View Full Version : Close to buying a laptop...

05-30-2005, 07:10 PM
Hello to all!

I have been thinking about buying my own first laptop.
My uses for it are primarily to run Dreamweaver, LightWave, Photoshop, Fireworks, etc. I understand laptops are not entirely color correct, nor have the display fidelity for final graphic design work, but I am getting one so I can do some grunt work on the go.

My intent for LightWave on this laptop is mainly for modeling.

I have searched these forums and the forums on CG talk for info on using lightWave on laptops and I understand that it's very doable, however, I have seen blurbs that LightWave's OpenGL MAY not work at all on ATI Radeon graphics systems in laptops.

The Laptop I have my heart set on (for the moment) is:
IBM ThinkPad T42 2378FVU, Pentium M 1.7GHz(735).
It uses: ATI Mobility RADEON 9600 Dedicated 64MB

My question is:
Does anyone think there is any reason that LightWave 8.3 would not run or display properly at all on this laptop?

Thanks in advance for any response!

05-30-2005, 08:09 PM
How much ram does that laptop take? the more the merrier. Also there are laptop that have upgradeable grapics card.

05-30-2005, 08:34 PM
It comes with 256MB and one open SO-DIMM.
I would purchase this from NewEgg with an additional Corsair 1GB SO-DIMM.

I just wanted to get opinions on whether LW will choke OpenGL wise on it's Radeon graphics system.


05-31-2005, 01:55 AM
Hmm, Expect a few crashes now and then...
Don;t yiou ever turn on the ATi AntiAliassing when working with Lightwave...
Otherwise, you can live with it...

Although Ive been looking into laptops too, and although I'm getting a whole different beast, a Sager 9880, I wouldn;t per se choose the IBM in the first place. Its an excellent laptop, but they are built by Asus, and Asus themselves make very fine laptops indeed, which are usually half the price. Asus laptops tend to look just as good, and are just as sturdy...
The W line is really nice...

Otherwise a T42 is really a good choice, albeit a bit expensive.
You do realise that a Pentium-M is absolutely crap for rendering right?
I mean, its about 40% slower than a Pentium 4 that is supposed to be its normal 'equivalent' (eg Pentium-M 2.0Ghz vs Pentium 4 2.8 Ghz)...