Is there a big difference when buying a notebook if the graffics are shared or dedicated? If you don't intend to play games do you need the dedicated graffic memory?

The difference in capability is pretty significant, and usually so is the price. People argue that for work, there is no need for good graphics, but even business applications are starting to use 3D. Vista also has some pretty hefty graphics requirements, as eye candy increases. A good graphics processor also is good for movies, and is nearly required for hi-def content.

It's not really about the dedicated graphics memory, it's more about the graphics processor.

To add to Firefoxx's comment, the cost-benefit ratio for non gamers generally favors integrated graphics if you are trying to save money and don't run games.

For my needs, dedicated graphics is a "nice to have." The main processor can do most of the tasks that the GPU does, but it takes resources away from other applications.

I can't think of a good example right now, but it is along the lines of the old days with burning a CD- if you had any other programs running, you would likely end up with a corrupted CD. With DVD playback, I would be surprised if you had problems, unless the CPU was doing other work at the same time (spyware, viruses would be the biggest culprits).

People argue that for work, there is no need for good graphics, but even business applications are starting to use 3D. .

Such as??..