Does anyone have or know about the Toshiba A65-S1762 laptop sold at Costco?  As of today, it's going for $1399.99. As far as I can tell, this is a much beefier version of the A65-S126, which has a 2.8GHZ Celeron and only 256MB of RAM (and shared Video RAM).  The Costco version has a 3.2GHZ Pentium 4 with a 1GB Cache and Hyperthreading.  I'm wondering if this is a Prescott P4 CPU.  It also has 512MB of RAM. a 533MHZ FSB, a 60GB hard drive, and a built-in DVD burner. I'm considering recommending this machine to my brother.  He basically wants a desktop replacement-type laptop, something he can move around once in a while, but he doesn't care much about weight or battery life.  His laptop is a Dell which he likes (despite the fact that it has given him all kinds of problems).  He likes the Dell warranty service option, but getting a laptop with Costco's 6 month return policy might make him forego a much costlier Dell. Concerns about the A65:  it seems cheaply made.  I'm guessing it's made by Compal (19V power supply).  The keyboard seems nice, but I don't like how the touchpad buttons feel.  Also, if the CPU is indeed a Prescott, I worry about how hot it gets.  I have a Prescott in my desktop and it idles at 47C under no CPU load!!! Any comments about any version of the A65 would be appreciated. Andrew

: Anyway, I would avoid any P4 laptop due to potential heat problems, even : at the very attractive price for the Toshiba.  The new Mobile Pentium M : laptops (Centrino) are every bit as capable as the P4s.  The price : premium for the  MPMs is money well spent for cooler operation and : consequent reliability and longevity, not even mentioning longer battery : life. As I have posted here in the past, I evaluated a Pentium M/Centrino laptop when it first came out in early 2003.  I have one particular application that is CPU-intensive (converting RAW images from my Canon Camera), and it flopped miserably.  On the 1.3GHZ Pentium M Toshiba I tested, image conversion was something like 1.5X slower than on the 2GHZ Celeron laptop I got instead.  And we are talking almost a minute per image on my Celeron laptop today.  That's one big reason I didn't keep my first Centrino laptop. My brother uses the same Canon stuff so if this is still an issue, I doubt he'll want a Centrino laptop.  The latest Pentium M has a 2MB cache so I should do another evaluation to see how today's Pentium M does on RAW conversion before dismissing it.  I once convinced someone at Fry's to let me install the RAW converter on two demo laptops and compare - perhaps I can try again on a current Centrino machine. As I said, battery life isn't an issue at all for my brother - it's basically a portable desktop for him.  Performance is more important. Andrew

: I also do Canon RAW processing.  I have done these on a variety of : computers and even a mobile AMD 1500+ is only incrementally slower than : my 2.6Ghz P4M. A P4M is a Pentium 4 variant, not a Pentium M, so I don't expect that has much to do with my comparisons. : I am curious about the video adapters in your trial : Centrino machines - if they were the more or less crippled Intel : adapters with shared video ram.  The AMD 1500+ and 1800+ both have S3 : video with shared ram.  The 1800+ is not noticeably slower at RAW image : conversion. Video memory (shared or otherwise) should have zero to do with RAW image conversion.  RAW conversion is purely a CPU-intensive task that could be done without any graphics card, in theory. : Of all the apps I use, the Canon raw process is the most : annoyingly slow, FWIW.  I would seek out one of the new Centrinos, 1.7 - : 2.0 Ghz for additional testing.  The 1.7Ghz, according to reviews, is : every bit the equivalent of my 2.6Ghz P4M.  The P4 heat issue is : significant enough IMO that the Centrino should be given a fair test. I like the Centrino technology and truly hope my own next laptop will contain it.  I will definitely give the latest Centrino machines a fair trial.  But if Pentium M is still slow at RAW conversion, I doubt I'll be buying one soon.  Actually I believe Canon should do something to improve RAW conversion speed - it is annoyingly slow.  For now, I am stuck with what they offer. Andrew