Oh I do agree that technology does change and you get more bang for the buck as times progress, however, numerous technologies in the 'high-end' range never come down in price until they become obsolete and are replaced completely (which happens after years of waiting). A prime example would be an extreme version of a mobile C2D cpu from Intel which price is an equivalent if not higher compared to a mobile C2Q such as the Q9000 (also from Intel) or an entry i5. Nvidia? They have been reducing the manufacturing process of their gpu's over the past 3 years and increasing core clocks for the most part, renaming the existing cards that gained 20% or 30% in speed for the same temps and slightly lower if not same power consumption, and charged the same, or sometimes twice as much compared to before. The architecture of the gpu's is the same ... only the die shrink has changed. And in effect ... those are essentially desktop gpu's inside notebooks ... terribly under clocked and extremely overpriced for one reason alone: profit. I realize they capitalize on the portability of power at your disposal (and I personally need a laptop because it's sufficiently powerful for my 3d art and portable), but notebooks are lacking compared to desktops in power not because we lack the ability to do it, but it's because the companies don't want to lose money. They want to milk both as much as possible, and have a tendency of using the older tech so they can gear out every cent out of it before switching to new ones. Advances happen, but they end up delayed by years (which only adds up over several decades alone) because they want to make more money. And money as in currency no longer regulates resources really as you already mentioned. I do not deny the fact we have finite resources on the planet, but we have the ability to make the switch to newer techs that would not only help us, but allow for better preservation and utilization of those resources and the ones in positions of power simply don't want to do it. We have tons of wasteful enterprises this day that can be easily viewed as a drain of our resources ... yet I do not see an immediate demise on the horizon. 'Costs' are the issue, jobs are the issue, and a ton of other things they will make an excuse for in order to further their agenda. We have the resources to do things and we wouldn't end up draining them suddenly if we made the transition to new technologies that are more efficient and better. They can also recycle the old tech and use it to create the new one, but again ... 'costs' come into play because recycling is an 'expensive' procedure. By this analogy since we aren't really doing anything efficiently and are wasting resources as it is ... switching to new techs faster would hardly kill us. Oh ... one more thing about notebooks. They lack in modularity. Again, it's not because we can't do it (they already have everything in place), it's because the companies in question make more money when people buy new laptops instead of upgrading internal components that don't cost too much money (so of course the manufacturers will put out a gazillion different types of the same laptop that varies in capabilities and upgrade potential ... for example, even though I have a PM45 chipset, right now I'm only limited to 4GB of RAM, predominantly due to the fact the 4GB sticks for laptops are expensive, and for the other because Acer only released a BIOS capable of using 4GB RAM max ... so it's a BIOS limitation despite the fact the chipset design/hardware can support it). Crippling tech in essence. Even in the case of MXM capable laptops it's not always possible to replace the gpu for one thing as it has to be compatible with the slot, and for the other the cards in question are rare to find and are exceedingly expensive for purchase (over a half of money of what a mid-range laptop in US or UK would cost).