I've followed a number of threads on the topic of the various & sundry damage to MB's, cracked/split cases, broken/missing keys, split screen shells, etc. Now, I do understand that this doesn't necessarily represent a broader QC or design issue, but, I gotta wonder. I'm on my third company-issued lappy (Toshiba, Dell, Dell), with a three-year replacement cycle. I travel about 150K miles a year with them, running them through the TSA's gentle hands about three or four times a week, using them in everything from conference rooms to telco closets to one-handing them on construction sites, and I have yet to have a single material problem with any of them. The only problems my coworkers have encountered seem to be the occasional dodgy drive, requiring reimaging periodically, but even that's rare. In other words, the physical quality of the machines has been perfectly acceptable, and sufficient to handle the day-to-day abuse of my travels. I'm not too keen on a MBP (budget and performance needs don't really justify it), but as I'm looking to make this the "one machine to rule them all", replacing my company box and the at-home G5 simultaneously, I can't afford to be wrong. So, my question is - for those that can provide head-to-head comparative experience - whether you feel that the MB durability & general ruggedness is what you'd expect and reasonably demand in a laptop that gets used for extreme road travel. In other words, what it was ostensibly designed for. Or am I just being a Nervous Nelly?