17" pragmatics: 1440x900 vs 1080p or x1200

I will be getting a new laptop at work soon. My budget will be between $1800 and $2800 (yes, I know a big range, will be narrowed soon). My main reason for getting a 17" one is that I tend to be working on a lot of windows at once (2-3 Office ones, 3-4 browser windows, ..) pulling a lot of info together. Blu-ray and 1080p would be nice for the periodic long trips I take (some over the Atlantic; can you imagine a 3-leg trip to Europe be done faster than seemingly possible when watching the Lord of the Rings trilogy in BD (once it comes out)?).

For playing movies, how much exactly would one be giving up in settling for 1440x900? A new HP model came out that has a faster FSB than other 17" ones with blue ray more expensive (others had 800 or 667; this has 1066). It and comes with 4GB RAM and a separate graphics card. And only $1400 (http://www.newegg.com/Product/Prod [...] 6834147749).

So what in practice am I giving up here for movie watching with a 17" laptop (or, for that matter, detailed designing of slides/CAD). I am guessing that since this is not a lot in practice, maybe few could notice much of a difference, but I appreciate any comments from those who have used different 17" laptop resolutions.

1440x900 seems a bit low for a decent 17" notebook - I would look for 1680x1050 at least. You can definitely notice a difference between resolutions though, and if you can get 1920x1200, I would. You might consider the Sager NP5796 - it has a 17" screen at either 1680x1050 or 1920x1200, and comes with DDR3 memory and the higher FSB CPUs. It starts at $2000 or so too, so it's within your budget, and it's not as heavy or thick as some 17" models (though it is still 8lbs).

I'm with you on that one, though my 22" LCD looks nice too (brighter/better colors), but I can't stand it without AA because of my WUXGA laptop.