idiggory, King of Bards wrote:
Quote:
It's seven @#%^ing pounds. That's not a laptop. It's an all-in-one desktop that happens to fold shut and not have any (easily) replaceable parts.
lolwut?
My laptop is 6.2 pounds and I can't say I've ever ONCE noticed its weight or felt it was heavy in any way.
A pound is apparently heavy when we're talking about consumer electronics; ask all of the iPad detractors who say it's "too heavy" at a pound and a third.
idiggory, King of Bards wrote:
Also, Kotaku says it is 5 pounds. Do you have a different source?
Razer's website says 6.9 lbs.
idiggory, King of Bards wrote:
Also, your thunderbolt comment strikes me as ridiculous. This is a laptop built with very specific parameters (and specifically for gaming). If the extra 5gbs theoretical maximum wasn't necessary for reaching those specs, then why would they include it? USB 3.0 is likely more than sufficient, and more attractive considering the current state available peripherals.
Thunderbolt isn't just a data port, though. It can run displays, HDDs, etc. And because it's dual-channel, it can send/receive at the same time, meaning that you can essentially hook up multiple peripherals to the same port with no noticeable loss in speed.
USB 3.0 is actually the less desirable, BTW. Intel and Apple are both completely behind Thunderbolt, and while peripherals are still fairly expensive, mini-Display Port monitors aren't, and they're compatible with Thunderbolt.
idiggory, King of Bards wrote:
Plus, I imagine this a laptop specifically catering to people who want a gaming rig but would also need a laptop (like me). Just with more cash. The fact that it allows you to do high-quality gaming on the go would be VERY attractive to many people.
Would I pay 3k for it? No. But there are very few things I would pay that much money for. If it were to go down to $2k, it would be another story.
But you're their market. Professionals with the kind of money to drop on this kind of product don't care about the portability because they likelihood is that they'll be at home sometime in the next few days. Their laptop that they take with them is—90% of the time—office/IT department-issued. Another 7 lbs on top of the 5-6 lbs of that laptop? Yeah, sure.
The market for gaming laptops is basically college students, who don't have the kind of cash to waste on a $3k laptop.
idiggory, King of Bards wrote:
Also, how exactly do you plan to use an external screen if one of the reasons you'd be buying this LAPTOP is mobile gaming? My parents actually have a 17" laptop. Is it quite large? Yes. Larger than I'd want my laptop to be? Probably. But would I want that size on a gaming laptop? Probably.
Uh, because a ~$300 monitor gets you a 27" display that's a hell of a lot bigger than your dinky 17" display, and all it takes it popping the cord into the laptop when you're at home (which is probably most of the time). Keep that display at school and take the laptop when you go home. Get a 15" laptop instead.
idiggory, King of Bards wrote:
And comparing laptop specs to desktops is, generally speaking, an absurd thing to do. If you are buying a laptop, it's because you want to be mobile. No matter how much you spend on a desktop, it doesn't offer that feature. Do you pay a lot more for the feature? Yes. But it's up to the buyer to decide if that matters to them or not.
That's my point though. Let's compare this computer to a non-gaming laptop (which can still be used for gaming quite well): a Macbook Pro 15".
With a SSD, a 15" MBP would benchmark very close to the Razer at a lower price point. ($2599 for the MBP, $2800 for the Razer, and keep in mind that the MBP is a quad-core, the Razer is only dual-core)
That's not even a gaming laptop. That's a laptop for video editors and other professionals in the graphics industry.
It's a terrible laptop. Until it drops to ~$2000, it's a complete waste of money.