A good screen is a must to me, if it's for home use, you can always run it with a seperate screen, I used to do that, the more expensive Laptops, like Davids tend to have decent screens, it's not always obvious looking at the spec sheet, I used to sell em and repair them for a living and there are more differences between the lower and higer end models than first meets the eye...

With one caveat Nigel, DXO! My only bug bear with the program at present is the fact that however much RAM I have installed (Currently 24Gb) DXO still insists on doing everything on the CPU, part of the reason it can at times be clacially slow especially when using the "Prime" denoise, reults however are the best I've ever seen! DXO as always go their own way on everything....
Just added in case the OP was considering it as an imaging solution?
Get a recent processor (i5 third gen up) in your laptop and add extra RAM too is the answer but don't overlook the screen, there are not many cheap alternatives out there but I guess now is the time to be buying...

I also have a softspot for AMD processors, they seem to crunch bits better than the bytes so to speak, quite good for imaging, better than the spec sheet would suggest, don't get bogged down on somewhere like Toms Hardware on specs of processors, I'm running a four year old Intel I5 2500K and even the newest I7 is only a third faster than that one, just get the best processor that you can afford because you can't always change that in a laptop but you can usually up the RAM later on if you need...

Like I said before, if I had managed to keep hold of my IIs I would not have let it go again but the lure of "FF" was too great "Again"! Whatever I have bought, I have always missed the Pentax ergonomics and just plain, straightforwardness, "the grass is always greener"? For me I now know it's not! I admire the people who can efficiently run two systems, I can't, I just get befuddled, solidly jealous of those that can afford all the toys though
I'd love to see the K3 model line split and see a K3x and a K3s, "X" for max resolution with whatever Sony brings to the table next (If the new Samsung NX1 is truly a step forwards, Sony will be there next week!) and an "s" model for lower light and speed with a lower Res sensor, maybe the "Magic" 16? Done right, four or so years on from the K5, that would keep the lower light shooters pretty happy, without the upheaval to the system of FF, we'd need some fast glass (Both in F stop and focus speed) like the Sigma to help that along too... Time moves on and I'd be pretty peeved now if I bought a IIs and then a K60 or a K3s landed and that apart from finances (Currently but it won't be forever?) is all thats stopping me, love the IIs and don't want anyone thinking otherwise of me...

P.S.
Alan your running of the K3 meter does seem to be at odds, have you access to another to see if you can get to the bottom of it? Not trying to teach you to suck eggs, your results are beyond reproach but if I were having to run mine that way I'd be a bit concerned, as David says for most subjects -0.3 is usually enough to keep everything within the K3's range and -0.7 if there are big differences between the light and darks in a scene. Is it because of your subject matter? I'm not a critter capture type anymore as I just can't afford long glasss nor realisitcally carry it any distance anymore but do you use the same settings for your landscape stuff too?

https://www.flickr.com/photos/mjsfoto1956/12420549643/in/photolist-

Posted by J Michael Sullivan on the American forum, think he's known to us here as mjsfoto1956?
Not sayin anything else can or can't do this, with DXO's help.
Just that there Ain't nothin wrong with the K3...
This'll smoke a few out...

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCrZlzcRfCKLngZnqNTmTQjw

Mr Hancock does a four part viDeo Manual for the K-S1

Quite positive really...
He even likes the grip!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YKKln__i2Wc&feature=youtu.be

He's personally owned and reviewed all the "Q"'s, and has all the lenses I think? He really likes it, see's it for what it is and enjoys using it, his infectious enthusiasm is rubbing off on me, I may have to get one just to see what it's all about!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4iUVIJhUky4

And another:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FPP6TP0ijTg

http://egami.blog.so-net.ne.jp/2014-11-27
For an adjustable translucent mirror where the amount of reflected and transmitted light can be adjusted (0-50%; 50-100%).

And

http://egami.blog.so-net.ne.jp/2014-12-01
For an 18.3mm F2.8 RF Lens

Ahh ok Alan, I get ya! I started off with a -.07 correction on the K3, just like I used to run the K5* but soon realised it did not need it, I now set it to zero with the highlight correction on because it does affect the RAW but the shadow correction off because it doesn't. I do balance with ND grads if i think it needs it but also I have the tendency to shoot like slide film (Old habits) dark shadows, are well... Dark. K3 does it's level best to avert blown highlights, it's set up that way as you know, that gives deeper blacks that can look noisier but in practice for printing it never really shows up and cleans up better then the noise from a K5*
An open admission from me is that even when I used to shoot motorsport professionaly in all that time ISO 1600 was the highest I ever went, and then only once! I'd rather just not get the shot than have something a picture editor might like but I'd rather not have viewed by all and sundry, I recognise that I am in a very small minority there, possibly of one?

I'd be the same if I still had a K5*, I'd want to keep it, none of my K3 comments are meant to be disparaging about the K5* I just find the K3 better but would love a chance to own both, never tried Astro, something I'd like to get into someday, you've got good dark skies over there for that...

Depends on your definition of high ISO Alan?
Anything over 100 is high to me being almost purely a Landscape shooter these days!
Agree with the lifting of shadows though, you can get acceptable results from a K5 lifting almost five stops, I know because I've done it, takes lots of PP and some decent software (Used Topaz Denoise), problem is with the K5* that you sometimes need to do that as the meter can be so flakey! The K3's meter is far far more accurate and reliable, it's usually my fault if I get results that are sub par not the camera, it was not that way with the K5*