Word Association (2024)

[meadish_sweetball]

I have the chance to buy an ASUS laptop at the same price retailers buy them.

So now I am wondering which model you would choose if you were me.

Please restrict your answers to ASUS laptop models, as the price will be that much cheaper and I do not have the same option with other brands.

What I need is a sturdy machine that is good at handling office tasks - preferably several at the same time - like many PDF documents open at the same time as the browser, several instances of office applications, winamp, and other small apps.

It doesn't necessarily have to be strong on graphics, as long as it can handle basic editing of digital photos and play movies. It would be nice with DVI out as I will dock it to an external LCD monitor most of the time when not travelling. Seems like dual core is the way of the future, and I guess I will be using Vista within the year so I think I need a system that can handle this.

My maximum budget is 60.000 baht.

[penguin]

If your budget is close to 60,000 baht then how about you post the specs of the models in that price range available to you? You haven't said what size screen, 12, 13, 14 or 15"? If it's 12" or 13", handy for travelling, then the range is limited.

Simple answer, get the fastest cpu and upgrade the memory to at least 1.5Gb, 2Gb even better for Vista. Over 50,000 every new model is now probably Core 2 Duo anyway, closer to 60,000 you might get Vista or at least XP included. You could spend much less and so long as you have plenty of RAM you should be able to do what you require without a problem using XP but buying new you might as well get Core 2 Duo if you want to run Vista smoothly. Also check out the MS and ASUS sites to see if the graphics are up to running Vista properly.

[gharknes]

core duo

2 meg memory

100G + HD sata

17" wuxga 1900/1200 19" if you can get it

at least 7700 graphics with 512 memory NIVIDIA or ATI 1900 +

DVI out

A7 - G series or W2

Get close to this and you will be good for a few years

none of them have wuxga LCD panel which is rather dissapointing for the price

Edited March 27, 2007 by gharknes

[meadish_sweetball]

Thank you gharknes and penguin!

You haven't said what size screen, 12, 13, 14 or 15"? If it's 12" or 13", handy for travelling, then the range is limited.

Screen size and weight are not important to me. My former laptop was heavy, but it worked ok. As long as it can be carried in a bag that's all I need in that regard, the rest is a bonus. I found with my last computer that I rarely use it unless I have a wall outlet to plug it into anyway. Using a computer without a proper desk is overrated anyway in my opinion.

So my main concerns are finding a machine with strong performance - good CPU power, large hard drive doesnt hurt, lots of RAM to do multitasking.

[Tywais]

Might take a look at this core duo model (2GHz), has a reasonable graphics chip set also.

http://www.shop4thai.com/en/product/?pid=15338 Since you are getting retailer's price, it will be lower then the price here.

http://www.asus.com/products4.aspx?l1=5&am...amp;modelmenu=1

Maybe top up the memory to 1GB

[meadish_sweetball]

Thank you tywais, I like that A8Jm model, seems to be just what the doctor ordered... it does not seem to be available in Sweden though. Will have to check this .

[Tywais]

Thank you tywais, I like that A8Jm model, seems to be just what the doctor ordered... it does not seem to be available in Sweden though. Will have to check this .

One forum indicated that Sweden was going to have the A8Js model available last October and members seemed excited about it due to the higher performance video card Go 7700. Same specs as the A8Jm except a 1.83GHz clock. Believe the price is about the same.

http://www.asus.com/products4.aspx?l1=5&am...amp;modelmenu=1

A Swedish site shows the spec at 2GHz and 1GB memory though > http://www.komplett.se/k/ki.asp?sku=326671

Edited March 27, 2007 by tywais
Additional info

[alexth]

None.

[zoltannyc]

I have a W7J Core 2 Duo, 13.3" model W7J-3P014P in Carbon Black. The notebook is configured as follows:

* Intel Core Duo T2400 1.83GHz

* 1 GB DDR2 533MHz SDRAM (2x512 MB)

* 13.3" WXGA Color Shine (Glare Type) and Crystal-Shine (High Brightness) LCD

* Hard Drive: 100 GB; SATA 5400 RPM

* Graphics: NVIDIA GeForce Go 7400 PCI-E Graphics w/ 128 MB VRAM (256 MB w/ Turbo Cache)

* Wireless: Intel PRO Wireless 3945 A/B/G miniPCI

* Optical: 8x Super Multi DVD Burner

* Battery: 6-Cell Li-Ion

* Sound: Azailia compliant audio chip

* Dimensions: 315mm x 226.5 x 29 -- 36.9mm (W x D x H) [12.4" x 8.92" x 1.142 -- 1.453"]

* Windows XP Professional

Pros

* Design and build quality

* Great performance without sacrificing portability

* Impressive screen

* Excellent webcam along with security software

Cons

* Heat

* Started to drop WiFi last week and had to disable power management for the wireless card.

* The screen get dirty very easily (I had a Dell 700m before and the screen was did not attract that much of grease dust etc.)

[pumper]

do you travel with your computer or is it a desk top replacement?

My laptop is used only for travel & I wish it was smaller & had longer battery life ..

when i use it at home I plug an old 19" monitor into the vga out .. a smaller package for travel will be a criteria for MY next laptop.

i got a 250 gig external hard drive for under us$100 to supplement the internal HD. mp3s can take up huge amounts of HD space + I use the external HD to transfer files between computers..

an internal DVD burner is a big plus .. for back up .. cannot imagine watching movies on mine.

plenty of USB / firewire connects .. never enough (I just counted 5 USB devices hooked to to my desktop now)

a replacement / extra battery could be worth it's weight .. or at least a 'high capacity' battery.

I have run out of juice more times than I care to count ..

question: are the latest laptop screens as good as a desktop monitor?

.. my 2 year old Hewlett Packard laptop's 15.1" screen mostly sucks .. it was the upgrade 15.1" screen at the time .. not even close to even a cheap desktop monitor.

[gharknes]

there is one feature on laptops that many people don't consider but you should UXGA and WUXGA (widescreen version)

If you are paying $2000 for a laptop and it doesn't have this high end LCD panel then the chances are you are being ripped off, to get this as an upgrade on new purchase will usually add between 300-400 $ and they do make a difference, I wouldn't consider buying a laptop without UXGA, the screen clarity is like comparing a newspaper to a glossy magazine, encredible, I run my laptop at 1900/1200 and the clarity is stunning, a friend of mine bought a laptop same time as me same - make and model but had XGA panel, he always wished he'd got the UXGA screen, the difference is night and day

Edited March 28, 2007 by gharknes

[gharknes]

this looks like it would fit your needs

http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=113360

[autonomous_unit]

question: are the latest laptop screens as good as a desktop monitor?

No, not really and probably never will be. A laptop screen is always a compromise to keep its weight down and reduce its power requirements in order to extend battery life. A desktop LCD will always have brighter and more uniform back-lighting than a laptop, because it can use more power and have a thicker back-light system behind the screen. This translates to better and more uniform colors on the desktop LCD.

If you have the option of using a "docking station" and desktop LCD with only occasional use of the internal laptop LCD, that will probably be your best value (particularly with DVI so there is no image quality loss for the external screen). The laptop will be cheaper and a nice desktop screen may outlast several laptops too.

I've found that my ideal situation is a real desktop machine and a small laptop used exclusively on travel... even a cheap desktop can outclass most laptops for performance, and a slower and cheaper laptop often is lighter and gets better battery life too! Once I got used to "syncing" my files between the laptop and desktop, it also gave me peace of mind to know there was a backup system in case the other needed maintenance or something like that.

I also have found that I rarely take my laptop out of the bag at a cafe or other stop where others seem to love to use theirs... even on long flights, I often prefer to listen to music or think and jot notes on paper for a few hours before digging out the laptop to review something or get some writing tasks done. I've even pondered just carrying something like a Mac Mini in my baggage, but then I would have no way at all to use it until I reached another office with an LCD and keyboard waiting for me, and that seems a little too extreme...

So it is very difficult to recommend a specific purchasing strategy, when different work styles can put such different value on things...

[gharknes]

question: are the latest laptop screens as good as a desktop monitor?

No, not really and probably never will be. A laptop screen is always a compromise to keep its weight down and reduce its power requirements in order to extend battery life. A desktop LCD will always have brighter and more uniform back-lighting than a laptop, because it can use more power and have a thicker back-light system behind the screen. This translates to better and more uniform colors on the desktop LCD.

sorry mate but that is just complete rubbish, quality is what you pay for in any guise laptop or desktop, my laptop screen will outperform most decktop screens in every respect except for very high end kit which will cost an arm and a leg, I was going to buy an external monitor for my laptop but would have cost almost the price of a laptop to get the resolution and clarity of what I have now

e.g. http://accessories.us.dell.com/sna/product...mp;sku=320-4335 ultra is the key here with a resolution of 1900/1200, non ultra monitors would be third this price but what a drop in quality and capability

Edited March 28, 2007 by gharknes

[pumper]

>even a cheap desktop can outclass most laptops<

I agree 100%

a laptop will never be a quality desk top replacement.

I even carry a full size keyboard & track ball with me to avoid the laptop keyboard & pointing device.

I do not always use the keyboard but always plug in the usb trackball.

FOR ME: a low end desktop is a much better desktop computer.

a laptop has it's place .. & I intend to always have a laptop.

but for 1/2 the price of a high end laptop one can have a nice laptop for travel & mid range desktop.

unless one is a gamer or using the box as a video / audio studio .. a modern midrange desktop will meet all of ones needs.

software has not begun to catch up with the hardware .. xp does not fully utilize dual core processing .. I assume vista does.

http://www.theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=38508

re wide screen: a 15" 'square' has more pixels than a wide screen 17".

diagonal is the measurement .. + the wide / short screens show less lines of text ..

"web pages & paper size format documents (.doc, .htm & .pdf) " are much better suited to the conventional screen layout.

re ram: I have begun recording audio off satellite radio .. digital signal converted to .wav by my arcos media recorder .. lub this little device tu mutt.

IPOD sized & records .avi video & .wav audio direct to HD from my satellite box.

often if forget & end up with a .wav file of over 1 gig ..

in effect 1 song / .wav file more than a hour long ..

I have 1 gig ram in my computer.. after transferring the huge .wav file to my desktop & i go to rip the huge file my software really slows down .. the file is larger than my ram.

ripping is 60% slower for a file larger than available ram.

this is the first time since I got my new desktop that memory was an obvious issue.

[gharknes]

>even a cheap desktop can outclass most laptops<

I agree 100%

a laptop will never be a quality desk top replacement.

I even carry a full size keyboard & track ball with me to avoid the laptop keyboard & pointing device.

I do not always use the keyboard but always plug in the usb trackball.

FOR ME: a low end desktop is a much better desktop computer.

a laptop has it's place .. & I intend to always have a laptop.

but for 1/2 the price of a high end laptop one can have a nice laptop for travel & mid range desktop.

unless one is a gamer or using the box as a video / audio studio .. a modern midrange desktop will meet all of ones needs.

software has not begun to catch up with the hardware .. xp does not fully utilize dual core processing .. I assume vista does.

http://www.theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=38508

re wide screen: a 15" 'square' has more pixels than a wide screen 17".

diagonal is the measurement .. + the wide / short screens show less lines of text ..

"web pages & paper size format documents (.doc, .htm & .pdf) " are much better suited to the conventional screen layout.

re ram: I have begun recording audio off satellite radio .. digital signal converted to .wav by my arcos media recorder .. lub this little device tu mutt.

IPOD sized & records .avi video & .wav audio direct to HD from my satellite box.

often if forget & end up with a .wav file of over 1 gig ..

in effect 1 song / .wav file more than a hour long ..

I have 1 gig ram in my computer.. after transferring the huge .wav file to my desktop & i go to rip the huge file my software really slows down .. the file is larger than my ram.

ripping is 60% slower for a file larger than available ram.

this is the first time since I got my new desktop that memory was an obvious issue.

resolution defines descktop size or area, i have a larger desktop area than most desktop pc's with 1900/1200, the limitation of laptops is related to upgradability for stuff like drives and graphics although usb has improved this quite a bit, my last desktop had a crt screen, max resolution before it started to become dificut to read stuff was 1024/768, the desktop size was small compared to what i have right now, even 1280/1024 is still restrictive, the aspect of the screen has nothing to do with it.

I have a docking station for my laptop which has expansion slots etc etc, the laptop slides into it and from then on I effectively have a desktop, I don't use it, performance wise it all depends on the spec of the machine, laptops can be just as fast as desktops, give me one reason why they shouldn't.

Edited March 28, 2007 by gharknes

[pumper]

top of the line video cards have cooling fans larger than a laptop

laptops use special processors...

i THINK laptop HDs are far from equal to desktop HDs

no doubt some laptops are better than other laptops

there is more to screen image quality than # of pixels.

if you like your laptop & feel it is as fast as the fastest desktop .. I am glad.

some people like red shoes & some like blue shoes

some drink beer & some drink water & some drink whiskey

some like boys & some like girls & some like kethoys ..

nothing is better nothing is best.. the byrds

[pumper]

Million dollar laptop hits the streets

Like you would expect, the machine has a 17-inch wide-screen LED lit screen with a specially designed anti-reflective glare coating for clear and brighter image.

From the keyboard down to the power charger, it is all expensive gear, he says.

http://www.theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=38512

Edited March 29, 2007 by pumper

[autonomous_unit]

sorry mate but that is just complete rubbish, quality is what you pay for in any guise laptop or desktop, my laptop screen will outperform most decktop screens in every respect except for very high end kit which will cost an arm and a leg, I was going to buy an external monitor for my laptop but would have cost almost the price of a laptop to get the resolution and clarity of what I have now

e.g. http://accessories.us.dell.com/sna/product...mp;sku=320-4335 ultra is the key here with a resolution of 1900/1200, non ultra monitors would be third this price but what a drop in quality and capability

Of course, I mean that a laptop LCD and a desktop LCD at similar price points... What is the premium you pay for a super high resolution screen on the laptop versus buying it with a basic screen and getting a desktop LCD as well? That is the way to price shop, IF you do not require portability of the full resolution screen (one of the first points I tried to emphasize about intended usage patterns).

I should also point out that I look at laptops as consumables, so a cost per year could also be considered. How long do you keep the laptop before upgrading? How long would you keep the desktop LCD? In my experience, a nice 21-inch or larger desktop LCD will outlast several laptops without noticable reduction in its image quality. Most of my laptops have had obvious degradation in the backlight color, brightness, and uniformity after less than a year of daily use; that is I have gone through about seven laptops in the last ten years, but only two CRT and two LCD desktop screens. The laptops were retired due to being too slow and having screens that wore out. The desktop screens were still doing fine, but I handed them off to junior staff when I had the opportunity to upgrade to larger screens with a new system purchase.

[autonomous_unit]

Gharknes, I'll give you two reasons that laptops are not as fast as desktops at the same price point:

1. Power consumption: The fast memory and I/O buses of desktops consume too much power, and laptops subsequently use slower and/or narrower electrical buses to keep their requirements down (and keep battery life up). Recently, there has been a big leveling with the new Intel Core processors, but even now laptops typically have slower core speeds and different cache/bus options than their desktop counterparts.

2. Integration costs: All the extra space and general purpose sockets of desktops allow economies of scale to reduce prices for fast parts that can be mixed and matched to build good cheap systems; meanwhile laptops are so integrated that a narrower range of components enjoy the economy of scale necessary to bring down costs.

This is not to say that you cannot get a fast laptop, but that when you are on the upgrade treadmill, you can almost always purchase faster components more frequently by using desktop parts.

[nikster]

resolution defines descktop size or area, i have a larger desktop area than most desktop pc's with 1900/1200, the limitation of laptops is related to upgradability for stuff like drives and graphics although usb has improved this quite a bit, my last desktop had a crt screen, max resolution before it started to become dificut to read stuff was 1024/768, the desktop size was small compared to what i have right now, even 1280/1024 is still restrictive, the aspect of the screen has nothing to do with it.

I have a docking station for my laptop which has expansion slots etc etc, the laptop slides into it and from then on I effectively have a desktop, I don't use it, performance wise it all depends on the spec of the machine, laptops can be just as fast as desktops, give me one reason why they shouldn't.

gharknes - the 1900 resolution for laptops is extreme. meadish really will have to go to a shop and compare different resolutions on different size screens.

I have 1680x1050 on a 15" screen on my laptop and find it very comfortable to use - lots of pixels but I can still read text. My colleague had said Dell with 1900 on the same size screen and quite frankly and despite loving high rez screens, I found it way too much. I have to squint to be able to read the miniscule text. I know Windows allows to change the DPI of text but that ends up looking awkward in many places.

My friend now was always running his ultra-high-res 1900x display scaled down to 1680. Which is almost as good as a real 1680 screen except it's somewhat blurry from the scaling artifacts.

1900 would be OK on a 17" laptop screen. I know many people who think 1680 on 15" is way too much and prefer 1280x900 which looks really clunky to me. Each to his own though - if you end up having to run your display scaled down you are much better off getting the correct resolution for your eyesight to begin with.

Edited March 29, 2007 by nikster

[nikster]

>even a cheap desktop can outclass most laptops<

I agree 100%

a laptop will never be a quality desk top replacement.

well that may be true for yourself, but don't project on other people.

i have been using my laptop as my main working machine since 2001.

I have a Core Duo 2GHz, 2GB RAM, 1680x1050 on 15" screen and a 120GB hard disk and an X1600 graphics card - these specs are better than any cheap desktop, even now. Asus makes a few machines with the same specs, though I am not sure you can get that for 60K Baht these days. Mine was close to 100K but it's now a year old, too. I also have a DVI port in case I wanted an external LCD but I never felt the need.

High end desktops will have a better graphics card, faster HD, and slightly faster processor but they will also cost as much or more than my laptop (depending on gfx card). A desktop with the same specs will cost slightly less, but not much - you have to factor in cost of a high res LCD display and UPS.

In real life all thats left from the better specs is the hard disk. CPU and graphics card speed are completely adequate on the laptop, e.g. I never, ever wait for those components. Faster will not lead to a better experience.

The hard disk, both size and speed remains as the main advantage of a desktop. That's a 2x to 3x improvement and would make a difference in real life for me. I gladly traded that for the ability to work from anywhere in the world and having my office on me at all times, but YMMV as they say.

meadish - for Vista-readiness, get as much memory as you can possibly afford. Tests have shown that vista performs better with 3GB than with 2GB. So any memory you can add will help this pig of an OS. CPU speed isn't nearly as important as RAM.

PS: Yes I am one of those people prone to whipping out their laptop in a cafe. I choose hotels and resorts based on WiFi availability. Etc. I completely understand that some people simply would never care for that.

Edited March 29, 2007 by nikster

[gharknes]

people really talk some crap, for those that think they know all, go look at some CPU development history, you will find that the advancement in technology is driven by higher speed less heat low power usage decrease size blah blah blah, you will also find that most of the technology inovation is primarily achieved for laptops and other mobile products because that is where the challenge is, eventually it migrates to desktops, do your own DD, take a look at the history of the mobility CPU, it was an old pentium that just got better, higher deveopment costs, some of the technology migrated back to desktops.

granted laptop cooling is an issue which is why laptop development and r&d is where it all happens

as for screen rosolution and quality I have nothing to add because you don't listen

as for cost versus performance, if cost is an issue then buy a desktop, but purchase a highend laptop and you will be spending quite a bit on a desktop to equal it's performance in every rerspect, now get your facts straight before posting again, I worked in this industry for many years, maybe you should start to listen you might learn something.

Nikster, you are not far away from the truth, some people find it hard to accept

PS I find 1900/1200 very clear and readable, very few desktops will go to this resolution and quality, I need a large destop area as I use some applications that require many windows, oh and chunky is a good description for your average crappy desktop unless you spend big bucks for a proper good quality screen, haven't seen any in Thailand they are all 1280/ 1024.....chunky, whats the point is having a highend graphics card driving a cheap low res screen ??

Edited March 29, 2007 by gharknes

[penguin]

Reading some of the comments about desktops versus notebooks l've decided l must be living on another planet, the one where the conventional rule of thumb has always been that you need to spend around twice as much on a notebook as on a desktop to achieve similar performance. As for having to spend a fortune on getting a high resolution screen better than 1280, well my Samsung 940BW runs nicely at 1440 x 900, sells for less than 7000 baht so l don't know if l'd call that expensive.

[autonomous_unit]

Look, I am not sure why you want to flame. I agree that desktop replacement laptops make perfect sense for some people who need portability of their office. The original post was asking for laptop advice and seemed price conscious. For some people who want to work or play games at home but still be able to check email or browse the web from cafes, etc., buying a basic laptop and a fast desktop can be more sensible.

I'm really missing something here, because the link to an "UltraSharp" LCD desktop panel you provided shows a nice 24 inch LCD with 1900x1200 resolution for $629 US. Are you suggesting you can get a comparable LCD in a laptop? I feel like this Dell LCD is a perfect example of how you can get nicer desktop equipment than laptop for a given price. I know these prices do not compare well to Thailand pricing, so let me give another comparison. I know that six months ago, a Dell Workstation 390 (high end PC) with 2.4 GHz Intel Core Duo, 1GB RAM, 300 GB SATA II, NVIDIA Quadro graphics, and a 21 inch 1600x1200 LCD could be had in Bangkok for 85k THB. Could a laptop be had here with those specs for a price anywhere near that?

I also know that in the US last year, one could put together an AMD based system with nearly identical performance (socket AM2 dual core Athlon64) for about $800 US, including the same 21 inch LCD from Dell and some components from newegg etc.

[britmaveric]

Make sure you get Core Duo 2 as processor - not much price difference in Core Duo.

[lamphun]

I bought an Asus A8J last week. 2GhZ Core 2 Duo T7200, 1 gig RAM, ATIX1450 video card, 14.1" WXGA, 100gbyte HD. So far I'm really impressed.

[nikster]

Reading some of the comments about desktops versus notebooks l've decided l must be living on another planet, the one where the conventional rule of thumb has always been that you need to spend around twice as much on a notebook as on a desktop to achieve similar performance.

Yeah the conventional rule of thumb does get turned around quite a bit these days - gotta love IT

A few things have happened:

- Laptop prices are in free fall. I have seen entry level laptops for 16,000 Baht. Perfectly usable entry level laptops, I might add. You will be hard pressed to find entry level desktops for significantly less than that, maybe you can get one for 12,000 including some crap CRT monitor but with LCD... and UPS.. try it!

- Computers have been "fast enough" for anything but specialty apps for a few years now. If you don't do 3D modelling, games, or scientific calculations you are going to be perfectly happy with an entry level CPU. You need more RAM (>= 1GB) but the CPU hardly matters. So even if the desktop has 2x performance, all that power will sit there unused. Don't need it for email, internet, word, quicken, whatever.

- There are now more laptops sold than desktops - economies of scale make laptops cheaper and cheaper.

[gharknes]

Look, I am not sure why you want to flame. I agree that desktop replacement laptops make perfect sense for some people who need portability of their office. The original post was asking for laptop advice and seemed price conscious. For some people who want to work or play games at home but still be able to check email or browse the web from cafes, etc., buying a basic laptop and a fast desktop can be more sensible.

I'm really missing something here, because the link to an "UltraSharp" LCD desktop panel you provided shows a nice 24 inch LCD with 1900x1200 resolution for $629 US. Are you suggesting you can get a comparable LCD in a laptop? I feel like this Dell LCD is a perfect example of how you can get nicer desktop equipment than laptop for a given price. I know these prices do not compare well to Thailand pricing, so let me give another comparison. I know that six months ago, a Dell Workstation 390 (high end PC) with 2.4 GHz Intel Core Duo, 1GB RAM, 300 GB SATA II, NVIDIA Quadro graphics, and a 21 inch 1600x1200 LCD could be had in Bangkok for 85k THB. Could a laptop be had here with those specs for a price anywhere near that?

I also know that in the US last year, one could put together an AMD based system with nearly identical performance (socket AM2 dual core Athlon64) for about $800 US, including the same 21 inch LCD from Dell and some components from newegg etc.

I'm not flameing, your first post on this thread was to inform me I was wrong, I am simply showing you that you are not totally correct and laptops can perform on a similar power with desktops, the reason I included the link to the monitor was to illustrate that a high end screen for a desktop is expensive, also a large screen does not equate to a large desktop area, it's all relative, for example my laptop has a considerably larger desktop area at 1900/1200 than a desktop at 1280/1024 yes it's smaller in physical size but the work area is bigger, I couldn't work with something at 1280/1024 no matter how large the screen, don't know why you fail to understand this.

[nikster]

I bought an Asus A8J last week. 2GhZ Core 2 Duo T7200, 1 gig RAM, ATIX1450 video card, 14.1" WXGA, 100gbyte HD. So far I'm really impressed.

Why so on-topic?

From what I hear, Asus laptops have an excellent reputation for quality, just like their motherboards.

I recommend you check out the Asus forums at forum.notebookreview.com

http://forum.notebookreview.com/forumdisplay.php?f=19

That will tell you all about Asus machines and also come in handy in the future should you have some problem. I am using the Acer forums there and there are at least 5 or more people who have the exact same Acer model that I have which is a great help if anything goes wrong....