs.
Your might be considered a "media center" laptop. The 7400 is a medium-low end card in the GeForce 7 Go series (which I'm guessing was the most recent series when you bought it), and the large hard drive is characteristic of media center computers. Especially with your (unfortunately broken) link, I'm guessing you bought it from HP - they tend to target the "media center" audience. But it's nowhere close to the Sager I linked in performance - even at the base configuration for the Sager. Probably does get better battery life, though.
While I can see it playing most of those games at max (or near-max - is antialiasing maxed in M2TW?), try playing Call of Duty 4 (there is a free demo), Trackmania Nations (free), or Crysis (demo, which didn't run even on my 8600M GT) on it. You'll probably be able to run the first two, but definitely not on max. I get about 35 FPS on Trackmania Nations on max everything except antialiasing and anisotropic filtering, and based on what I know of the performance of the 8400 GS (approximately the successor to your card), I doubt you'd get 20 FPS average with the same settings.
For general usage and gaming it's fine. I used a much less powerful computer (for its time) for two years before this year. But it isn't a gamer's laptop - it won't run the most recent and demanding games, as of its release, at near-max settings.
I don't buy that the most powerful laptop is more powerful than the most powerful desktop, though. Yes, you can (nearly) match the processor (though I don't know of any laptops with overclockable quad cores, and overclocking would be more limited). But you can't match the video card. Dual 7950 GTX or 8700M's don't compete with dual 8800 GTX or Ultra cards. The hard drive is also limited to 10,000 RPM in laptops vs. 15,000 RPM in desktops (10K laptop drives are quite rare, and while I suppose you
could build a laptop with a 3.5 inch desktop drive, I've yet to see one do so). Finally, I've yet to see a laptop with more than 4 GB RAM, though this is really only a limitation in scientific work, not gaming (at least - not yet!). Laptops certainly can be used for gaming, even ones that are not unreasonably expensive, but in terms of maximum power and performance per dollar, they aren't on par with desktops.
The thread does seem to have wandered off-topic. For me performance isn't the issue of why I stay with CivIII, it's that it's just more enjoyable, and that CivIV added some changes that I really don't like:
*Artillery/planes/ships not being able to destroy buildings in towns
*Artillery not being able to destroy terrain improvements
*Roads being indestructible except by land units
*The combat system resulting in the attacker almost always being at a disadvantage. I like the idea of pikes doing well against Cavalry and not so much against swordsmen, but what it's resulted in in practice is that if the defender has a mixed set of defenders, the attacker simply cannot have an advantage.
*Catapults being absolutely necessary for victory. True, you could hammer someone with catapults in CivIII, but it was usually more effective to go with ground forces (at least until Replaceable Parts). It just doesn't seem fun or realistic to invade with 30 catapults and a handful of pikes (to fend off Horse Archers), when in CivIV you'd invade with either 20 Horsemen or 15 Swordsmen + 5 Catapults (usually even fewer catapults in my experience). Same goes for cannons, of course.
*Lack of an editor. I usually play Epic maps, but sometimes I like to tweak something. For example, play a no-corruption map. Nice and simple in CivIII. Not to mention all the scenarios - I haven't actually played any CivIII ones, but they look pretty good (and I've heard many are), whereas most of the CivIV ones I tried were quite unpolished (Europa Europa 3 being a notable exception).
*Smaller maps. For the vast majority of people, playing "monster maps" on CivIV is an impossibility. And small maps means less epic, and thus less fun, games.
*Terrible graphics. Far too cheesy, cartoonish, and caricaturized in CivIV. CivIII's more simple graphics actually look far better IMO.
There are elements of CivIV I like - such as promotions - but the annoyances never quite disappear - especially the artillery/bomber/ship/catapult ones.
You must think he is a civ3 fan and has an ajenda to lie just like some others here might do the same for their choice of game
I brought it in relation and now your going off again. Stay on point son!
(kiddin)
