Well, the obvious question is: "what kind of modelling are you doing?".
If you are doing simple stuff like light switches, mounting brackets or
Lego blocks, you are plenty fine. When it gets complicated and you
have assemblies with dozens of parts, each with a dozen or so features,
it slows way down to an infuriating crawl, but is still a lot faster than
waiting til you get back to base and can boot up the muscle machine.
So the question by itself has no reasonable answer. Give us an idea
of the type, and degree of complexity of the modelling you do, and of
the circumstances which require a tool that works on the go, and we
might form an opinion on the validity of the trade-offs.
I appreciate the enthusiasm to help, but I am really not soliciting opinions. You did not read the post correctly which is a common issue on Forums. The post is clearly asking for users' experiences running Solidworks on a particular type of machine with a specific graphics card. The last sentence sums it up. There are no shortages of opinions on this forum. If I simply followed those (or the recomendations from Dassault) I would have already bought another machine.
To repeat and slightly rephrase the question: Does anyone have experience running Solidworks 2013 or 2014 on a Toshiba laptop with the Intel HD integrated graphics card?
I am not trying to be difficult. I am just not asking if anyone cares to from an uneducated opinion about a machine they have never used to perform an ambiguous host of tasks. That is the primary reason I did not include what I am doing with my CAD laptops or any other specs about the machine. I want to hear about peoples experiences with this particular hardware.
Thanks, again, for trying to be helpful.
I ran a 2005 vintage Toshiba Satellite with SW 2007. It was about the best SW laptop setup I had ever used before or since.
It was a little weak in graphics compared to most desktop units, but it served me well. The most challenging design work done on this machine was modelling woodwind instruments. Lots of small components and many with complex surfacing. Single parts rendered well. Small components in large assemblies would turn into blocks when the view was rotated.
Toshiba had some issues with the power supply jacks coming loose. I think this has been rectified in later models.
I know this isn't precisely what you asked for, so I'll stand by and wait for my share of insults. Can't let Mr. Pommares have all the fun!
You might have to wait a while.
Hi buddy, thanks for the support.
I had the same issue you did with details going blocky during rotations.
Would like to add that they rendered all right when movement stopped.
The machine being a bit sluggish was a huge benefit compared to
waiting to get back to base to continue building the model.
To our flaming friend, I would like to point out that those of us not
blessed with ownership of a Toshiba may still contribute based on very
similar experience. You may be certain that your performance is going
to be quite close to ours. Some slowdown but infinetly better than not
having the tool at hand.
Back at MIT we routinely used educated guesses to set up the first run
of an experiment so we could have something to go with before going
ahead and calibrating whatever the setup. What's more, I am very
curious to know why you adamantly refuse to divulge the nature of the
project and the urgency of carrying on with the job while on the road.
BTW the word is behemoth.
Speaking of behemoths...
My Satellite used a LOT of juice. The AC drew enough amperage to trip the breakers on the power outlet provided in business class on an Airbus. Didn't get as much work done on the China flights as I hoped to.
BTW, it is only Behemoth when Joe Walsh is not playing it.
I made an attempt at minimizing the random discussion. FAIL.
To Roland: thank you for the support and information. I am now interested in what amperage breakers Airbus puts on their passenger circuits.