Jules wrote:The main reason why I'm looking at this one is because it's small and lightweight. I've received notification that I passed the first stage of acceptance into grad school. YAY! And this looks like it would be convenient enough for simple use. I'm pretty sure I'll be fully accepted and if I do, I'd like to treat myself to this laptop.
Congrats.
Jules wrote:The battery life does not sound great but does any really have a great life? I could always plug it in somewhere, I suppose.
Some laptops last longer than others. A lot of it comes down to whatever settings you choose and which programs you run. As I said before, the battery life companies advertise is a fraction of what you'll really get, so you'll want to buy the best battery possible.
My laptop battery will last around five hours and Dell calls it a "nine hour battery." It would last nine hours if I turned everything off and had it sit there like a lump. Obviously, I'm not going to do that and neither is anyone else.
If you want your laptop to last longer, you'll have to give up some visual effects. Much of Windows 7's effects are neat, but totally unnecessary and simply eat up power. That only holds if you're using the battery, however. If you plug the laptop in, you can turn on whatever you want.
Regardless of what type of battery you get, you'll want to setup different power options for battery use and plugged-in modes. Windows 7 has some settings already built in (i.e. Power Saver, Balanced and High Performance) and some companies have their own. Dell, for instance, put a "Dell" setting on there, whatever that means. I just edited it to make the best use of power and function when running off the battery and when plugged in.
Oh and you don't want to rely on plugging your laptop in. Sometimes it's hard to find a place. Even when you can, electrical sockets can be hard to get to (like in a classroom, where electrical sockets are usually on the walls, so if you sit anywhere near the middle, you can't get to one) and you'll have to compete with other people to use them.
Besides, the entire point of a laptop -- especially one as small and light as you're buying -- is to remain portable.
Jules wrote:What's all this dual quad core hyper threading? Does it run faster depending on which you have?
The idea behind all three of those is that a single-core processor can only do so much at one time.
Back in the mid-2000s, Intel developed something called Hyper-Threading. The basic idea was to emulate the abilities of a dual-core machine on one single-core CPU. It works to some degree, but it's not as good as having a real dual-core (or better yet, a quad-core).
Dual-core processors split the workload up among two cores. Quad-core processors go one step further and split the workload up among four cores.
Why is that important? Because the number of tasks modern PCs are expected to run at one time can bog down a single-core machine. Most productivity programs, including an increasing number of games, take advantage and benefit from multiple cores.
However, that doesn't mean single-core CPUs are useless. I've got a single-core (with hyper-threading) and even though lots of software (particularly games) like to say a dual-core is necessary, I haven't found that to be the case. I've run games as recent as
Dragon Age (2009) and
Mass Effect 2 (2010), both of which played extremely well.
Something that throws a lot of people off is the CPU clock speed. This used to be simple since a higher clock speed always meant a faster machine. It's not that easy now. You have to take into account the multitasking nature of dual-core and quad-core processors. This means if a dual-core or quad-core's CPU clock appears slower than a single-core's clock, that doesn't mean the single-core is better.
I'm simplifying all of this a great deal, but I doubt you really want to read pages upon pages of information. If you want more detail, I'd suggest doing some in-depth Google searching. If nothing else, Wikipedia might be a decent place to start.
Jules wrote:What additions does the Professional version have over Premium?
Not a whole lot if you don't need extra features that allow greater control over the OS. To put it simply, there's less of a difference between the Home and Professional versions of Windows 7 than there was in Windows XP.
Jules wrote:As for the small monitor, I really don't mind because my desktop monitor is only 13". It does get a little aggravating when using Photoshop because we're spoiled at work with two monitors, but since I'm done with design I won't need the extra space.
Holy crap. That means my laptop's 15" screen is larger than your desktop's monitor!
I don't know how much work you'll be doing on your laptop (or what kind and for how long), but I'd strongly recommend a larger screen. Your eyes won't get nearly as tired that way.
Jules wrote:But yes, it's for causal use for school, nothing too great. My desktop still works but it's extremely slow and this laptop looks like it would be convenient for the purposes I intend to use it for.
It would definitely be light and portable and if that's what you want, it'll probably work well for you.
One last thought: just because that laptop is good now doesn't mean it'll be good later. In other words, don't skimp too much just because you believe "that's all I need right now." You can get away with that on desktops (to some degree) since they're easy to upgrade, but laptops are far less flexible.
Spend a little extra money to get a better processor at least. While installing a new processor in a desktop is a huge pain in the ass, it's virtually impossible to do with a laptop.
If I wanted a compact mirror, I'd buy a compact. I can't believe they use that as a marketing feature. That's kind of silly.
Well, I suppose since their target market is females. I use my little compact mirror in my purse if I want to dig out that sprig of broccoli stuck in between my teeth. 
