Dell Widescreen 15.4 inch Laptop

[MacRumors]

Dell announced a widescreen 15.4" LCD (http://news.com.com/2100-1044-991130.html?tag=fd_top) today:

The PC maker on Wednesday launched the Inspiron 8500 with a 15.4-inch wide-aspect screen featuring a resolution of up to 1,920 pixels by 1,200 pixels.


The 15.4" screen carries a 16:10 aspect ratio and provides a resolution up to 1920x1200.

Apple has been expected to upgrade their 15" Powerbook line after the most recent updates with an introduction of a 12" and 17" Powerbook in January. Hints of (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2003/01/20030114224328.shtml) a 15.4" screen have trickled in, but little definitive information that this size will be adopted by Apple as well.

[MacsRgr8]

1920 x 1200??? Is that the "native" resolution at 15.4" ? wow... you'll be needing a magnifying glass with that ;)

[FlamDrag]

Yeah, it's still ugly though.

.5" thicker and a pound heavier than the TiBook - .2 pounds heavier than a 17PB.

The kicker is that it's only $50 cheaper as a base model.

[michaelyoung]

I cant wait for them to announce how they "invented" the wide screen laptop!

[etoiles]

give 'em another ten years and they'll start making them thinner...

[MacCoaster]

I read about this on Slashdot a few minutes ago and if this is what the 15" AlBook is getting as the screen, I'll take that over the 17". High Definition resolution.

I mean Christ, the same resolution as the 23" Apple Cinema HD, and a much better LCD technology.

Yes, I can read the text fine. I'm not blind. But that's just me. :)

[edesignuk]

Damn that things ugly!

http://di.dell.com/images/us/segments/dhs/prodviews/inspn_8500_highlights.jpg

I like hi-res displays, but there is no way you could use a 15.4" screen at 1920 x 1200, sheesh, even the new 17" AlBook shouldn't have that hi-res (which I know it doesn't BTW, I'm just saying that I'm glad they didn't try it :))...are they insane! :rolleyes:

[Wonder Boy]

I'm just wondering whats taking so long with the 15'. The upgrades better be worth the wait. And where are the iPods? C'mon Apple, I got $500 bucks to burn. :cool:

Look at edesignuk's pic. Is it me or does the computer seem off-center? The damn thing is crooked!

[Mr. Anderson]

I'd like to see pictures and see the 1920x1200 screen - that would be some tiny text.....

[agreenster]

Widescreen? Yes.


Ugly as all sin?? Oh yeah.

[jg3]

If this is the same screen the expected 15.4" PowerBook will use, I'm pumped. Bring it on! (If only the cash were there. :( ) Come on, Apple - auction off the remaining Ti's; we want our 15.4 inchers! :)

WonderBoy sed:
I'm just wondering whats taking so long with the 15'.

DUDE! 15-foot PowerBooks! I can see the marketing: "By far the most computing power ever packed into a laptop." ;)

[Mr. Anderson]

Ahhahahaha - that's a funny pic - they couldn't go for the blue backlit keyboard so they trimmed it with blue?

Very ugly indeed. Thanks for digging up the pic.

D :D

[mymemory]

I couldn't care less about Dell.

One thing powerbooks or OSX need to improve is the "overscan" screen option when connecting a second video sources and using dual monitors. That is more a OSX issue.

[MacFan25]

That thing is pretty ugly. Especially the blue on it. I would take a 17" PowerBook over that thing any day.

[skymaXimus]

I disagree w/ earlier posts of the resolution being too high. If the text is to small then just increase the size of the text, you shouldn't have to loose desktop real estate because you want large text. I was very disappointed when I heard what resolution would be shipping on the 17Al Book. Apple needs higher resolution displays in their laptops, period.

[jamilecrire]

Originally posted by skymaXimus
I disagree w/ earlier posts of the resolution being too high. If the text is to small then just increase the size of the text, you shouldn't have to loose desktop real estate because you want large text. I was very disappointed when I heard what resolution would be shipping on the 17Al Book. Apple needs higher resolution displays in their laptops, period.

Not to mention it's $300 cheaper with better configuration options.

Oh did anyone notice it's got the new GeForce 4 Go 4200 (like the Ti 4200 instead of the 4 MX?)

When you're hauling a 17" or 15.4" notebook you're not looking for weight/size (or I would hope not).

Besides I've never understood the whole weight and it's .5" bigger complaints. Who the hell works on their laptop while holding it in the air. Not to mention every person I've worked with that carries a laptop crams 5-10 lbs of crap in their cases anyway. If you're too weak to carry an extra pound then get a Sony VAIO or 12" Powerbook/iBook (or you could work out you weak arse computer nerds).

[Death2PCs]

Check this out.... Configure a 15 inch PowerBook with the best processor (1GHz) and the like components. Compare the prices to the Dell... no, thats OK I did it for you.

Apple TiBook:
15.2 inch Widescreen Display (Max. Res. 1280x854)
1GHz PowerPC G4 Processor
60GB Ultra ATA Hard Drive
Combo Drive (DVD-ROM/CD-RW)
Wireless Networking (AirPort)
512 MB SDRAM - 1 DIMM
ATI Mobility Radeon 9000 w. 64MB DDR SDRAM
Height: 1.0 inch (2.6 cm)
Width: 13.4 inches (34.1 cm)
Depth: 9.5 inches (24.1 cm)
Weight: 5.4 pounds (2.45 kg) with battery and optical drive installed

Price: $ 2,699.00


Dell Inspiration 8500:
15.4 inch Widescreen Display (Max. Res. 1920x1200)
2.4GHz Mobile Pentium 4 Processor
60GB Ultra ATA Hard Drive
Combo Drive (DVD-ROM/CD-RW)
Wireless Networking (802.11a/b)
512 MB DDR SDRAM - 1 DIMM
nVidia GeForce 4 4200 Go w. 64MB DDR SDRAM
Height: 1.52-inch (3.86 cm)
Width: 14.22-inch (36.12 cm)
Depth: 10.87-inch (27.61 cm)
Weight: 6.9 lbs. (3.13 kg) with travel module, battery and Hard Drive

Price: $ 2,927.00

$ 2,927.00 (Price of Dell)
- $ 2,699.00 (Price of Apple)
$ 228.00 (That many more dollars for the Dell)

So from the way I see it... the Dell is wider, and deeper, and taller, and heavier and more EXPENSIVE than the PowerBook.

We all know that ATI makes better graphics cards too. AND...

Not to mention that with the new revision that is expected of the 15 inch TiBook (the 15 inch AlBook), we will probably see the price remain steady, DDR RAM, and AirPort Extreme.

Still think Macs are more expensive?




(Anyone see the Dual 1.42GHz are "shipping" now)

[rmac]

Seems to me that a nice feature to have in OS 10.3 would be to change GUI resolution as a whole. Can already change icon sizes and many fonts now, and it looks great. They've been planning for high resolution monitors for a while, considering that the icons are 128 x 128. Usually don't have them at higher than 64 x 64 now, and on a Powerbook more often than not 48 x 48.

In combination with high res screens, being able to adjust the GUI would make up for LCDs limitation with being able to change resolutions like CRT monitors can. With CRTs you make a higher resolution to shrink the relative size of palletes and such...get more screen real-estate. Starting with a high res LCD monitor, you'd have small palletes and GUI widgets to begin with. Then can zoom them to be bigger, as they'd be on lower resolutions on a CRT. You'd still get the detail benefits of the higher resolution but on the downside the graphics card would still have to handle the same high resolution.

I'm sure Apple could pull something like this off with Quartz, and make it available to all Cocoa and hopefully Carbon programs. Could let you make changes globally through a tab or system preference panel.

Then who wouldn't want more resolution?

[mania]

First, we don't care about dell too much on macrumors - should not have made the front page.

Second, I can barely read things on my partners 1600x1200 15" dell - there is no way in h3ll you can read on a 1920. please dont tell me about text resizing - half the web is text made into graphics and you can't resize those. This product is crap and will bomb like the US over iraq.

[Aciddan]

Originally posted by dukestreet
I'd like to see pictures and see the 1920x1200 screen - that would be some tiny text.....

Some of the dev lappys we have at work use the 15" ultrasharp monitor (1600x1200) and they make things really tiny. The new lappy is the same height, just wider.

The thing with these monitors is that the screen really is 'ultrasharp'. You can sit back from the screen and still read the fine text because it is very very clear. Dell lappy's however don't have the veiwing angle and brightness of apple monitors tho (esp. the 1024x768 lappys - my iBook destroys those on clarity. the 1600 versions are almost as good as the iBook for viewing angle but apple LCDs win as far as brightness is concerned).

If apple source from the same/similar LCD provider as dell, I don't think we'll be complaining about the high resolutions because it's very clear/sharp.

Honestly, I don't see a problem (pardon the pun) with a high resolution lappy monitor - the real-estate is very handy, but I guess it comes down to your preference. I think developers will love the extra real-estate of a 1920x1200 monitor...

-- Dan =)

[CrackedButter]

1025x768 is fine for me, i've tried a few other resolutions a little higher but i am quite content already. This is on a 17"CRT as well.

There comes a point where it isn't needed, more so, if you have a bigger screen, if you don't do DTP or something that needs that detail. I cannot understand why its on a laptop.

[FlamDrag]

The .5" thicker and 1 pound diff isn't a complaint. It's a matter of attention detail and engineering and overall sexiness. That 1/2" means that I have space for one more report in my bag - more materials, more of anything except thickness of the damn machine.

The extra pound of excess weight is just another reason. But an added 20% (ish) of weight is stupid if they can do without it.

And why does everyone seem to think that all people do with their computers is read text? A res that high would be pretty handy for lots of other things.

[MrMacMan]

I think that resolution is way way way too big.

Anyone who needs such screen resolution has something wrong.

How many web pages do you need side-by-side-by side?

On my 17" iMac I can open 2 pages all text included side-by-side.

Can anyone run any really inportant apps needed at a 1900x display?
How few frames in games do you get with a 2.4 and a GeForce Go?

I really think that text would be equivelent to reading
This all day long. I mean you would need the monitor to be right near you all the time and even thought they have crisp displays not many people have eyesight so good.

[Das]

DANG!!!
That thing is ugly as Rossane in a thong! Really, did they just reuse the shells from my very first P1 notebook?

Ah well, compared to the beauty of the tibook, this one looks like you could swing it at concrete all day long and not really care if you scratch it. In fact it might just improve it.

Oh and whoever said that the 9000 is better than the 4200, the 4200 is about 40% stronger than the 9000. I hope to see one in future tibooks.

[FooDragon]

I find it kind of funny to see everybody reacting so negatively to the resolution in the dell. I know if apple had released a laptop with this high a resolution (which they should in my opinion) that people would be drooling over it and stating how great apple is. But instead we just get more pc bashing. I think it would be great to have such a resolution on a mac, for one you don't have to run it at that resolution, it's your own choice to run whatever resolution you like.

So apple, bring on the high definition laptops!

[skymaXimus]

I always run my monitors at the highest resolution to acceptable refresh rate ratio that i can. You can never have enough desktop real-estate. Especiall when working in photoshop, final cut, or digital performer. You need the space! I feel so cramped when I have to use 10x7. Its like "where do I put everything?"

[GigaWire]

f-ugly

[Death2PCs]

Ever want a 17 inch PowerBook????

check out this price comparison...

Apple AlBook:
17 inch Widescreen Display (Max. Res. 1440x900)
1GHz PowerPC G4 Processor
60GB Ultra ATA Hard Drive
SuperDrive (DVD-R/CD-RW)
Wireless Networking (AirPort Extreme)
1 GB DDR SDRAM - 2 DIMMs
nVIDIA GeForce4 440 Go w. 64MB DDR SDRAM
Height: 1.0 inch (2.6 cm)
Width: 15.4 inches (39.2 cm)
Depth: 10.2 inches (25.9 cm)
Weight: 6.8 pounds (3.08 kg) with battery and optical drive installed

Price: $ 3,599.00


Dell Inspiration 8500:
15.4 inch Widescreen Display (Max. Res. 1920x1200)
2.4GHz Mobile Pentium 4 Processor
60GB Ultra ATA Hard Drive
Combo Drive (DVD-ROM/CD-RW)
Wireless Networking (802.11a/b)
1GB DDR SDRAM - 2 DIMMs
nVidia GeForce 4 4200 Go w. 64MB DDR SDRAM
Height: 1.52-inch (3.86 cm)
Width: 14.22-inch (36.12 cm)
Depth: 10.87-inch (27.61 cm)
Weight: 6.9 lbs. (3.13 kg) with travel module, battery and Hard Drive

Price: $ 3,426.00

Now for $ 173.00 more than the Dell, you can have a 17 inch AlBook with a DVD burner, that's thinner, not as deep, and STILL lighter.

Still think Macs are more expensive???

[york2600]

As much as this sounds like b/s I have a friend who's got a good friend working at Apple's LCD supplier. The new tibook is a 15.4in. It was suppost to come out in March. At least that's what I heard after the 12 and the 17 were announced. I've read since then that there were delays so who knows.

[Death2PCs]

Originally posted by york2600
As much as this sounds like b/s I have a friend who's got a good friend working at Apple's LCD supplier.

a friend whos got a friend...

sounds like "ive gotta friend, whos wifes best friend knows someone...."



but hey who knows yourk2600 could be right

[shadowfax]

Originally posted by jamilecrire
Besides I've never understood the whole weight and it's .5" bigger complaints. Who the hell works on their laptop while holding it in the air. Not to mention every person I've worked with that carries a laptop crams 5-10 lbs of crap in their cases anyway. If you're too weak to carry an extra pound then get a Sony VAIO or 12" Powerbook/iBook (or you could work out you weak arse computer nerds).

I carry a laptop to school nearly every day--i put it in a case along with a few DVDs/CDRWs, the DVI-VGA adaptor, a little pad for it, and... that's it. the net weight is less than a dell inspiron workstation all by itself. it's great, it's so convenient to just take places.

i'm not too weak to carry a big laptop; i also carry a bookbag with a crapload of stuff in it that's plenty heavy. it's very inconvenient. i hate my bookbag. but i can pick it up, and carry it around, to, and from school.

I often carry my tibook around in the house to go show someone something. it's nice to be able to hold it with one hand and navigate the mouse with the other, and not have it feel like it's bending in half or tiring my wrists.

i fail to see your point in here. i should go and buy a 12 inch laptop with comparatively anemic performance? that's your best argument against people who want performance and economy? maybe i should carry a GHz iMac with a 200 lb generator around? that would sure whip me into shape. don't be hostile.
****
the dell laptop is nice for a dell; it's good to know that people who go that route will be getting something better than their other stuff, but i do find the blue tasteless, and the monstrous bezel makes the thing look even bulkier than the 1.5 inches makes it sound.

[ryan]

at least for my Mac needs. But I do want Apple to release an updated 15.x" PowerBook. My iBook just died and I don't want to buy a new TiPB if they're going to be updated in a couple of weeks.

[vixapphire]

those price comparo's are really interesting. great stuff.

i'd take a computer with such hi-res anyday. my gal has one of the recent 15" dell's, and the screen is delightful. i've got a brand-new ibook, and it's nice as well, but she can put a ton of text on a page and you can make it all out b/c of the crispness of the resolution, whereas the ibook is not quite as capable (although it looks fine for most of my needs).

as the laptops become desktop replacements (see the 17" pb, for example), why shouldn't the res challenge or at least match that of my 17" blue and white monitor's highest (and never-used) res. if i want it to? whereas i've been using 10*7 since i bought the thing, i always up the res by one or 2 ticks in the monitors control panel so that i can run logic 5 with a larger arrange window and track mixer across the bottom of the screen. couldn't do that at 10*7, and couldn't do it with a low-res laptop. higher res, maybe. i say bring it on, apple!

can someone clarify where the "native" resolution issue lies - is it in the graphics chip or the actual lcd panel? i know that's a dimwit sounding question, but i've never known what to make of it...

thanks,

vixapphire

[shadowfax]

Originally posted by vixapphire
can someone clarify where the "native" resolution issue lies - is it in the graphics chip or the actual lcd panel? i know that's a dimwit sounding question, but i've never known what to make of it...

native resolution is on the LCD panel. unlike CRTs, where you get the same relative sharpness for any resolution because it's just a matter of readjusting the electron gun(s) that illumen the pixels on the screen, LCDs have individual pixels on the screen whose size cannot be changed. so if you put an LCD at a non-native resolution, it kind of "fudges" it and makes it look all blurry.

[Alte22a]

Originally posted by MrMacman
I think that resolution is way way way too big.

Anyone who needs such screen resolution has something wrong.

How many web pages do you need side-by-side-by side?

On my 17" iMac I can open 2 pages all text included side-by-side.

Can anyone run any really inportant apps needed at a 1900x display?
How few frames in games do you get with a 2.4 and a GeForce Go?

I really think that text would be equivelent to reading
This all day long. I mean you would need the monitor to be right near you all the time and even thought they have crisp displays not many people have eyesight so good.

I work in the multimedia industry. Usually work at home or in the office on dual screen Power macs 19" or 22" La cie monitors. Presently working in Japan and I would love to have a higher resolution on my 15" powerbook. so that I don't have such clutter of pallattes and a small image/stage to work on. Not to mention video editing.

[Over Achiever]

I saw this coming...

1920x1200 is NOT too much/small for laptops, in fact it'd be the perfect resolution for the 17" powerbooks.

I don't get why people don't like the small resolutions...the trade off for the small text is the increased clarity. I'd love having that screen in my 17" powerbook.

That said, i'm still getting the 17" powerbook. :)

And look forward to a Q(W)XGA screen (3840 x 2400) screen in a laptop soon from NEC. ;)

[barkmonster]

I couldn't run any kind of audio software on such a high res monitor. I was shocked apple managed to have such a high res on the 23" Cinema Display. To have it shrunk down to 15.4" is ridiculous.

Imagine trying to make out the knobs and sliders on most plug-ins ? Reason, Rebirth, basically any software synth with realworld looking controls and devices as part of the interface is going to be unbearable.

I can't see how it can be good for DTP either, those Photoshop and Indesign Palettes are going to be so tiny it would hurt to look at them.

I'm sure a screen of that size would make Aqua look cool though ;)

[shadowfax]

Originally posted by barkmonster
Imagine trying to make out the knobs and sliders on most plug-ins ? Reason, Rebirth, basically any software synth with realworld looking controls and devices as part of the interface is going to be unbearable.

I can't see how it can be good for DTP either, those Photoshop and Indesign Palettes are going to be so tiny it would hurt to look at them.

I'm sure a screen of that size would make Aqua look cool though ;)

i think imagine is the keyword here. super high resolutions mean you don't lose quality. it's not like looking at a too small text on a page, where the ink bled together and you can't make it out. it's not like viewing a tiny image on a normal resolution. once again, you don't lose quality. it doesn't get blurry like shrinking text on your monitor.

on the other hand, you may have trouble controlling the knobs with a touchpad at this res. you'll have to make the pad less sensitive.

a screen of that size would make aqua look the same, only smaller, depending on what color profile you're using ;)

[greenstork]

Did anyone check out how much it costs for a RAM upgrade. I think to get to a gig, it's like $1000 extra (or something close to that). That is outrageous.

[macphisto]

Well, it ain't the prettiest thing in the world. But sooner or later it seems that everyone follows in Apple's path. Dell now has a wide screen and a color similar to the Tibook and Albook, but lacks the panache, sophistication, and plain good looks of Apple's stuff.

[chioti]

Originally posted by mania
First, we don't care about dell too much on macrumors - should not have made the front page.

Second, I can barely read things on my partners 1600x1200 15" dell - there is no way in h3ll you can read on a 1920. please dont tell me about text resizing - half the web is text made into graphics and you can't resize those. This product is crap and will bomb like the US over iraq.

Unfortunately I work for a company where I need to use a PC and its a Dell with a 14" screen and 1400x1050 resolution. Most people think the text is TINY, but I like the real estate. I think I would like 1600x1200 on a 15" screen.

Personally I would prefer the 17" Powerbook with a very high resolution capability.

[yzedf]

I know that this is a Mac rumor site... but plesae, don't be such a bunch of friggin' mindless trolls.

http://www.dell.com/us/en/dhs/offers/specials_m_inspn8500.htm

OK... here we go.

ATI 9000 or GF go... http://www.anandtech.com/mobile/showdoc.html?i=1745&p=10
801.11b/g
internal bluetooth available
2GB RAM maximum
3 year warranty standard
big resolution capable (nice for that 4 megapixel digital camera)

I grant you, it is ugly (blue... wtf?), thick, no DVD burner (Dell doesn't like slot load optical drives), and well... Dell.

If you all are going to knock it, at least knock it for the right reasons. Read first, post second.

2GB of DDR sounds very very nice...

[shadowfax]

Originally posted by yzedf
I know that this is a Mac rumor site... but plesae, don't be such a bunch of friggin' mindless trolls.

http://www.dell.com/us/en/dhs/offers/specials_m_inspn8500.htm

OK... here we go.

ATI 9000 or GF go... http://www.anandtech.com/mobile/showdoc.html?i=1745&p=10
801.11b/g
internal bluetooth available
2GB RAM maximum
3 year warranty standard
big resolution capable (nice for that 4 megapixel digital camera)

I grant you, it is ugly (blue... wtf?), thick, no DVD burner (Dell doesn't like slot load optical drives), and well... Dell.

If you all are going to knock it, at least knock it for the right reasons. Read first, post second.

2GB of DDR sounds very very nice...

putting 2 GB of DDR RAM in that thing makes it almost $6,000. how is that useful? that's insane. there are almost no programs even hardcore pros use that would benefit much from having that much RAM. the 9000 card only has 32 MB of RAM. the place that i see they really beefed this thing up better than apple is on the GF4 (best mobile card on the market, unlike the 440 they put on the Albook) and the ultrasharp screen (which again is a real taste issue anyway).

but it's interesting that you point out this is big resolution CAPABLE. it's almost mandatory. i've never met anyone who regularly viewed their LCD panel at non-native resolutions. that's just bleccch.

honestly, this is one of those few times that i really and truly DO NOT see that there is a price advantage in getting the PC. it's not at a better price than our Albooks. who're the trolls, again?

[scorpion]

Because from what I hear about Dell laptops, you're going to need it.

Thanks for the price comparisons -- I'll be sure to email those to a Mac hating graphic designer I work with (although he needs my help to do his web site b/c of some Flash problem he can only handle in QT).

I never realized how much the aesthetics of the Mac mattered to me until I

a)got my 17" flat panel and
b)saw the ugly piece of crap Dell laptop.

The bottom line: Dell keeps copying Apple. But nobody thinks they're buying an Apple when they get a Dell. Remember when they copied the fs iMac? I still don't see a lot of those around.

Anyway, let them make an overpriced laptop that's not even close to the Mac in terms of performance, capability, or style. You'd think they would charge less, though, b/c why would you buy it?

[yzedf]

Originally posted by Shadowfax
putting 2 GB of DDR RAM in that thing makes it almost $6,000. how is that useful? that's insane. there are almost no programs even hardcore pros use that would benefit much from having that much RAM. the 9000 card only has 32 MB of RAM. the place that i see they really beefed this thing up better than apple is on the GF4 (best mobile card on the market, unlike the 440 they put on the Albook) and the ultrasharp screen (which again is a real taste issue anyway).

but it's interesting that you point out this is big resolution CAPABLE. it's almost mandatory. i've never met anyone who regularly viewed their LCD panel at non-native resolutions. that's just bleccch.

honestly, this is one of those few times that i really and truly DO NOT see that there is a price advantage in getting the PC. it's not at a better price than our Albooks. who're the trolls, again?

2GB - you can edit video, or large pictures, on a PC too.

GF4 go - to hot (temp) for me... plus IANAG (i am not a gamer)

LCD - non native, native, with the Dell, the choice is yours. with Apple, the native is the lowest I want to use for that size, I can't go bigger. choice is good. also, the OS plays a big part in this (think Mandrake 9.0 fonts out of the box are crisper <1 pixel wide> than OS X fonts are <going for rounded look> even for same res at native scale for whatever LCD you are comparing)

price - did I say anything about price? No. I wouldn't buy a Dell. The g/f had (gave to her mom) a Inspiron 3800 (i think) and it is a noisy, hot, flexible plastic, POS. She now has a iBook 800. Much happier. She gets annoyed when I ask her if I can use it all the time ;)

[shadowfax]

Originally posted by yzedf
2GB - you can edit video, or large pictures, on a PC too.

GF4 go - to hot (temp) for me... plus IANAG (i am not a gamer)

LCD - non native, native, with the Dell, the choice is yours. with Apple, the native is the lowest I want to use for that size, I can't go bigger. choice is good. also, the OS plays a big part in this (think Mandrake 9.0 fonts out of the box are crisper <1 pixel wide> than OS X fonts are <going for rounded look> even for same res at native scale for whatever LCD you are comparing)

price - did I say anything about price? No. I wouldn't buy a Dell. The g/f had (gave to her mom) a Inspiron 3800 (i think) and it is a noisy, hot, flexible plastic, POS. She now has a iBook 800. Much happier. She gets annoyed when I ask her if I can use it all the time ;)

ah, that's a little better, but i still think the 2 GB is insane, and my point about LCDs is that they look BAD if you run them at non-native resolutions. not because it's a smaller resolution; because it's not a native resolution. LCDs can't change the size of their physical pixels, so it makes them look blurry.

[yzedf]

Originally posted by Shadowfax
ah, that's a little better, but i still think the 2 GB is insane, and my point about LCDs is that they look BAD if you run them at non-native resolutions. not because it's a smaller resolution; because it's not a native resolution. LCDs can't change the size of their physical pixels, so it makes them look blurry.

scaling resolution is a numbers game. it can look good, but usally looks bad. i have seen it both ways. it is not solely a hardware issue. look at the threads regarding "fuzzy fonts with OS X" that you see from time to time.

2GB is cool, but the price is insane! although my thinkpad that i use everyday has 128MB in it... :rolleyes:

[topicolo]

Originally posted by Death2PCs
Ever want a 17 inch PowerBook????

check out this price comparison...

Apple AlBook:
17 inch Widescreen Display (Max. Res. 1440x900)
1GHz PowerPC G4 Processor
60GB Ultra ATA Hard Drive
SuperDrive (DVD-RW/CD-RW)
Wireless Networking (AirPort Extreme)
1 GB DDR SDRAM - 2 DIMMs
nVIDIA GeForce4 440 Go w. 64MB DDR SDRAM
Height: 1.0 inch (2.6 cm)
Width: 15.4 inches (39.2 cm)
Depth: 10.2 inches (25.9 cm)
Weight: 6.8 pounds (3.08 kg) with battery and optical drive installed

Price: $ 3,599.00


Dell Inspiration 8500:
15.4 inch Widescreen Display (Max. Res. 1920x1200)
2.4GHz Mobile Pentium 4 Processor
60GB Ultra ATA Hard Drive
Combo Drive (DVD-ROM/CD-RW)
Wireless Networking (802.11a/b)
1GB DDR SDRAM - 2 DIMMs
nVidia GeForce 4 4200 Go w. 64MB DDR SDRAM
Height: 1.52-inch (3.86 cm)
Width: 14.22-inch (36.12 cm)
Depth: 10.87-inch (27.61 cm)
Weight: 6.9 lbs. (3.13 kg) with travel module, battery and Hard Drive

Price: $ 3,426.00

Now for $ 173.00 more than the Dell, you can have a 17 inch AlBook with a DVD burner, that's thinner, not as deep, and STILL lighter.

Still think Macs are more expensive???

unfortunately, the Geforce 4 4200 is FAR superior to the Geforce 4 440 Go and the 2.4Ghz processor is without a doubt much faster than the 1Ghz G4.

[andyduncan]

With regards to putting the faster NVidia chip in it, I don't know why Apple decided to put the slower chip in, i'm not on the design team. But according to NVidia's specs it pulls less power, so i'd bet thats why. the faster chip can turn its 3d unit off when it's not using it to save power, but thats pretty useless if this is supposed to be a CAD workstation replacement. If apple were to use it that wouldn't be useful at all as with quartz extreme running all the time you'd never be able to turn the 3d unit off.

With regards to the problem with viewing displays that have that high of resolution, the UI is going to start holding people back. I can zoom in as far as I want on my illustrator, indesign or word document, getting the image that big isn't a problem. The problem is what happens when you are browsing the web? sure you can make the text bigger, but then the images are out of proportion. And what happens to (like others have said) the buttons and scroll bars. Since monitor dpi hasn't really changed all that much those issues havent really been a problem. Users have just accepted the fact that things look a little bigger or smaller on different machines. However, if those are half/quarter sized, thats a little difficult.

People have been talking about resolution independent UIs for a while. I say BS, it would be too much of a pain for a bunch of reasons. What will probably happen, imho, is resolution of mainstream displays will increase rapidly over the next few years, and at some point we'll hit an upper limit, where people can't really see any more (probably around 220-270 ppi, IMHO). Then OS developers will standardize around it like they did around 72-90 ppi 15 years ago or so, and redesign their UIs around that. Until then you'll just have to squint or turn on the zoom feature in Jaguar. Whatever happens, believe me, this is something people have been thinking about for more than a few years.

ps: I saw a tiny tiny tiny little sony pocket-laptop deal at the Metreon in SF (which sucks btw unless you like little Gundum figurines and playstation) it had 1600xsomething-less-than-1000 resolution on a dinky little (less than 8 inches maybe) super-wide screen; looked like one of those little HP super-subnotebooks. wish I'd written down the specs. Probably makes this dell look like its running 320x240.
pps: sorry for such a long post.

[acj]

I will not disagree with anyone about price, ugliness, or all that, but I will disagree about resolution.

Just simply change the font size in the OS. It’s easy even on a windows machine. Word processing document too small to view easily? ZOOM IN! Suddenly it’s the same size as on a low-res monitor, but font edges are crisper. Same applies to most programs. Also, if you are very familiar with a programs tools, say Photoshop, you don’t need big pretty icons to know where to click.

Graphics cards are so fast at 2D nowadays that even running two monitors at hi-res is nothing. I don’t understand why people are so stupid that they run their 1600x1200 machines at 1024x768. I think 1920x1200 is the perfect resolution for a 15.4-inch screen. Any higher and you can’t notice a difference. Any lower and you loose screen real estate.

Also, with high res, if for some reason you actually MUST run at a lower resolution for a game or something, it will scale better. For example, 1600x1200 scales perfect to 800x600, and looks better at 640x480 than 1024x768@640x480.

Now, if Apple would just make something like a shuttle XPC. Cheap performance loaded with ports on the front and back and upgradeable with desktop components.

[Death2PCs]

Originally posted by topicolo
unfortunately, the Geforce 4 4200 is FAR superior to the Geforce 4 440 Go and the 2.4Ghz processor is without a doubt much faster than the 1Ghz G4.

its not clock speed its data flow... and its what you use it for that makes the difference.

[ozubahn]

As many have stated already, it isn't necessary to equate high resolution with small text, since you can just change the font size. OS X goes much further than this, though, since Quartz cares little about the resolution of the output device and will happily resample images as necessary. OS X already has all the infrastructure necessary to effectively upsample the entire display. For example, a future version of Safari could provide the option of viewing web pages at increased resolution. Web pages have their own native resolution (loosely defined by the raster graphics they contain), but there is nothing that says those graphics can't be upsampled along with the text. That way, the text gets bigger, clearer, and easier to read, while the graphics appear with the same size and quality as they would on a display of lower resolution.

If you can do this, then higher resolution is always better, provided the graphics chip can handle it. Nothing needs to get smaller. It can just get clearer (in the case of vector data), or stay about the same (in the case of raster). Apple is far better equipped to make good use of resolution than Dell is, so I wouldn't expect them to lag behind for long.

[Megaquad]

damn, that laptop has 2.4 GHz processor and GeForce 4200 Go, it sure does kick ass of TiBook and AlBoook in speed.

[jayscheuerle]

You people complaining about the resolution being too high are disallusioned idiots who would be bragging about this 223% increase in pixels if the tables were reversed. All it's going to do is make tiny text more readable. Surely you don't complain that the copies from your laserprinter are at 1200dpi and you wish they were 72 dpi do you? Apple's always been behind in this area, but it's a shame it's a Dell that they have to strive to equal in the display department...

[page3]

Originally posted by rmac
Seems to me that a nice feature to have in OS 10.3 would be to change GUI resolution as a whole. Can already change icon sizes and many fonts now, and it looks great. They've been planning for high resolution monitors for a while, considering that the icons are 128 x 128. Usually don't have them at higher than 64 x 64 now, and on a Powerbook more often than not 48 x 48.
...

Ah, you mean like my 8 year old Risc PC can do? :D

[knobsturner]

We bought a Dell 1400 x 1200 1.2Ghz or whatever resolution for someone to replace an IBM small thinkpad 500 Mhz Celeron with a 1024x768 screen. We could never get the Dell screen to show readable text (too small). Changing XP to show larger fonts only helps certain things.

Eventually, the person put the res to 1024x768 which looked better, but had the LCD fuzzies.

After another month, he was back on the IBM. The Dell went into use as a windows machine for QA work.

Dell seems more interested in selling specifications than computers. More is always better ;->.

--knobs

[testnull]

Originally posted by FooDragon
I think it would be great to have such a resolution on a mac, for one you don't have to run it at that resolution, it's your own choice to run whatever resolution you like.

So apple, bring on the high definition laptops!

First, on an LCD, you have no choice. Either you run at the native resolution or it looks like crap; plain and simple.

Secondly, there are more factors than just resolution involved in this. A good friend of mine has a Dell with a 1600x1200 15" screen, and it's awful. First, the brightness simply isn't as good as the TiBook (I have a DVI 667) screen. Secondly, the viewing angle is awful. Personally, no matter what the font size, I think the quality of the text on that screen sucks as well.

Just remember - Apple makes laptops that provide a quality experience for the graphics & video professionals who buy them. This means more than resolution!

[Rayiner Hashem]

You guys need to get some perspective on this thing:

0) Yes. It is ugly. I don't care much for the milky white iBooks, but I think the TiBooks are super-sexy. I wish Apple made a TiPod...

1) It's not targeted at the same market as any of the Apple laptops. It's a desktop replacement and a mobile workstation. I have an Inspiron 8200, which was Dell's highest end model before this one. I use it to do 3D graphics and CAD while I'm on the go. Do I wish it were lighter and thinner (the new 8500 is lighter and thinner than my 8200)? Hell yes, especially when all I need to do is type a document or write some code. Do I wish it were built as solidly as a TiBook? Again, yes. Would I trade it in for a TiBook? No. I simply can't do the things I need to on light portable like that.

2) Don't even pretend that this thing isn't wicked fast. The GeForce4 Go 4200 is basically a desktop GPU stuffed into a laptop. It's about twice as fast as a Radeon 9000. And the "it's not all about clock speed, but data flow" thing I heard was hilarious. First, clock speed is important. Even with the architectural improvements of the G4, the P4 has 2.4 times the clock speed. The G4 would have to be more than twice as fast at the same clock speed. Look at the design specs of the G4, that's not even *theoretically* possible! Also, data flow matters, particularly for media apps. That's why the 2.1GB/sec memory bus on the 8500 blows away the 1.3GB/sec memory bus on any Apple laptop. Of course speed isn't everything. Especially in a notebook. The 8500 pays the price by being not only thick and heavy, but quite hot as well. Still, it's a tradeoff many are willing to make.

3) The screen thing is just silly. More resolution = better. Always. If you're OS gives you weird results turning up the resolution, then it's font handling sucks. Windows XP is this way. You get all sorts of weirdness at 133 dpi. Hopefully, OS X isn't this way. The whole point of basic Quartz on DisplayPDF is that vector graphics scale to any resolution. Fonts are inherently resolution independent. That's the whole reason we got away from those stupid bitmap fonts in the early 1990s. 12pt == 1/6th of an inch, not 12 pixels. I adore my 1600x1200 screen. I simply set X (I use Linux pretty much exclusively) to run at 133 dpi, and set the thing to use large fonts. All my apps scale perfectly, and most websites do as well. The ones that don't suck anyway, because depending on a particular font size also implies that it breaks for people who need accessibility features. The payoff for putting up with a little bit of weirdness in the web is gorgeous fonts to look almost paper-quality. I can't stand going back to low-res displays anymore, with their 1-pixel thick fonts. On this screen, letters are often 2 to 2.5 pixels thich. This is great for an antialiased display, because it's hard to notice the fuzzy edge pixels when they're so small relative to the solid main lines. Further, the extra pixels really allow the design of a font to be expressed, which makes them much more pleasing to look at. I went out and got Adobe's basic font collection just so I could take advantage of how nice fonts look on this screen.

[Trimix]

Who cares ? I mean who really cares what Dell does ?
Let us rather speak about Apple and what good things will come from there.
I buy the Apple experience, not the Dell specifications.
Mac is a pleasure to use, Windows is not.

Oh, here is a good one - a friend of mine just called me and asked me which digital camera I am using, so I told him. The next thing he said was - Do all the necessary drivers come with it ? I said I never really looked in the box, because for me it was just a 10 second thing of plugging it in and my Mac talking to the Nikon. So he was grumbling about his Sony Laptop and now he is going over to the Mall to check out the 17' i-mac (and the camera of course).

Sorry but I wanted to share this with you - I know it has little to do with the topic at hand, but that is what is a Mac for me - I would not buy a Dell or a Toshiba, or whatever. Even if they had 25' collapsable folding whatnotscreens, with RAM galore - it is that I feel at home with my Mac. Sorry for my incoherent message

[Kid Red]

Originally posted by agreenster
Widescreen? Yes.


Ugly as all sin?? Oh yeah.

Ahh, is there a reason the trackpad is off center?! WTF. It would drive the artist in me crazy to see it off centered every time I looked at it.

[Foxer]

Don't know which thread to put this in, but since someone mentioned earlier that the new powermacs were shipping.... I picked up a factory G4 1.4 at the Apple store yesterday. I am about to go buy the NVIDIA Geforece 128 card at CompUSA. Is this a good idea or should I hold out for the ATI card? Discuss amongst yourselves.

[Das]

Is it too much to ask of Dell to make a notebook that is actually nice to look at and work on? Shat, they've got the specs (well, I'll be waiting for the new notebook Pentiums centurino-something) but the design is worse than a Tron prop! Alienware makes a better notebook anyway.

This does bring up one of my peeves with Apple though and that's the lack of true customization. I mean, I want to pay 99 bucks more and get a better video card not the one they think I should have, I want it with OS 9 and X, and I want an ugly snap on thingy for the track pad...well maybe not the last thing. Oh but CRIKE, what’s with the cost of RAM?!?! Dang!

[john123]

No offense, but it really hacks me off when people try to do this. The Mac is *NEVER* going to be cheaper than the PC when you make a fair comparison. Your comparison is flawed on several levels:

(1) Resolution: Do you realize that with the Dell, you get 111% more pixels? Yes, that's right, OVER TWICE AS MUCH real estate to use.
(2) Three year warranty on that Dell puppy...add at least $300 for AppleCare to your Mac if you want to be fair about it.
(3) You just had to pick the 2.4 GHz on the Dell, didn't you? Guess what? The 2.0 Ghz will be cheaper and will still be considerably faster than the Mac.
(4) DDR-RAM on the Dell. Even when the 15" is upgraded, it will still be using Motorola's crappy old CPUs and won't take advantage of DDR's extra bandwidth, so it'll be a waste. Dell's laptop does take advantage of DDR for the processor.

Let's try to be objective in our comparisons, shall we? We all love Macs, but let's not spin a yarn to praise their virtues, eh?

Originally posted by Death2PCs
Check this out.... Configure a 15 inch PowerBook with the best processor (1GHz) and the like components. Compare the prices to the Dell... no, thats OK I did it for you.

Apple TiBook:
15.2 inch Widescreen Display (Max. Res. 1280x854)
1GHz PowerPC G4 Processor
60GB Ultra ATA Hard Drive
Combo Drive (DVD-ROM/CD-RW)
Wireless Networking (AirPort)
512 MB SDRAM - 1 DIMM
ATI Mobility Radeon 9000 w. 64MB DDR SDRAM
Height: 1.0 inch (2.6 cm)
Width: 13.4 inches (34.1 cm)
Depth: 9.5 inches (24.1 cm)
Weight: 5.4 pounds (2.45 kg) with battery and optical drive installed

Price: $ 2,699.00


Dell Inspiration 8500:
15.4 inch Widescreen Display (Max. Res. 1920x1200)
2.4GHz Mobile Pentium 4 Processor
60GB Ultra ATA Hard Drive
Combo Drive (DVD-ROM/CD-RW)
Wireless Networking (802.11a/b)
512 MB DDR SDRAM - 1 DIMM
nVidia GeForce 4 4200 Go w. 64MB DDR SDRAM
Height: 1.52-inch (3.86 cm)
Width: 14.22-inch (36.12 cm)
Depth: 10.87-inch (27.61 cm)
Weight: 6.9 lbs. (3.13 kg) with travel module, battery and Hard Drive

Price: $ 2,927.00

$ 2,927.00 (Price of Dell)
- $ 2,699.00 (Price of Apple)
$ 228.00 (That many more dollars for the Dell)

So from the way I see it... the Dell is wider, and deeper, and taller, and heavier and more EXPENSIVE than the PowerBook.

We all know that ATI makes better graphics cards too. AND...

Not to mention that with the new revision that is expected of the 15 inch TiBook (the 15 inch AlBook), we will probably see the price remain steady, DDR RAM, and AirPort Extreme.

Still think Macs are more expensive?




(Anyone see the Dual 1.42GHz are "shipping" now)

[jayscheuerle]

Originally posted by john123
(1) Resolution: Do you realize that with the Dell, you get 111% more pixels? Yes, that's right, OVER TWICE AS MUCH real estate to use.


Apple's horizontal resolution is just 80 pixels bigger than Dell's vertical resolution....

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!

It even has 1.7 times as many pixels as the 17" AlBook...

That's something like 147ppi....
SWEET!!

[evilelvis]

Man shoots Dell laptop four times after it crashes once too often

Thursday, March 06, 2003 - 10:05 AM EST



"George Doughty hung his latest hunting trophy on the wall of his Sportsman's Bar and Restaurant. Then he went to jail. The problem was the trophy was Doughty's laptop computer. He shot it four times, as customers watched, after it crashed once too often. He was jailed on suspicion of felony menacing, reckless endangerment and the prohibited use of weapons. 'It's sort of funny, because everybody always threatens their computers,' said police Lt. Rick Bashor, seconds before his own police computer froze at police headquarters. Doughty was released Monday evening after spending a night in jail and is due in court Wednesday. In police reports, Doughty said that he realized afterward that he shouldn't have shot his computer but at the time it seemed like the right thing to do," reports The Associated Press.

According to the Boulder Daily Camera, Doughty, 48, owns the establishment. He entered the bar from his office, announced he was going to shoot his computer and returned to his office. After 30 minutes, police said, Doughty set his laptop on the floor 4 to 6 feet away from him, warned two customers at the bar to cover their ears and fired away. The computer took all the bullets and no one was injured.

Unfortunately, they left out two important bits of information of interest to MacDailyNews and our readers.

Paul Schultz, Lafayette's Chief of Police told MacDailyNews that the laptop Doughty shot was a Dell. Lt. Rick Bashor's police computer that crashed during his comments to AP is a Gateway. Did somebody say, "switch?"

:D

[ntmf]

In advance: sorry for my poor english, but now I have to post a thread on my own :-) .
I am wondering why all you people did not got the sence for such a high resolution:
But the reason is quite simple: You need such a high resolution for the best HDTV quality - and for editing it in native resolution.
And am I the only one remembering that Apple HAS an editing software for HDTV?

It was one thing which made me very angry, about the new 17"Powerbook: That is is not possible to view HDTV in the highest resolution.

But if Apple uses the high resolution panel for the new 15" I´ll take this in a minute!

Although we do not have ANY HDTV in Europe at all :-(, excepted from imported videos from the US. I´ll love the possibility to see it !

[john123]

The reason the resolution thing cracks me up is that OS X is designed to be a font-scalable OS. That's the point of the font smoothing. And frankly, OS X fonts look like crap on current LCDs. The pixels are so damn big that you get lots of "gray" pixels, because that's the only color that will work for a big square to "smooth" the font.

A much larger resolution is the key to this problem, as it will make all smoothed fonts look good. Your fonts can still be, for example, a quarter of an inch tall, but they will be much sharper and crisper. I for one refuse to use OS X because the smoothed fonts irritate me so much, but if Apple moved to a display on the PowerBook in the range of 1900x1200 or so, I'd be much much more likely to switch...

[caboosemoose]

Hello friendly Apple people.

Just thought I would make a few considered points from a PC users pointof view:

1. I have a Dell notebook. It is ugly as sin, weighs a ton and the battery lasts only two hours.

2. But.......It has a 15" 1600x1200 lcd panel. This kind of high resolution is not for everyone, but for those who like it, it makes using normal displays painful. Even the 23" Apple cinema display is rather jagged and pixelated by comparison. I really wouldn't go back to a normal, low res display now.

3. The guy who said that LCD's have to be run at native res is absolutely right. If you are not comfortable with native res, you should not buy that specification of panel.

4. Dell will have DVD burners available within a month.

5. Pointing out how expensive the Dell is with its memory maxed out is rather silly. Only a lunatic would upgrade his memory by buying it from Dell when its free available for a small fraction elsewhere.

6. In my view, OSX demands higher resolutions than any current apple portable offers. Apple really should have higher res panels available as options at least.

7. All the Apple portables are things of beauty, and if I was only surfing the web, typing stuff up and watching movies then I would go for one for sure. But I also want to play all the latest games, work on my quark layouts and use large picture files in photoshop. Unfortunately, doing all those things on one system is only really possible on a PC based system.

8. A P4 2.4ghz PC is a fair bit faster than a 1ghz powerbook.

9. As before, the Apple's are beautiful, but being super thin desn't make them more useful.

10. XP is ugly, OSX is pretty, but I have used both, and XP is at least as stable as OSX.

Why can't we have a computer that is as beautiful, pleasant to use and well built as an apple, but with the performance and across the board software and hardware availability of a PC?

[MaxArturo]

Even though Apple has always had nice lcds, I just wanted to mention that I used to only buy Dell 'cause I loved their screens before. Pretty high quality stuff, even against Sony or Apple. This is just even better. I mean, I don't have any animosity towards Dell, I just like my Mac better ;)

[topicolo]

Originally posted by Death2PCs
its not clock speed its data flow... and its what you use it for that makes the difference.

Like I said, the GF4 4200 and the P4 2.4Ghz is much faster than the G4. The computer is running on a 533Mhz fsb and the GF4 gets a much higher data flow from its faster ddr ram chips than a gf4 440 go. Going into what you use it for is just going completely off topic.

Personally speaking, the Albooks look much better than the Dell and I'd probably get one if I was going to get a new laptop soon but speedwise, the Dell is clearly superior and slightly cheaper.

[MaxArturo]

Yeah resolution is still a problem. Higher does not equal better and I know this from my friend's PBook...

[john123]

Originally posted by MaxArturo
Yeah resolution is still a problem. Higher does not equal better and I know this from my friend's PBook...

Huh? Higher *IS* better when it comes to resolution....

[caboosemoose]

quite, there is no high reloution PBook.

[jayscheuerle]

Originally posted by MaxArturo
Yeah resolution is still a problem. Higher does not equal better and I know this from my friend's PBook...

Maybe not, but it's a very important factor, probably more so than viewing angle and brightness.

Higher equals sharper (in lcd's).
Lower equals softer.

Watch out for that PBook. It's lying to you...;)

[beatle888]

edit

[Eckslusive]

ugh, i hate Apple copy-cats. And wahts even worse, its a PC!

[benjiP]

hello everyone.

i'm a dell owner, and dying to switch! i bought my first dell laptop in 2000 and have yet to receive one in full working order... :(

i'm really grateful for all your insightful posts and would love to get a 15" powerbook, which begs the following questions:

- are they really in the product pipeline?

- when can we realistically expect them??

Thanks in advance,

benjiP
:D

[JSRockit]

I don't think it is that ugly...it is a big improvement on the Dell's before this. To compare it to Apple's aesthetics is unfair...Apple will always be better at making eye candy...but the people who are buying this Dell are not even gonna give Apple a look...so this doesn't even matter. Of course we all know better...but this laptop isn't that horrible. It is a step in the right direction. I have heard that Dell will make a widescreen version of the 4150...this should be a little nicer.

The thing that kills me the most is that this thing is as big as the 17" pBook with a 15.4" screen...of course the resolution is bigger...but Apple knows how to make the most of their designs...and that generally means knowing how to make the smallest laptop while incorporating great features...ie 5.4lbs...15.2" screen...6.9lbs...17" screen...nobody in the PC world has figured out how to do this.

[caboosemoose]

Ummm, arent the powerbooks made by the same taiwanese companies as make most PC notebook. I think you'll find that the main reason why apple's portables have such an advantage in physical design and engineering is that apple's are less price sensitive. Apple may do much of the basic engineering and design, but its the compals and quantas of this world that make the technology actually work, and if PC manufacturers wanted to buy into that know how they easily could do, but the result would be higher prices. Apple needs to be ahead somewhere, and sionce it cant currently compete on performance, its just as well that it has design advantages.

[shadowfax]

Originally posted by caboosemoose
Ummm, arent the powerbooks made by the same taiwanese companies as make most PC notebook. I think you'll find that the main reason why apple's portables have such an advantage in physical design and engineering is that apple's are less price sensitive. Apple may do much of the basic engineering and design, but its the compals and quantas of this world that make the technology actually work, and if PC manufacturers wanted to buy into that know how they easily could do, but the result would be higher prices. Apple needs to be ahead somewhere, and sionce it cant currently compete on performance, its just as well that it has design advantages.

you may not have noticed, but apple's prices are pretty damned competitive in this market right now.

there is real design going on on the apple end, and it's major.

[ceb]

Alright, most everyone says that the Dell is ugly. This is an Apple message board, so of course you are all biased. Why even make some of the comparisons? I like the Dell, and find it amusing that someone earlier was comparing the Apple 1 GHz processor to the Dell's 2.4 GHz processor. Now I'll save you all the trouble - "It isn't all about clock speed and GHz." But come on, you are comparing Apples (no pun intended) to Oranges. They serve different segments of the notebook market. True, the story probably should not have run here, but it did, so understand that this is not an objective forum for this particular topic. And realize that some users are not interested solely in aesthetics and appearance of a computer. I'm sure the Dell is a great machine, and I would consider it or the rumored possible widescreen 4150 had I not just bougth a Notebook several months ago. Alright, I'm going to leave this forum and go back to the iPod rumor boards where I have been the last month, still waiting.

[JSRockit]

Originally posted by ceb
Alright, most everyone says that the Dell is ugly. This is an Apple message board, so of course you are all biased. Why even make some of the comparisons? I like the Dell, and find it amusing that someone earlier was comparing the Apple 1 GHz processor to the Dell's 2.4 GHz processor. Now I'll save you all the trouble - "It isn't all about clock speed and GHz." But come on, you are comparing Apples (no pun intended) to Oranges. They serve different segments of the notebook market. True, the story probably should not have run here, but it did, so understand that this is not an objective forum for this particular topic. And realize that some users are not interested solely in aesthetics and appearance of a computer. I'm sure the Dell is a great machine, and I would consider it or the rumored possible widescreen 4150 had I not just bougth a Notebook several months ago. Alright, I'm going to leave this forum and go back to the iPod rumor boards where I have been the last month, still waiting.

People are comparing the G4 to the P4-M simply because of speed step technology...were the processor runs at half the speed when on battery...but can't this feature be turned off?

[Rayiner Hashem]

The Pentium 4 Mobile's version of SpeedStep has dynamic clock scaling. My 2GHz P4M will scale from around 1.2 GHz to 2.0 GHz, even on battery power, depending on how CPU intensive your programs are.

[JSRockit]

Originally posted by Rayiner Hashem
The Pentium 4 Mobile's version of SpeedStep has dynamic clock scaling. My 2GHz P4M will scale from around 1.2 GHz to 2.0 GHz, even on battery power, depending on how CPU intensive your programs are.

That's what I figured...so that point is crap. People just can't handle the fact that a processor runs at 2.4ghz...even if with bad architechure.

[scem0]

EEEEEEEEEWWWWWWWWWWWW........

mediocre PC with an UUUUUUUGGGGLLLLLLLYYYYYYYY case.

I pity Dell....... a TINY bit.

[hacurio1]

Originally posted by page3
Ah, you mean like my 8 year old Risc PC can do? :D

Please explain!!!! If you have a PC, it's CISC.

[hacurio1]

Originally posted by john123
No offense, but it really hacks me off when people try to do this. The Mac is *NEVER* going to be cheaper than the PC when you make a fair comparison. Your comparison is flawed on several levels:

(1) Resolution: Do you realize that with the Dell, you get 111% more pixels? Yes, that's right, OVER TWICE AS MUCH real estate to use.
(2) Three year warranty on that Dell puppy...add at least $300 for AppleCare to your Mac if you want to be fair about it.
(3) You just had to pick the 2.4 GHz on the Dell, didn't you? Guess what? The 2.0 Ghz will be cheaper and will still be considerably faster than the Mac.
(4) DDR-RAM on the Dell. Even when the 15" is upgraded, it will still be using Motorola's crappy old CPUs and won't take advantage of DDR's extra bandwidth, so it'll be a waste. Dell's laptop does take advantage of DDR for the processor.

Let's try to be objective in our comparisons, shall we? We all love Macs, but let's not spin a yarn to praise their virtues, eh?

Don't forget the extra pounds and that it's 1" thicker; that must be worth something? I agree, it's an unfair comparition. The power book offers 250% more batery life than the dell does!!!

[hacurio1]

Originally posted by page3
Ah, you mean like my 8 year old Risc PC can do? :D

Please explain!!!! If you have a PC, it's CISC.

[JSRockit]

Originally posted by hacurio1
Don't forget the extra pounds and that it's 1" thicker; that must be worth something? I agree, it's an unfair comparition. The power book offers 250% more batery life than the dell does!!!

Since when is the pBook .5" thick?

[JSRockit]

Originally posted by scem0


I pity Dell....... a TINY bit.

They don't need our pity...they're doing ok.

[scem0]

Originally posted by john123
No offense, but it really hacks me off when people try to do this. The Mac is *NEVER* going to be cheaper than the PC when you make a fair comparison. Your comparison is flawed on several levels:

(1) Resolution: Do you realize that with the Dell, you get 111% more pixels? Yes, that's right, OVER TWICE AS MUCH real estate to use.
(2) Three year warranty on that Dell puppy...add at least $300 for AppleCare to your Mac if you want to be fair about it.
(3) You just had to pick the 2.4 GHz on the Dell, didn't you? Guess what? The 2.0 Ghz will be cheaper and will still be considerably faster than the Mac.
(4) DDR-RAM on the Dell. Even when the 15" is upgraded, it will still be using Motorola's crappy old CPUs and won't take advantage of DDR's extra bandwidth, so it'll be a waste. Dell's laptop does take advantage of DDR for the processor.

Let's try to be objective in our comparisons, shall we? We all love Macs, but let's not spin a yarn to praise their virtues, eh?

An mac user who is thinking clearly about PCs! Amazing. :D :D

PCs are totally under-rated on Mac sites. :rolleyes: :p

[DHagan4755]

I laugh at the comments over at C Net

http://computers.cnet.com/hardware/0-1027-418-20893611.html?tag=subnav

[caboosemoose]

Originally posted by DHagan4755
I laugh at the comments over at C Net

http://computers.cnet.com/hardware/0-1027-418-20893611.html?tag=subnav

Me too, nobody actually has one of the new 8500s yet, so how owners/users can be commenting is beyond me.

[ceb]

Originally posted by caboosemoose
Me too, nobody actually has one of the new 8500s yet, so how owners/users can be commenting is beyond me.


To be fair, every time a new Apple product is put on CNet before its release, there are always dozens of posts about how great it is.

[JSRockit]

Originally posted by ceb
To be fair, every time a new Apple product is put on CNet before its release, there are always dozens of posts about how great it is.

Yep...cNet sucks for reviews. Everybody either crys or praises...no in between.

[DHagan4755]

That was my point. It's unlikely that many people have had their hands on them for reviews like the ones that were posted.

I'm an Apple guy all the way, but this one is sure tempting. It's just for $2299 I can get the Apple model with Mac OS X. If Dell decides Wednesday 3/12/03 to release the same case with a cheaper (and new) Pentium-M processor, I just may snap.

Which leads me to this point: If Apple has a 15.4 inch model of their own, perhaps that will come out soon to counter Dell. Whadda y'all think?

[GeneR]

Originally posted by agreenster
Widescreen? Yes.


Ugly as all sin?? Oh yeah.

Man, that laptop looks like a real joke. Thanks for posting it. :D

[GeneR]

What insults me about this laptop is the fact that from a design standpoint it shows no interest in being anything more than a laptop computer. It's like the people at Dell said, "Okay, okay, you wanted a 15"? We'll give one to you." But this is a reluctant reaction to innovative design, not a display of real interest in providing a pleasurable user experience.

Macs on the otherhand have an artistic design that communicates the brand's core idea: to make life more enjoyable.

Maybe that's why there are so many Mac fans on this site: Apple and its customers just get that idea: life is meant to be enjoyed. :)

[JSRockit]

Originally posted by GeneR
But this is a reluctant reaction to innovative design, not a display of real interest in providing a pleasurable user experience.



or conversly...Dell doesn't care about case design and just wants to have decent components and charge ok prices. Unfortunately, Dell is in a position that they don;t have to care about style...Apple does. I have always wondered why PC laptop manufactuers never can make anything close to Apple...I think it is because they do not care. It is like if your computers are made for mainstream business, then they cannot possibly look...but what I really don't understand is that this is obviously a home computer...so why so ugly? or does Dell think it is beautiful?

[GeneR]

Originally posted by JSRockit
or conversly...Dell doesn't care about case design and just wants to have decent components and charge ok prices. Unfortunately, Dell is in a position that they don;t have to care about style...Apple does. I have always wondered why PC laptop manufactuers never can make anything close to Apple...I think it is because they do not care. It is like if your computers are made for mainstream business, then they cannot possibly look...but what I really don't understand is that this is obviously a home computer...so why so ugly? or does Dell think it is beautiful?

Good thoughts. Thanks. I'm going to go meditate on this for a while. But I agree. Dell doesn't seem to really have to care. And Apple does. I wonder if that would be different if Apple had a larger market share? I dunno.

[MacCoaster]

Originally posted by Eckslusive
ugh, i hate Apple copy-cats. And wahts even worse, its a PC!
So how's putting HDTV resolution on a laptop screen copying Apple? Apple hasn't even achieved that.

Widescreen wasn't Apple's idea at all, widescreen format has been in theaters for a long time. :rolleyes:

[etoiles]

Originally posted by hacurio1
Please explain!!!! If you have a PC, it's CISC.

I think like in 'Acorn RiscPC'...(used to be a really cool British computer running on an ARM risc chip, great OS)

http://home.in.tum.de/~atterer/acorn.html

[JSRockit]

Originally posted by MacCoaster
So how's putting HDTV resolution on a laptop screen copying Apple? Apple hasn't even achieved that.

Widescreen wasn't Apple's idea at all, widescreen format has been in theaters for a long time. :rolleyes:

Yes...but apple brought the wide screen ratio to the laptop first...now Dell upped the ante...in screen res that is.

[john123]

Originally posted by scem0
An mac user who is thinking clearly about PCs! Amazing. :D :D

PCs are totally under-rated on Mac sites. :rolleyes: :p

I used to be flagrantly anti-PC. Wouldn't use the things out of principle.

And then this past year, I had to. If you manage a database that you're storing locally on your machine and isn't being run off of a remote server, you're using a PC (or you're a moron).

And I learned about the advantages that PCs have -- and I grew to understand the disadvantages as well.

So after all this -- using a PC consistently, a decade of using Mac OS 6 through 9, and my increasing experience with Mac OS X (which I dislike as it's got too much of that which I dislike about Windows) -- I've grown to appreciate what each platform offers. In fact, in contrast to many of the self-proclaimed switchers, my experience with the PC world has caused me to LIKE OS 9 more and DISLIKE OS X more. Go figure!

Anyway, this is mildly off-topic, but I think that all the people ranting against the Dell, sight unseen, ought to use PCs consistently for a half year or so before making premature judgements.

[JSRockit]

Originally posted by john123


Anyway, this is mildly off-topic, but I think that all the people ranting against the Dell, sight unseen, ought to use PCs consistently for a half year or so before making premature judgements.

Most people HAVE to use PCs at work...so you will find that people in these forums are used to using PCs...but of course some just hear things and spread the plague.

[caboosemoose]

I think the fact that some people are getting so nasty about this Dell notebook is because, although its less than beautiful, it does highlight the fact that even Apple's most competitive lines (its portables) have fairly obvious shortcomings. Being super-light, wonderfully well made and ultra thin doesn't make any of the PB's any more useful. Having a fast CPU & video chipset and a super high resolution screen certainly is useful, and the Dell offers all of these and the apple, for all its merits, none of these.

I'm glad someone was honest enough to say that both platforms have pros and cons -anyone who has used XP extnesively can tell you that its a pretty solid and user friendly platform, especially by M$'s low standards.

I hope to buy one these Dells fairly soon, my current notebook has a 1600x1200 panel and having even more screen real estate to play with is very attractive.

[scem0]

Yeah, XP is definitely very crash proof. But it dims in comparison
to Mac OS X - all operating systems do... That, IMO, is the best
thing about macs, OS X.

[Foucault]

This is about the ugliest laptop I have ever seen. It looks clunky, chaotic, and poorly designed. I have fisher-price toys that look sharper and sexier than this piece of crap. Seeing this makes me feel better that I invested my money in a Powerbook...

[scem0]

It is one of the ugliest laptops I have ever seen...

[MacCoaster]

Originally posted by JSRockit
Yes...but apple brought the wide screen ratio to the laptop first...now Dell upped the ante...in screen res that is.
Apple didn't even bring the wide-screen ratio to the laptop first, not even close.

1996: Sharp WideNote. [source (http://www.byte.com/art/9611/sec3/art15.htm)]

[JSRockit]

Originally posted by MacCoaster
Apple didn't even bring the wide-screen ratio to the laptop first, not even close.

1996: Sharp WideNote. [source (http://www.byte.com/art/9611/sec3/art15.htm)]

True...but at a respectable size...12"-es and above...Apple was first no?

[MacCoaster]

Originally posted by JSRockit
True...but at a respectable size...12"-es and above...Apple was first no?
Maybe, I haven't looked at it like that.

I think that if I were you, I'd have said that "Apple was the first to bring wide screen laptops which had major emphasis on how the customers want laptops."

Of course, it might be because Apple is a singular company and one would notice things from Apple, and yet in the PC world, there are gazillions of laptop manufacturers that one could careless who that wide screen laptop came from.

Come on, 15.4" w/ HDTV resolution PowerBook!

[hacurio1]

Originally posted by caboosemoose
I think the fact that some people are getting so nasty about this Dell notebook is because, although its less than beautiful, it does highlight the fact that even Apple's most competitive lines (its portables) have fairly obvious shortcomings. Being super-light, wonderfully well made and ultra thin doesn't make any of the PB's any more useful. Having a fast CPU & video chipset and a super high resolution screen certainly is useful, and the Dell offers all of these and the apple, for all its merits, none of these.

I'm glad someone was honest enough to say that both platforms have pros and cons -anyone who has used XP extnesively can tell you that its a pretty solid and user friendly platform, especially by M$'s low standards.

I hope to buy one these Dells fairly soon, my current notebook has a 1600x1200 panel and having even more screen real estate to play with is very attractive.

I respect your opinion but you are not talking from experience. You think this way because you’ve never had a Dell Laptop. I had two, and now I’m left with one. How useful is it to have the fastest CPU and video card if your computer is poorly design? The poor design voids the original purpose of a portable and the speed of the machine. My first Dell was a Latitude LS. It was a very expensive machine. Today it has 265Mb of RAM, 30Gb of storage, and a 500 MHz PIII and a video card with only 4mb. The machine had decent specs when I bough it, although it was not the fastest, + it was supposed to be an ultra portable. In paper, everything looked Ok, but the poor design of the machine obligated me to carry around a DVD drive and a Floppy. To carry those two items is a hassle and that design flaw voided the original purpose of an ultra portable. After that bad experience I went and bought Dell latitude C600. This machine was more of a desktop replacement and it was supposed to be pretty fast for it’s time. It had a big display and at the beginning everything was not as good as I expected but it was OK. The poor design of the computer kept making it progressively annoying. The computer was very hot, and a couple of months after I bough it, the fan broke. It was located on the back of the computer and the problem was that it was poorly protected. Guess what happened? Yes, I toasted the computer. It was partially my fault because I should’ve had it fixed. I was all upset because after only three months the computer was useless. After that I was left with the Latitude LS for a year. Trying to type with that machine is a nightmare. Have you ever tried to type on a Dell? After those personal experiences I will tell you that design does matter. I recognize the advantages of both platforms but Dell simply has bad quality products. If you want to be productive get a high quality computer; if you want to get a PC, fine, get an IBM, a Sony, or a Sharp portable. Quality and design do matter more than speed in a portable, because they are supposed to be good at that, “being portables!” Easy to type, comfortable to work on, small, light, and relatively fast, not the fastest! If you what speed, then get a desktop. Today I’m very happy with me recently bought PB. It is everything a portable should be.

[JSRockit]

Originally posted by MacCoaster


I think that if I were you, I'd have said that "Apple was the first to bring wide screen laptops which had major emphasis on how the customers want laptops."



This is a forum...I don't that much thought into my blubs. That Sharp probably sold about 10 units overall. What is the first mainstream modern laptop to have a widescreen?

[caboosemoose]

Originally posted by hacurio1
I respect your opinion but you are not talking from experience. You think this way because you’ve never had a Dell Laptop. I had two, and now I’m left with one. How useful is it to have the fastest CPU and video card if your computer is poorly design? The poor design voids the original purpose of a portable and the speed of the machine. My first Dell was a Latitude LS. It was a very expensive machine. Today it has 265Mb of RAM, 30Gb of storage, and a 500 MHz PIII and a video card with only 4mb. The machine had decent specs when I bough it, although it was not the fastest, + it was supposed to be an ultra portable. In paper, everything looked Ok, but the poor design of the machine obligated me to carry around a DVD drive and a Floppy. To carry those two items is a hassle and that design flaw voided the original purpose of an ultra portable. After that bad experience I went and bought Dell latitude C600. This machine was more of a desktop replacement and it was supposed to be pretty fast for it’s time. It had a big display and at the beginning everything was not as good as I expected but it was OK. The poor design of the computer kept making it progressively annoying. The computer was very hot, and a couple of months after I bough it, the fan broke. It was located on the back of the computer and the problem was that it was poorly protected. Guess what happened? Yes, I toasted the computer. It was partially my fault because I should’ve had it fixed. I was all upset because after only three months the computer was useless. After that I was left with the Latitude LS for a year. Trying to type with that machine is a nightmare. Have you ever tried to type on a Dell? After those personal experiences I will tell you that design does matter. I recognize the advantages of both platforms but Dell simply has bad quality products. If you want to be productive get a high quality computer; if you want to get a PC, fine, get an IBM, a Sony, or a Sharp portable. Quality and design do matter more than speed in a portable, because they are supposed to be good at that, “being portables!” Easy to type, comfortable to work on, small, light, and relatively fast, not the fastest! If you what speed, then get a desktop. Today I’m very happy with me recently bought PB. It is everything a portable should be.

I hate to break this to you but I am currently typing on my inspiron 8100, which I have owned for exactly one year. My last notebook was an Inspiron 4000. Check out the new latitude D800 and D600, they are pretty decent looking by PC standards.

Why should I buy a desktop if I want speed when I can buy a very fast notebook that will beat the krap out of year old PC's and even alot of current G4 desktop powermacs for pure grunt?

I agree that the quality of my Dell dont even come close to Apple portables, but I've only had one fault in two years which was swiftly remedied by Dell. HAving a rather cheap and plasticy case doesnt actually affect usability.

[JSRockit]

Originally posted by caboosemoose
I hate to break this to you but I am currently typing on my inspiron 8100, which I have owned for exactly one year. My last notebook was an Inspiron 4000. Check out the new latitude D800 and D600, they are pretty decent looking by PC standards.

Why should I buy a desktop if I want speed when I can buy a very fast notebook that will beat the krap out of year old PC's and even alot of current G4 desktop powermacs for pure grunt?

I agree that the quality of my Dell dont even come close to Apple portables, but I've only had one fault in two years which was swiftly remedied by Dell. HAving a rather cheap and plasticy case doesnt actually affect usability.

The new inspiron 600m looks like a decent notebook...and it has intels new stuff....which I'm not sure is a good or a bad thing yet.

[JSRockit]

Originally posted by JSRockit
The new inspiron 600m looks like a decent notebook...and it has intels new stuff....which I'm not sure is a good or a bad thing yet.

The new inspiron 600m looks like a decent notebook...and it has intels new stuff....which I'm not sure is a good or a bad thing yet. The D600 looks ok, but the D800 is the same as the Dell everyone is bitching about in this thread.

[shadowfax]

Originally posted by caboosemoose
I hate to break this to you but I am currently typing on my inspiron 8100, which I have owned for exactly one year. My last notebook was an Inspiron 4000. Check out the new latitude D800 and D600, they are pretty decent looking by PC standards.

Why should I buy a desktop if I want speed when I can buy a very fast notebook that will beat the krap out of year old PC's and even alot of current G4 desktop powermacs for pure grunt?

I agree that the quality of my Dell dont even come close to Apple portables, but I've only had one fault in two years which was swiftly remedied by Dell. HAving a rather cheap and plasticy case doesnt actually affect usability.


It's good you haven't had a bad experience yet. i had an old inspiron with a pentium 166 in it about ?5? years ago, and i had no severe complaints, except that it was outrageously slow even for the time. my dad's had what i would call an "OK" experience with his dell work laptop. that is, it doesn't eat him. it's stable enough, of course... but he works for Dell, and he never tells me about his laptop problems (because he knows it's fuel for my fire :p)...

on the other hand, i have a friend in college who has a "decent" inspiron decked out with XP and all, and my god, that thing is UGLY, and i don't mean it looks bad. the hinges are totally loose, the keys are kinda nasty--it's not overly well-kempt. but she doesn't beat it up much. i don't know how it got the way it is. it crashes ALL the time--i've reformatted and started her from scratch 2 times in 5 months, and it's still just gone back to crashing and crashing. i don't know why, but it's just the worst thing i've ever seen. i would never buy one if i could avoid it.

[hacurio1]

Originally posted by caboosemoose
I hate to break this to you but I am currently typing on my inspiron 8100, which I have owned for exactly one year. My last notebook was an Inspiron 4000. Check out the new latitude D800 and D600, they are pretty decent looking by PC standards.

Why should I buy a desktop if I want speed when I can buy a very fast notebook that will beat the krap out of year old PC's and even alot of current G4 desktop powermacs for pure grunt?

I agree that the quality of my Dell dont even come close to Apple portables, but I've only had one fault in two years which was swiftly remedied by Dell. HAving a rather cheap and plasticy case doesnt actually affect usability.

Yep…and that’s why you don’t know any better. I’m all for speed, but why leave quality and design apart? Design, quality, and functionality are the most important factors for a portable. Like I said, If you’ve had Dells for the past two years, you don’t know what you have been missing. The design and functionality of portables advanced a lot since then. There are great companies that emphasize on design. Companies like Samsung, Sony, IBM, Apple, have high quality portables with great design. And if you need a P4 or a centrino Intel then get and IBM, a Samsung, or a Sony. If you need battery life, then get an Apple or a Samsung with a Centrino. If you need DVD burners, then get an Apple, or a Sony. Every individual has different needs, but again I will ask you, why sacrifice functionality and design if there is no need to? And if you tell me that Dell has high quality products then I’m sorry, but you are a lost case!!! And yes, a cheap plastic box does affect usability. Poor designs have poor results, “How ever you see it.” If your computer doesn’t have enough battery life, how can you be more productive? If your computer has a low quality keyboard, how can you be more productive? If the computer case is big and bulky, and it gets tremendously hot, how can you be more productive? Do your self a favor and go to any CompUSA and compare the keyboard an quality of the Dells and the Keyboard and quality of decent brands. You will hopefully realize the differences and come to your sense.

[JSRockit]

Originally posted by hacurio1
Companies like Samsung, Sony, IBM, Apple, have high quality portables with great design. And if you need a P4 or a centrino Intel then get and IBM, a Samsung, or a Sony.

Don't forget Fujitsu...they are making some of the best portables at this time.