ASUS announces A7S, F3SV, F3SC, A8SC and W7S Santa Rosa laptops
By Paul Miller 
posted May 3rd 2007 2:26PM
posted May 3rd 2007 2:26PM
Just in case the recent outpouring of Santa Rosa wasn't doing enough to keep you satisfied, ASUS just announced five laptops sporting the new mobile processor. None of 'em break much ground on the design or form factor side of things, but Santa Rosa isn't the only thing these laptops have going for them. The 17-inch A7S-7S006C runs a 2GHz T7300 Core 2 Duo processor, 2GB of RAM, a 1440 x 900 screen and perhaps most excitingly, the new NVIDIA GeForce 8400G mobile graphics card with 896MB of RAM. For sheer power, the ASUS F3SV (pictured) is teh win, with T7100 to T7700 procs at its disposal, up to 2GB of RAM, and NVIDIA GeForce 8600M graphics with up to 1GB of RAM. The F3SC is similar, but steps graphics down to an 8400, with 384MB of RAM -- both laptops feature 1280 x 800 15.4-inch screens. The same graphics card ends up in the A8SC, alongside a 1.8GHz T7100 processor, 1GB of RAM and a 14.1-inch 1280 x 800 screen. Finally, the W7S brings up the rear with a 1.3-inch 1280 x 800 screen, T7100-T7500 processor, 2GB of RAM and 128MB of GeForce 8400 graphics. All of the laptops feature webcams of various resolution, along with plentiful connectivity. No word on when specifically these are due to wow us with their DirectX 10 prowess, or how much those fun and games will cost.
Wow, 1.3-inch screens ... miniaturization at its best ;-)
I saw there was only one comment, and I immediately knew what it must be about. =D
Sweet Jebus what is wrong with laptop makers? Why has everyone started cheaping out on resolution??? 1280x800 is a WASTE on 15" and higher. I can understand if some people can't go UXGA, but 1680x1050 or at worst 1440x900 should be default on a 15" machine. It's part of the reason I can't let go off my Inspiron 8600. I've been dying to get a HP dv6000t, and can't budge, because I refuse to go back down to low res.
It's really surprising that this is happening as we move forward. Back 6 years ago you could get 1600x1200 on a 14.1" Inspiron 4000. 15" machines had 1920x1200 screens as recently as two years ago. Now every maker is just cheaping out. I understand everyone doesn't need it, but for heaven's sake, make it an OPTION for those who want it. Sheesh. The keyboard and LCD are the make or break for a lot of us who have to spend lots of time at the machine.
Rant over. Pardon me.
Manufacturers have been cheaping out on resolution because battery life has been the name of the game for the last year or so. I'm not entirely sure why, but suddenly, it's as if all other concerns have been sacrificed on the altar of battery life -- regardless of how much impact they may actually have in that department.
Shotter: you're probably in the minority, as many people with those super-high res screens end up having to resize fonts, etc on their desktop because the fonts are too small for them to read. Besides, for general use (by the majority of consumers) super-high resolutions aren't necessary; if there was any sort of demand for them I'd imagine there'd be consumer-level LCD monitors with super-highres as well.
I myself cant stand the 1680x1050 res of the Dell M60 @ 15.4", and wish it was standard WXGA.
why don't you just say centrino pro? wouldn't that be less confusing, engadget?
I don't want to sound dumb, but.....
Are there any laptops on the market or approaching the market that have Quad-core tech?
Pummel me, its n00bish I know.
what the fuck is with the dreadful lcd's manu's are putting on notebooks these days? is it just that 1280x800 is stock, then you pay extra for the 1920x1200, or do they not offer high resolution on notebooks anymore?
these all look like wonderful machines but theres no way i'm buying a hunk of scrap with a low bandwidth 1280x800 screen.
1. I can't speculate as to whether or not I'm in the minority. I just like to use my screen space and have my windows arranged just so, and I can't imagine going lower. For reference, imagine yourself using a 640x480 screen and tell me it isn't annoying. Once you've broken free from having one maximised window open at a time and Alt-Tabbing, there's no going back.
2. I understand not everyone is young, or has good eyes or whatever. Which is why I want at least an *option* for high res. If I can't buy it even if I want it, then that's a business that's throwing away money from potential customers (see my HP comment earlier). I might as well save up and get an ASUS.
In my opinion, 14" and under should stick to WXGA, 15" should default to 1440x900 at a minimum with options up to 1920, 17" should default to 1680x1050 with an option for 1920, and anything bigger than that parading as a notebook should have 1920 as default for 1080p/i movie watching.
I agree with SHOTT3R, I bought my ASUS Z96Js laptop nearly a year ago, and it has a 1280x800 LCD. Shure it looks great, but the graphics on this laptop can do much better, as I usually find myself hooking this up to a much higher res LCD. Also, I do alot of graphics art, and really need a higher resolution because im tired of fiddling through several windows.
I really love ASUS, but if they don't have an opion for at minimum a 1680x1050 LCD I won't be buying from them come my next laptop purchase in a few months.
Seriously though, if they can fit 1280x800 into ONE POINT THREE INCHES, I'm shure they can put better resolutions in their 15.5" notebooks!
I'm pretty sure that 1.3" is a typo. If you understand what went into manufacturing an lcd panel, you would realize why your suggestion of having variable screen resolutions on a single laptop model is insane.
Ben, you obviously don't know the world of laptops much, as laptop companies such as sager, fujitsu, etc, offer a wide variety of resolutions in their notebooks, you get the option from matte to glossy, and from 1440x900 to 1920x1200 resolutions on the same notebook, and all for varying prices that aren't far from a $100 range.
Atleast ASUS rock the DVI. That's more than can be said of the majority of the competition. Enabling you to rock the kind of res your bigger external monitor will happily accomodate.
Oh, well that sounds more reasonable -- I was under the impression you were going to want QVGA (or whatever the 2560x*** resolution is) on a 17inch laptop or something like that. And I'm sure there's people that can handle that, but that's not me.
I do agree that 1280x800 does get tight when it's the only space; then again, it's a laptop. @ work I have the (as mentioned) 1680x1050 M60, along w/ a 1280x1024 LCD to the side. Main work goes on the LCD, laptop screen gets any sort of reference, etc that I look at less often. At home it's a desktop w/ a 24inch 1920x1200 and 19in. 1280x1024 as a sub, along w/ a 17inch dell e1705 @ 1440x900. If my desk was a little wider I'd probably make that dual-24inchers instead. I like my desktop space as much as you do, I just take more space to achieve it :)
I agree with the previous post that is wondering what is the deal with laptop screens. It is my understanding that if you expect to watch 1080i/p content on your laptop in native resolution you need a WUXGA screen. To make matters worse the only laptop manufacturer to offer a quality IPS screen was Lenovo/Thinkpad and they just announced they are discontinuing it. If you do not know what IPS is, you should because it is what seperates the junk being offered to unsuspecting consumers from the kind of quality we should expect (at least as an option)in systems being used to display the highest quality content.
Where did you get info that the 8600m would have up to 1 gig of ram? On the Asus site it's listed as 256 Meg, and on Nvidia's website the maximum ram is 512 Meg. Please advise on your sources :)