Dell has gone mad and designed this really weird portable computer that's not really a laptop. Cnet has a set of pictures of the Dell XPS M2010. "Dell's new XPS M2010, which starts at $3500, includes two hard drives with up to 120GB capacity each, a Core Duo processor and 4GB of dual-channel (667MHz) memory."
Post a Comment
Member since:
2005-07-06
Member since:2005-07-10
For something that is designed similar to a laptop why not just buy a laptop? Such as Dell's "Inspiron XPS M1710" or "Precision M90" both of which support 4 GB 667 MHz RAM, Intel Core Duo processor with hard drive matching the XPS M2010. The XPS M2010 appears to be Dell's competitive alternative to Apple's iMac.
Member since:2005-07-07
The XPS M2010 appears to be Dell's competitive alternative to Apple's iMac.
??? They are completely different league, with completely different purpose. How could it be compared to iMac?
But, in my personal viewpoint I don't see MacBook Pro worth $2500, but I see this one worth $3500, because I know few people who would die for 20" notebook with these specs (personally, I wouldn't fit it in any single occasion I encounter). This notebook (or is it tablebook?) is for example a dream machine for anyone using H2 and such.
Member since:2005-07-07
Member since:2005-11-10
Member since:2005-07-07
But, in my personal viewpoint I don't see MacBook Pro worth $2500, but I see this one worth $3500, because I know few people who would die for 20" notebook with these specs (personally, I wouldn't fit it in any single occasion I encounter). This notebook (or is it tablebook?) is for example a dream machine for anyone using H2 and such.
Actually the iMac is more of an apt comparison than the macbook pro. The dell weighs 20 LBs/9 Kg, the 20 inch iMac weighs 22lbs/10 kg. You can't really compare this to a 6.8lb /3.1 Kg 17" laptop.
You can't really lug this 20lb beast around every day in a backpack. I can't really see the point of this so called portable 20" desktop. $3500 will buy you a nice Dell desktop with a much larger screen and specs to play H2.
I am sure Dell had a reason to make it and will sell a few. But my money is on Dell not making another version anytime soon and canceling it eventually. We will see what happens.
Member since:
2005-11-11
haha I was going to post a link to a pic of the Compaq Portable, but TFA beat me to it..
I like the idea of Dell's machine. I rarely use laptops on my lap. I mainly use them for the portability (easier to move from place to place than my full tower desktop).
Something like the M2010 would be great. Full size screen and keyboard, but easy to take back and forth to work, or more importantly, to a LAN party 
The article doesn't mention too much about the internals. Can the thing take PCI cards? PCI express graphics cards? If it can handle a few more upgrades than your standard laptop, with its better portability compared to a desktop it seems like it could fill a nice niche.
Member since:
2005-08-13
Its a big & sexy version of a laptop - something that can be used as a replacement for a desktop it seems if its expamadable in any way.
Reminds me of "portable" Sparc workstations .
Still look like a real computer not some collection of flimsy bits of rubber & plastic melted into one.
Mmmmh portable workstation - perfect idea .
Member since:
2005-11-11
http://www.mobilewhack.com/reviews/dell_xps_m2010_mobile_concept_pc...
edit - Well, not a review but more information.
Edited 2006-06-04 16:05
Member since:
2005-07-09
Damn that should be quite cool for a developer on the go I guess. If you are a hard core developer say using Java you can easily always want more and more power to power the massive IDEs and the massive application servers....etc etc. With that much hard drive space in those super fast 100 gig 7200 rpm hdds and in raid 0 option, you can basically become a one man army with your database and app server running in that machine while you can also develop your java code in that machine! I can do it on my laptop right now but it only has a measly 60 gig hard drive and mine is not dual core! I would buy one of those in a heartbeat. 20 inch screen is beautiful!
Member since:2005-07-22
Member since:2005-07-09
Member since:2006-05-14
"Yes I meant RAID 0. I have been using RAID 0 all my life and I have yet to have a single problem with it. And besides DVDs are cheap for backup anyway!"
Ahhh, spoken like a developer not a sys admin ... 
I can appreciate you wanting to get as much speed and storage space out of this "luggable", but I think the point was it is a *portable device* and thus damage to your hard drive(s) maynot be an unlikely event. Therefore RAID 1 would at least provide alitte redundancy if you should trash a hard drive. But then, what the heck, it already weighs ~ 20lb/10kg what's the additional weight of a couple of spare drives and 20-40 DVDs you've used to backup your system/data? (BTW, hope one or so of those DVDs is bootable and includes your system/software config.) But whatever works for you, it's just that RAID 0 causes *me* to go into cold sweats.
Now, back to the story....
For the right application/need this would make a great workstation or demonstration server. Also a nice addition to a conference/meeting room with limited multimedia capabilities.
Kinda' fun watching the evolution/de-evolution of computer products, reminds me of my 1984 IBM Portable PC (I won't miss the 9" amber screen). So what's next in the SUV-category of mobile devices....maybe a 10 pound cell phone with video conferencing/surround-sound audio and streaming video? Guess we'll have to wait and see....just hope you're not late for your airline connection and have to make a run through the airport!
Member since:2005-07-08
I'm a little incredulous on two points. First, I can't believe you have yet to experience a hard drive failure (which completely knocks out a RAID 0 array). I had THREE hard drives in my two laptops fail on me in 2005 alone. While backing up a 100GB+ array is feasible, albeit painful, using DVDs, if you have been using RAID 0 all your life, I wonder what you were doing a couple years ago when you didn't have a DVD writer?
RAID 0 is a complete joke, a lame attempt to sucker more cash from enthusiasts. Most of the benchmarks I've read have been jukewarm on the performance benefits of RAID 0. Anyone who spends the money on two hard drives might as well throw in a third and run a respectable RAID 5... or just get one of those 10K RPM Raptors for your applications partition.
But saying you've been using RAID 0 all your life and haven't (yet) had a problem is like saying you never put quarters in the parking meter and have yet to get a ticket.
Member since:2005-07-06
butters: First, I can't believe you have yet to experience a hard drive failure (which completely knocks out a RAID 0 array).
Well... From a personal standpoint, I have never seen a RAID 0 array fail myself either and I'm not just talking about my own computers here.
butters: I had THREE hard drives in my two laptops fail on me in 2005 alone.
This I find unlikely. That's more hard drive failures in one year than I've seen in 24 years of using computers. Either you use really crudy equipment than what I'm used to, you are using yours in a significantly different manner than I use mine, you were unlucky, or everyone I know is ridicuously lucky.
To be blunt, I find hard drives to be extremely reliable.
butters: While backing up a 100GB+ array is feasible, albeit painful, using DVDs, if you have been using RAID 0 all your life, I wonder what you were doing a couple years ago when you didn't have a DVD writer?
Well... I don't know about the original poster, but to me doubling the amount of space isn't that big of a change for backups. First of all, it's going to take a lot of DVD's to backup the complete setup even before you double it with RAID 0. Second, not all files are that important. Some can be produced again quite readily and others already have backups. Third, not all failures require restoring from backups, they frequently just require minor repair to the data structures, so I still don't see the need.
butters: RAID 0 is a complete joke, a lame attempt to sucker more cash from enthusiasts.
And RAID 1 is an attempt to sucker more cash from the paranoid, while taking half their harddrive space and granting no noticable difference in reliability.
Seriously though, I can understand a system administrator setting up RAID 1 for people, because of the raw number of computers he/she will probably have to deal with. I'm sure for them, that the difference in the number of failures is quite noticable.
From a professional standpoint, I can't believe that using RAID 0 is going to change his chances on an individual level so much that he will notice the difference. If what you say is true and this is common (for three hard drive failures in one year!) and that these failures require restoring from backups... Well... I don't know about him, but for me, I would be hauling around backup DVDs anyway, simply because I can't afford such a high number of failures, even RAID 1 would not cut it down enough for me.
But then, it's his choice... I'm sure he knows what's best for his uses and if he doesn't, he'll learn.
Member since:2005-07-09
Hehe my last raid was 2 60 gig in raid 0...and yes before dvd writers were out...I did in fact.....use...CD-Rs!!! They were a pain but they did get me in the habit of doing regular backups of important things. And besides I dont back up everything. And I usually have like 405 of the total hdd space left empty anyways since I dont download digital media and so on to fill up my drives. But honestly you must have had some really bad luck with hard drivees. Perhaps I will experience that sometime soon now that i have jinxed myself but I hope not. *knocks on wood*
Member since:
2005-09-10
... build the mightiest sub 50W ten-node x86 apartment distributed FOSS wlan cluster that charity can buy! All those windup cranks are guaranteed to break the ice at parties and why not rip a DVD a day and get yourself some biceps? http://www.pledgebank.com/100laptop
... or (on a less serious note) why not go for two Dual core iMac's and a big roll of duct tape for those nice outdoor excursions? Anyone?
Edited 2006-06-04 17:56
Member since:
2005-07-22
Member since:
2005-07-06
Member since:
2005-06-29
Member since:
2006-05-30
Member since:
2006-05-17
Member since:2005-07-07
I suppose they could force some poor intern to lug this thing about when the executive goes on a road trip. While price may not be too much of an issue, the fact that it isn't really portable is. What does the 20" screen (and 9kg weight) bring that a laptop with a 17" screen that weighs a third the weight can't do?
Member since:
2005-08-28
This is the sort of computer I've wanted for a long time. I don't really buy the "let's get the thinnest, lightest thing possible" crowd... how many people bitched that Apple removed the superdrive from the Macbook Pro just so they could make it thinner?
A friend has a 2 pound Sony laptop with a 12 inch screen, that's so thin the keyboard has to retract onto its base so it doesn't scratch the screen. It's barely tall enough to fit a USB plug, and about the only internal thing is the hard drive itself (and that's a small and wimpy thing too)- ethernet or modem have to fit in the single PCMCIA slot. The fact that I called it "wimpy" is probably a good indicator that I'd be in the market for a desktop, except that I want the option of moving my system around if necessary.
A 20 pound luggable OBVIOUSLY isn't going to sit on anyone's lap, nor is it the computer an executive would want to take with them to presentations, but it is good for one thing: people (like me) who don't move their computers much (like desktops) but want to be able to move it somewhere else quickly (like a laptop). My laptop usually sits on my desk for weeks, but occasionally I'll find cause to move it elsewhere... Even my laptop is a bit hefty (seven pounds) to carry around every day, but since I don't I wouldn't mind a little extra weight or a taller case if I could get more features. I'm pretty sure I've said that several times in postings here, too.
Granted, 20 pounds is a LOT of extra weight, and I'm not sure the gains are really that spectacular. But the intent of the machine is at least right. Maybe if they could cut the weight to 12 pounds... and if it wasn't Dell...
Member since:2005-08-28
Ok, having looked at C|net it looks like this new luggable isn't even as powerful as some of Dell's own 17" laptops of much smaller size. Sorry, no thanks. I'm willing to sacrifice weight and size for more power and functionality, not sheer ostentatious bigness (if you'll pardon the term).
I still like the idea, but the execution of this luggable stinks. For that weight and price I'd expect something utterly spectacular.
Member since:2005-07-09
