Back to Article

  • solipsism - Wednesday, May 19, 2010 - link

    I'd like to see this machine compared with latest MacBook. There seems to be some evidence to suggest Apple did the right thing withs sticking with C2D this time around in their 13" machines. This machine seems to be a great machine which to compare. Reply
  • Daeros - Wednesday, May 19, 2010 - link

    I agree completely. For the extra hundred bucks, you get similar specs, even better battery life (and Bluetooth), as well as somewhat faster graphics. For all the bashing Apple takes for its pricing, it seems that whenever a pc company like ASUS or HP or Dell attempt to get to that level of size & performance, it winds up being very close in price.
    I second a request for this to go head-to head with the 13" Macbook.
  • anandtechrocks - Wednesday, May 19, 2010 - link

    I disagree completely. if you go by apple's claims you get less than 50 minutes more battery life, a processor that is anywhere from 15-40% slower, half the ram, a smaller hard drive, and a plastic case for $100 dollars more. I know what I'd pick... Reply
  • FATCamaro - Wednesday, May 19, 2010 - link

    Please note that the Asus doesn't appear to come with abgn networking instead just bgn. So it only has a 2.4Ghz radio it seems, not a 5 Ghz. one. I could be wrong. Other than that and the shit LCD it is a fine MBP alternative for Windows users. Reply
  • anandtechrocks - Wednesday, May 19, 2010 - link

    mbp is like $300 more than this isn't it? I think the regular MB is a better competitor, which also doesn't have the best LCD. don't forget apple offers half the warranty of this Asus too Reply
  • JarredWalton - Wednesday, May 19, 2010 - link

    Depending on the application, you'd need about a Core 2 P9700 (2.8GHz) to equal a 2.26GHz Core i3-350M. In highly threaded workloads, the only way you'd com anywhere near the faster Core i5 processors is by getting a Core 2 Quad, but with the lower clock speeds on quad-core you'll be slower in lightly threaded tasks (i.e. the i3-350M is as fast as Q9000 in PCMark Vantage). It all depends on the app, but when you consider Core 2 Quad also consumes quite a bit more power in testing (i3/i5 idle far better than C2Q), there really aren't too many areas where I'd recommend Core 2 over Core i3/i5.

    I think Apple went with Core 2 Duo (P8600) for the MacBook because they could reuse some old tech and got a good price more than anything. (Maybe NVIDIA gave them a good deal on the chipset as well.) It also keeps the standard MacBook a decent step down from the MacBook Pro.

    The Macbook has a 320M IGP GPU, so it has 3x as many shaders as 310M but it has to share system memory. (48 shaders at 950 vs. 16 shaders at 1530 means the 320M has 85% more shader performance but has to make do with about half the memory bandwidth.) That might mean it ends up with the same relative performance as the 310M in a lot of situations, depending on whether the particular game is bandwidth or shader limited.

    Other than slightly better battery life I'd say the U30Jc beats the MacBook in most other area. The size and weight are pretty much the same (MB is slightly thinner but not enough that I'd worry about it), ASUS gives you 4GB vs. 2GB, and a 320GB vs. 250GB hard drive. It's $100 cheaper and has aluminum surfaces as well. I'm curious about the LCD, though... MBPs have good LCDs, but the standard MacBooks have usually skimped there. 1280x800 vs. 1366x768 is a wash in my book but I'm sure some would prefer the 16:10 AR of the MacBook.

    Of course, if you prefer OS X over Windows 7 the choice is clear. Similarly, if you prefer Windows 7 there's no point in buying a MacBook. MacBooks booting Windows have never reached the same battery life as under OS X. Anyway, we'll see if we can get a MacBook for testing, but I won't be the one doing the review.
  • VivekGowri - Wednesday, May 19, 2010 - link

    The 13" MacBook Pro also has a Core 2 Duo, suggesting more that Apple didn't want to put Core i5 processors into the smaller/cheaper models. Whether this is because they wanted to differentiate the larger/more expensive 15" model, or because they wanted to maximize profit margins (C2D's must be dirt cheap right now...) we don't know.

    It just doesn't seem entirely likely to me that they couldn't do it or couldn't fit both the larger i5 processor package and the secondary IGP into the MB/MBP case (there are enough other laptops with Core iX and dedicated graphics out there in small chassis; the U30Jc is just one example). Also, I'm not buying Steve's comment that Apple couldn't justify the "very small CPU speed increase".

    I may (*may*) end up with one of the newly updated MacBooks sometime soon, but as Jarred says, we'll see if we can get one and who does the review.
  • Penti - Wednesday, May 19, 2010 - link

    Hardly, a Core i5-520M costs $225 and a P8600 costs $209 (listed price), there no price difference in the processor/chipset platform. It's $265 with chipset for 520M + HM55. Apple might get an rebate, but they might get one or the newer platform too. It's probably the same cost as the old hardware any way. Overpriced as usual. Reply
  • Penti - Wednesday, May 19, 2010 - link

    I think more then likely it's just space concerns that has them using C2D + NVIDIA chipset, they do the same in the MBP 13" for the same reason. Switching to Core i5 + HM55 + GPU / Memory takes up more space on the circuit board. Something there aren't a lot of on Macbooks. Of course this is essentially the old Macbook so they could reuse pretty much everything anyway. The chipset is probably even pin-compatible. But they appear to have tweaked the battery though, although the case itself is exactly the same.

    Of course something like adding to the size of the PCB would dictate a case redesign and the removal of the dvd-drive possibly.
  • JarredWalton - Thursday, May 20, 2010 - link

    As I pointed out in the MacBook posting comments, there's no problem with getting all of the components with a discrete GPU into the MacBook. It's .1" narrower and .4" less deep, but ASUS has a removable battery that accounts for much of the extra depth. Apple chose the old platform for cost savings--both for the lower prices on the CPU+chipset as well as the ability to reuse the old design without having to spend a lot of time on accommodating a new chipset, CPU, etc. The sad thing is that Apple doesn't pass any of those savings on to the customer: a MacBook still costs $1000, even if it has two year old technology--outside of the chipset, which you could argue is "new". Too bad we never got a chance to have that chipset back when it would have been useful; now it's relegated to Core 2 platforms that are going away. Reply
  • jconan - Tuesday, May 25, 2010 - link

    hopefully in the comparison it's compared using apples to apples os with proper drivers Reply
  • Lunyone - Wednesday, May 19, 2010 - link

    I would like to have a laptop with better resolution than the 13x768 for a 15"+ laptop. Even my 1280x800 current resolution is fine for the most part. I just don't like the limitation of 1366 x 768. It's wide enough, but the vertical real estate isn't as web page friendly as I would like.

    I also would like better GPU's in this category. Even the 3670 listed on the charts does quite well against the 310m on this laptop. Your right that the 5650 is about as minimum that I might consider for a budget friendly "gaming" laptop. Much less than that an you start to compromise your gaming options.

    So here is what I'd buy right now from Asus if they had it:
    * Dual core CPU (~2.2-2.6 gHz)
    * Dedicated GPU (~5650 or equivalent)
    * 4 gb's of RAM
    * 7200 rpm HD (~250 gb's would be good, I'd even take 160 gb's to keep costs down if needed)
    * 15" or larger LCD w/at least 1400 x 900 or better resolution.

    Bundle that all into a laptop for ~$800-900 and I'm there. I know that this is asking for a bit, but that is the price range that I'll be shopping for.
  • acsa - Wednesday, May 19, 2010 - link

    Manufacturers are still having a marketing department with sound fundaments of microeconomics and game theory ;) If your desire is strong, they find a way to milk you. So,you can either pay for that desire; or loose 132 pixel rows and buy a cheap timelineX 5820T with ATI 5650 with an introductionary guarantee of 3 years and spend the saved bucks on your family or on whatever is _really_ improving your life. Anyway, did these timelinex series arrive in the US? Reply
  • Lunyone - Wednesday, May 19, 2010 - link

    They aren't going to milk me. I just do research and buy what I need/want within my budget. I bought a Dell e1505 over 4 years ago with the best GPU that they had (ATI x1400). It has done very well for the 4 years that I've had it. It was about $900 and I've only had to replace the battery. I upgraded the RAM to 2 gb's (max supported) and also the HD to a 7200 rpm one. These were only in the last year, so I'd say I've been lucky and have had a very good experience in the $900 price range, for a budget gaming laptop :) Reply
  • acsa - Thursday, May 20, 2010 - link

    Was a smart buy. I also take care about longevity and upgradeability when buying something. With "milking" I meant that when a model&configuration is designed, it is very carefully decided how to make really tricky deficiencies which are motivating to buy a 20% more expensive config. Reply
  • arnavvdesai - Wednesday, May 19, 2010 - link

    I believe ME2 uses the Unreal Engine whereas Dragon Age is a completely in house engine built by BioWare. Dragon Age engine was designed to be made for the PC initially and later ported to the consoles(PS3 last actually). Reply
  • JarredWalton - Wednesday, May 19, 2010 - link

    Sorry, you're right. I just figured with such similar performance and coming from Bioware, they would use the same tech. DAO uses the Eclipse engine while ME2 uses Unreal Engine 3.5. (The original ME was UE3.) Anyway, neither game runs particularly well at minimum detail and 1366x768. I'll update the text.... Reply
  • RAGETRON - Wednesday, May 19, 2010 - link

    My concern is about how loud typical actions done on this Asus would sound in a quiet environment such as a classroom or a library study area. Even though these actions might not be of concern in a normal environment, a quiet environment amplifies the sound and can be especially irritating to others around you and make one self conscious about how they are using their machine. So, how loud is a mouse click in such a very quiet environment (Library, classroom)? I imagine that the rocker button would be louder than laptops with two discrete buttons. Thinkpads seem to be very quiet in this regard. How loud can fast typing get on the chiclet style keyboard? And how about the sound level when the fan kicks in or hard drive churns? Reply
  • JarredWalton - Wednesday, May 19, 2010 - link

    Noise levels are listed on page two: 33.5 dB at idle and 35.5dB at full load. Most of the time the laptop runs at ~33 dB. (My testing environment bottoms out my SPL meter at 30 dB.) The keyboard is about average... the Dell XPS 16 as an example has a softer, quieter key action, but most other laptops sound the same. The touchpad buttons aren't particularly loud, though they're a bit more clicky than some other touchpads. I think it has more to do with the specific design of a touchpad than it does with the rocker style. I figure as long as you're doing normal activities like taking notes no one will care about the noise the U30Jc makes. If you're playing games, though.... ;-) Reply
  • killerclick - Wednesday, May 19, 2010 - link

    Small screen, too expensive, yet too thick and too heavy. Might as well go for a full-sized laptop. Reply
  • zac206 - Wednesday, May 19, 2010 - link

    This laptop seems interesting. I would wonder how the MSI X360 would do against it, as it seems to have similar specs. Reply
  • GullLars - Wednesday, May 19, 2010 - link

    A good review here, seems like a decent laptop for some uses.
    I would love to see how it does if you swap the HDD for a SSD.

    Jarred, If you still have the U30Jc in house an Intel SSD (or SandForce), would you consider swapping the drive and repeating the test suite? It would be much appreciated.
    Doing so would likely increase productivity noticably, and increase typical battrey life through the "hurry up and go idle" principle.
    A $100-200 SSD like x25-V/M would likely double (or more?) the PCmark Vantage total score, putting it firmly in the lead ahead of the Lenovo T410, with a good lead, possibly even in first place with double the score of second place.
  • JarredWalton - Wednesday, May 19, 2010 - link

    Does it need to be an Intel SSD? Because I have a Vertex I can slap in there if that's okay.... Reply
  • GullLars - Wednesday, May 19, 2010 - link

    Sure, go ahead and put in the vertex. Remember to set AHCI mode.
    It will give a bit lower scores, but should still give a decent points boost.
    Looking forward to it.

    Will you post it as an extension/edit to the article, or maybe a new short one?
  • JarredWalton - Wednesday, May 19, 2010 - link

    I'll post it as a separate follow-up I think, as it's going to take a few days to rerun some of these tests. Reply
  • Kegetys - Wednesday, May 19, 2010 - link

    Too bad they didn't improve the screen at all, I have an UL30VT and the machine is fantastic except the poor quality display ruins it. Very bad viewing angles, poor contrast and entirely useless outdoors. The machine could also fit a 16:10 screen fine (huge bezels on top and bottom) and the added vertical space would be welcomed for desktop use. You wont enjoy movies with the screen anyway so 16:9 has very little use in my opinion. Reply
  • teohhanhui - Wednesday, May 19, 2010 - link

    The glossy screen is a major deal breaker for me :(

    Looking at Dell Vostro 3300/3400 instead.
  • Modeverything - Wednesday, May 19, 2010 - link

    I was just curious as to why a few of the laptops change between benchmarks? Doesn't this make some of the testing inconsistent? Reply
  • JarredWalton - Wednesday, May 19, 2010 - link

    I'm guessing you're referring to the previously missing Studio XPS 16 and Acer 5740G results on the application and 3DMark pages. Sorry about that. I added them in as they somehow got left off my spreadsheet. Mea culpa. If there are any others missing, let me know. Reply
  • blyndy - Wednesday, May 19, 2010 - link

    What about the Dell Vostro 3300?


    Same size, same RAM/GPU, better cpu (i5-520M), 500 GB HDD, bluetooth. No HDMI (it's available on the 14", 15" and 17" models) and ships with only a 4-cell battert (an 8-cell is available), but it picks up eSATA and express-card, fingerprint reader and double mouse trackpad buttons (and it looks ten times better!) for $933.

    I think that its miles ahead for the money, and the 17" model has the option for a GT 330M (although the 17" display show an unnerving amount of flex in this video at 44 secs:

    These Dells 3x00's are 8/10, they would be a 9/10 if the screens where matte, and the 17" would be a 10/10 if it offered a GTS 350M with GDDR5 :)

    It would be great if Anandtech could do a review of one of them.
  • rootheday - Wednesday, May 19, 2010 - link

    Is your data on gaming issues on Intel based on testing with recent drivers? If not, can you check these titles with an updated driver and confirm? From my own experience, most of the titles listed are not a problem any more.

    GRID, Mass Effect (and Mass Effect 2) are fixed in most recent Intel drivers; Referring back to an earlier article (, Dark Athena was fixed in Intel drivers last fall.

    Dirt 2 is fixed with latest game patch.

    Fallout 3 is a bit trickier - it looks like the ISV assumed Intel was below min spec and hardcoded anti-Intel bias into the app. The proof/workaround is here: - if you get use this modified version of the d3d runtime dll to tell the app that it is running on NVidia, the game runs just fine on Intel HD graphics.

    Dragon Age: Origins - I'm not sure what you are referring to here - other Anandtech articles say that it runs on Intel HD graphics at least as well as AMD integrated - see for example or

    In a similar vein, is the comment about Flash 10.1 based on recent drivers/Flash releases?
  • JarredWalton - Wednesday, May 19, 2010 - link

    I'll check with the latest drivers. The last I tested on laptops was a couple weeks ago, and all of the games I mentioned failed. Interesting Fallout 3 note; Oblivion appears to have the same hard coding of Intel bias. I'll be working on an article with an i3 + IGP setup, so I'll be sure to try everything I can to make it work this time. :-) Reply
  • JarredWalton - Thursday, May 20, 2010 - link

    I checked and you're right: the very latest driver finally fixes DiRT 2 and GRID (and actually provides decent performance all told, provided you run at a lower resolution than 1366x768). Fallout 3 I can get to load and start benchmarking with the hacked d3d.dll, but it crashes after 20-40 seconds and the only way to recover is to open task manager and force-kill the Fallout 3 executable. Perhaps I just need to start a new save, though? I'll try that and see if it helps at all.... Reply
  • rootheday - Friday, May 21, 2010 - link

    Google search shows lots of people have suggestions for crashes with Fallout; this one looked promising...Try adding these 2 lines to Fallout.ini in Documents\My Games\Fallout3 under [General]


    Seems like there is a threading bug in the game engine that shows up on quad core systems - since Core i3/i5 have hyperthreading, they look like quad core...

    Worth a try?
  • JarredWalton - Friday, May 21, 2010 - link

    So the INI tweaks worked... at least the game doesn't crash while playing it for 30+ minutes. It does crash when you exit, but in my experience that has always been the case when enabling threading on Fallout 3/Oblivion... though perhaps it was just the threaded audio with Oblivion? I may need to check that as well. LOL. It's "playable" if you don't mind some choppiness. I find FO3 needs around 40 FPS to really run well, and with all the LOD scaling it's hard to determine exactly if two PCs render things the same. They appear to, in which case the Intel HD Graphics (plus DLL hack) gives performance about equal to the HD 4200. Reply
  • aguilpa1 - Wednesday, May 19, 2010 - link

    nothing to see here..., move along Reply
  • ajp_anton - Wednesday, May 19, 2010 - link

    I've never understood your x264 playback test for battery life. Is it x264 (= encoding) or is it playback (= decoding)?
    If it's playback, are you using a software decoder or DXVA?
  • JarredWalton - Wednesday, May 19, 2010 - link

    The x264 battery life test is playing back a 720p ~6.8Mbit video using Media Player Classic Home Cinema, with DXVA enabled (unless we're using Atom, in which case we use the CoreAVC decoder). So it's sort of a Blu-ray-without-the-disc test. FWIW, I've done the same test with a 1080p 10Mbit video and the battery life was about the same (with a couple percent). Reply
  • ajp_anton - Wednesday, May 19, 2010 - link

    Thank you. I've seen the x264/h.264 mistake made in many places, the description of the x264 test in your CPU reviews comes to mind.
    x264 is one of many h.264 encoders.
  • crydee - Wednesday, May 19, 2010 - link

    I wanted one of those UL or U laptops form asus. But the price just isn't right. For 850 I can get a studio 15 with a full 1080p screen, led keyboard, ati 4850 512mb, 4gb ram, 500gb hdd, a 9 cell battery and a core i5 processor.

    The only thing I'm going to miss is the ability to turn off second gpu at ease to save battery.
  • GoodRevrnd - Wednesday, May 19, 2010 - link

    Isn't 4.8lbs a bit heavy for a 13" laptop?? Reply
  • JarredWalton - Wednesday, May 19, 2010 - link

    MacBook 13.3" is 4.7 pounds, so I'd say no. Then again, I regularly travel with a 5+ pound laptop (or three). LOL Reply
  • GoodRevrnd - Saturday, May 22, 2010 - link

    Weren't there Acer 14" Timelines that came in at ~ 4.2lbs? I guess I'm just spoiled by my 3.5lb Vaio Z (overpriced though it was). Reply
  • JarredWalton - Sunday, May 23, 2010 - link

    Yes, you can find lighter laptops, even laptops that have a slightly larger display. The difference is they don't have the same level of performance -- no discrete GPU and usually a very low power CULV processor. The Timeline series is exactly that, which is fine for many, but moving to a Core i3 CPU means you need a much larger battery to get roughly the same battery life, plus a larger heatsink to deal with the CPU+GPU heat. An extra .6 pounds seems pretty reasonable in that light, and I doubt you can find anything lighter while keeping relatively equal specs.

    For example, the 11.6" Alienware M11x weighs 4.4 pounds; the Sony VAIO Z VPCZ112GX packs an i5-520M and GT 330M GPU into a 3 pound chassis... but it has a smallish battery with only ~4 hours Internet (according to some), it lacks Optimus I think (but does switchable), the fan noise is apparently very loud, it doesn't have a DVD, and it costs twice as much as the U30Jc. So yeah, there are ways to get lighter laptops with a decent amount of performance, but there are usually issues going that route as well.
  • vicbdn - Wednesday, May 19, 2010 - link

    I was debating between the UL30VT and the U30JC. In the end I still couldn't get over the the DVD-Rom drive, thicker frame, and lower battery life and went with the UL30VT. If you compare the two aesthetically, the UL30VT looks a lot sleeker IMO and other reviews have called the U30JC bulky in comparison. It's almost a ultraportable but not quite from my perspective.

    Too bad Asus is slow on releasing the UL30JT, and who knows how long before the ship a silver version.

    I don't do anything that requires the extra processing power though. Just my 2c.
  • Ipatinga - Wednesday, May 19, 2010 - link

    I would love to see Asus, on this notebook, offer an adaptor where you could remove the optical drive and put a hdd/ssd.

    This notebook is great for a friend of mine, but optical drive is useless... a second hard drive (actually, an SSD as primary and an HDD for big storage purposes) is kickass.

    Please Asus... show us some love :)
  • jasperjones - Wednesday, May 19, 2010 - link

    Just wanted to say thanks for the review. Jarred, your reviews are the best in the business, period. Keep 'em coming! Anything interesting in the pipeline? Reply
  • JarredWalton - Wednesday, May 19, 2010 - link

    Thanks! Kind words are always appreciated. :-)

    I'm waiting on the ASUS N82J, which will be similar to this but 14" with a GT335M I think. That would be sweet! I've also got an MSI GX640 I'm beating up. It's fast, but the build quality is nowhere near as good as the ASUS G73Jh. The LCD is an old WSXGA+ CCFL unit, but at least it has a 500:1 contrast ratio.

    Other than that, I have an updated Intel vs. AMD mobile platform comparison I'm trying to get done. (Things haven't changed much, in case you're wondering.) Now if I can just find more hours in a day....
  • Hrel - Thursday, May 20, 2010 - link

    1366x768... no need to keep reading. Useless screen resolution. 1600x900 or more or I don't wanna see it. Reply
  • Furuno - Thursday, May 20, 2010 - link

    Great article! I've been keeping my eye on ASUS's PL80JT with it's CULV i5 as battery life is my main concern when purchasing a laptop, but since this one cost almost half of th PL80JT, I might start looking on this one...

    I have one request for your laptop review thought, can you please include a battery life for presentation? I know it will be close to idle, but since I usually use my laptop as a presentation tool with the monitor switched off (only outputting to the projector), I'd like to see the battery life in this situation.

    Best regards,
  • JarredWalton - Thursday, May 20, 2010 - link

    I'll try running that once as a reference point. Is there a way to loop a PowerPoint slide? I'm guessing that's what you mean: external display, PowerPoint, and battery power right? Reply
  • Furuno - Friday, May 21, 2010 - link

    Yes. And for looping the slide, you can set it by going to the Slide Show menu and pressing the Set Up Slide Show Button, and there's should be a loop continuosly checkbox in the dialogue box. Oh, and you'll need to adjust the Advance Slide option under Transition Menu.

    Best regards,
  • MacGyver85 - Thursday, May 20, 2010 - link

    Excellent article, thanks for the thorough and honest review.

    The only thing that keeps me away from buying these (or any) laptops is the abysmal display quality.
    Maybe you guys could literally set the bar for the manufacturers ?!
    You could add bars to the display graphs that would say: abysmal, decent, good, industry leading quality or something similar.
    That way we'd see at a glimpse what is worth buying and what is not in this category.
    Hopefully it will encourage more manufacturers to give higher priority to a good panel instead of those extra few percentages of processor performance.
  • Setsunayaki - Friday, May 21, 2010 - link

    4 hours of DVD playback time isn't so bad, though the idle state gives us a 550 minute battery life.

    The important thing with a laptop, which is being challenged lately by the latest cell phones is application speed.

    An example:

    Task: Taking an image on site and sending it to all your friends.

    I used to use laptops for this, way before cell phones had cameras....I used to take a picture on a digital camera, then upload them to my laptop by USB. I then would have to find some Wireless Network out there...or Wired Connection to deal with the internet...and then send an email to everyone with Attachment. This takes forever on a laptop....

    Today I can just get to the site or target location.....I can sneak around and take an image with a phone....and then I can use the 3G coverage of an area and send an email with that attachment to everyone to everyone in my list...All in the time it takes for a laptop to start up and set up.

    The more laptops try to take the role of mobile-desktops, the farther they will drift from the concepts of what mobility (and stealth) brings to the table, and the slower they will become each generation against cell phones.

    There is a reason why more people today buy an iPhone or GooglePhone these days....

    Specially the idea that voice recognition software is becoming more and more common....Its fun to be able to say something and have it record a note, or dial a number....

    I can say "I need to buy eggs and bread" and walk into a store and play it back.....than having to type it.

    The more they try to make a laptop into a mobile-desktop, the more mobility it actually loses and the slower it becomes vs the cell phone craze...Yes, its amazing how a $3000 laptop doesnt hold a candle to the speed one can do things on the IPhones and other Phones out there that compete against it.
  • T2k - Monday, May 24, 2010 - link

    Seriously: LIGHT at almost 5lbs?
    I hope Asus paid a lot for this piece - it would be awful to realize you just made a complete fool of yourself publicly for chump change...
  • Alexo - Saturday, July 10, 2010 - link

    Can you get your hands on a PL30JT?
    Supposed to have an i5 processor and a matte screen, maybe a little better battery life as well.

    I would love for you to review it (or even a quick comparison with the U30JC).

  • mrmbmh - Saturday, September 04, 2010 - link

    very very useful article for me!
    I've found Vaio S Series a good competitor against this laptop...same weight...same processor...same graphic chip... but there are a few articles about S series.. and seriously... This website is one of the few websites I can trust :)
    So can you read an article about S series? I love U30jc but as you mentioned it has a poor screen... I think vaio makes better displays...
    thanks anyway...

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now