Dell Precision M3800 - 2013!

I've heard that Linux (at least some distributions) handles scaling very well.

Like tijo said, I think it would look fine at 1920x1080, or if you are afraid of non-exact pixel mapping, you can set it to 1600x900

 

Scaling is a complex issue, it involves not just the OS but also the apps. Obviously not an issue if you run the display non native, but then everything is blurry. Using 1600x900 would work better, but then what's the point of getting a high dpi screen? Apple did simplify the issue by running native but optimizing for the 2x2 scaling. Windows before 8.1 didn't scale very well above 120% (what I heard because I have used 120% scaling for many years on Dell and now Vaio w/o any issues). I have friends using Windows 7 on MBPR at native resolution with scaling above 150% that seem reasonably happy so it is doable. In Windows you can chose to have your 'dpi unaware' applications scaled or unscaled (option in the display control), typically I have ran them unscaled which results in some apps running with tiny UI. Windows 8.1 is supposed to fix many scaling issues, both at the application level and when mixing displays with different dpi (that was a major complaint with Windows 8 and before). I like well enough high dpi devices that I am willing to experiment with these new classes of display. And again seeing some of my friends running native resolution of Windows on MBPRs has convinced me that it is worth experimenting. I am not familiar with Linux but I always take claim of good scaling with a grain of salt. It is a lot of work to do it right.

 

I would probably only run non-native if I was forced to run a Windows 7 partition for work.

Sent from my ASUS Transformer Pad TF700T using Tapatalk 4

 

sorry if link already was in forum
SIGGRAPH 2013: Dell Launches Precision M3800 Mobile Workstation with 3200x1800 Display | Custom PC Review

btw why dell not use quadro k2100m? its only 10 tdp difference

 

10W is a 20%+ difference.

When you are trying to go thin and light, I highly doubt they have that kind of margin.

 

Yeah, if you are cutting corners - might as well cut on everything, lol. Who, in the real professional world would care about 3-4mm difference in thickness?? And yet Dell decided to go chasing after krApple's rMBP to please the virtually non-existent market segment. I have heard lots of success stories regarding the new macbook and yet latest statistics show that their market is plummeting. So yeah, go ahead Dell, slash the connectivity, upgradability, cripple the performance, put a super glossy screen on a 15" mobile system (way to go to have your professionals agonize while trying to do presentations with all the annoying reflections)... I know, M4800 is supposed to be the solution for those, who like me are waiting for a true workhorse on the go, but IMHO, Dell should have focused their efforts on making a single machine in 15" segment, to merge the needs of both camps. It's possible to make a 22-26mm, 2.5kg machine without sacrificing the performance, connectivity and expandability. That would make the majority happy and save dell a lot of money on R&D. All they needed was bump the cooling a notch (add couple of extra pipes and make slightly bigger radiators) and we would have it all.

Ok, please forgive the outburst of emotions, am off to a different thread, nothing else to do here no more....

 

I am with Aikimox here. I would much preferred a M4800 on a diet than having to chose between a likely thermally compromised M3800 (and other restrictions mentioned above) and a bulky M4800. Until the M4800 is announced there is still hope, but the M3800 removes some of the pressure to make a lighter M4800, and as we have seen with Apple it may even eventually kill the heavier model. And Dell does not have much experience in making very thin powerful laptop.

 

Cutting corners... Optimizing designs...

Given that the k1100 is supposed to be pretty close in performance to the k2000m, I wouldn't worry about it.

If you don't optimize around thinness and weight, and focus on upgradeability, absolute performance and connectivity, you get a m4700, which I have.

Who is interested in a thinner and lighter workstation pc that doesn't have quite as much gpu performance? Me. People concerned with mobility that don't actually do as much graphics intensive work. I work all over the building where I work and take my computer home every day. A couple pounds and 7-8 mm, is significant to me. Not everyone needs a workstation because they are working with gigantic cad projects. Some people just need a quad core processor to run VMs and enough power to work with an assembly that has a few hundred parts in it.

I've never seen a community of people so hell bent on complaining about anything changing. God forbid dell attempt to get into another market segment.

Sent from my ASUS Transformer Pad TF700T using Tapatalk 4

 

Having now a Vaio Z I appreciate thin and light. It is just that Dell does not have a stellar record on the thin and relatively light (take the latest XPS 15 debacle). I'll be fine with a K110M M3800 as long as it does not overheat, has decent Wifi capability, does not have to throttle down at modest load, and does not have a 2 pound power brick.
I am delighted that Dell has apparently a decent offer on the light and portable workstation market, I just hope it delivers.

 

It's called brand loyalty; and yes, many people are passionate about it. As for me, I have no problem with Dell wanting to expand, as long as they don't go monkeying with a product I'm already satisfied with.

Sure I'd love a thinner, lighter Precision, but not at the cost of performance. I bought a Precision because I'm more concerned with maximum GPU/CPU than I am it being thin and light. If I felt otherwise, I would have purchased a MBP/Sony Vaio etc., instead.