I do almost all my work on a laptop. I work at so many different sites, and the cost of a context switch from one machine to another is so high (mainly because Offline Folders are so hopelessly broken in XP) that being able to bring a machine with me is way better than any of the alternatives.

If I could use a different machine at every site, but have my world follow me round from one site to the next, I would. But that's not an option.

The big-hefty-desktop-replacement-as-main-machine is the next best option. It's not how much it weighs as you move it around that matters so much as how well it works when you switch it on.

The screen size puts a minimum limit on the useful size. I don't want anything less than 1600x1200. The ultra slimline laptops are essentially unusable as an every day developer machine because they have insufficient screen space. I find 1280x1024 oppressively small, and 1024x768 is barely usable.

My 1900x1200 laptop screen on the other hand I've come to prefer over twin-head 1280x1024 setups. (Which is what I end up using on the occasions I don't use my laptop.) People rave about twin-head setups, but as far as I can tell the real issue is that most people have screens that are too small, and two too-small screens are better than one too-small screen. But neither of these is as good as one large-enough screen. (Then again, I'm apparently a freak - I appear to be the only person in the world who doesn't maximize any of their apps... I guess if you always maximise, twin-head looks better than single, because you can have a whole two windows open at once that way. Oooh! Come one people - it's like we never moved away from tiled windows!)

And there's a second scenario in which I use my laptop: on planes and trains. For these, having a decent battery life is a high prority. That's fundamentlaly incompatible with light weight, given today's battery tech. I get 9 hours out of my brick-of-a-Dell without having to change batteries. I've seen slimline laptops drain half their battery just booting!

Slim, lightweight machines are essentially broken for both scenarios. If there were such a thing as a slim, lightweight machine with a 1900x1200 screen of sufficient size that the text is still readble, with a 9 hour battery life, then I'd like one of those. But as far as I can tell no such thing exists. And with the screen real estate issue, I'm not sure such a thing is physically possible.

My current laptop is a ThinkPad T43p. It's lighter and slimmer than my Dell. It was the lightest slimmest laptop I could find that offered a 1600x1200 screen, and looked like it was up to doing dev work on.

I regret buying it, and wish I'd bought another Dell bricktop. The ThinkPad has relative lousy battery life (and that's with the awkard kludge of an extended battery pack that sticks out at the back), has insufficient USB ports, poor ventilation (runs hotter and louder than the equivalent Dell), and is relatively underspecced in the CPU and graphics department compared to contemporary Dells.

So having tried going a notch lighter weight, I can say after having lived with a relative lightward for a year that the heavyweight's definitely a better option for me, and I'll be going back to that when I next get a new laptop.