M6600 and M4600 are coming in Feb.

external screen is no option for me, i am at different locations working, currently where i am today i even have a place for a external screen, so i have to do it with the laptop screen only, thats why i want a 17" high resolution,
The whole point of having a laptop is that it is mobile.. and when you want to use an external screen all the time, then i get by a desktop just fine..

Going to one of those then what do i gain compared to what i currently have? not much, the M6500 many co workers already have are not that much faster then mine, especially because of the SSD.
Moving to the SB platform would give me a jump over 2 generations... and cpu wise that is a big jump of what i have now..

But i agree with you that bootcamping is not really a good option also. So i guess i have to stick longer to my current system and hope it doesn't break.
Maybe HP,Dell or Lenovo will still surprise me at some point..

 

Ok. But that argument would also count for any other computer component. A 500 GB hdd is cheaper than a 1000 GB but still 1000 GB hdd are produced. i7 720qm is cheaper than 920xm and still 920xm is produced. If people demand stuff and are willing to pay more, then typcially that stuff is produced. Strange that this is not true anymore for display panels.
Workstation laptops like Dell Precisions are sold at high prices, so one should expect to get top components.

 

I wonder for how long all rumors about how bad Boot Camp works etc. will stick. Google for more resent results (like 2010) and you'll find that it's really working.
Funny that people complain about poor battery life when that poor life amounts to 4-5 hours (my M90 lasts for 1½ hour)

I'm in the process of preparing myself for buying a MBP to replace my M90 so I try to gather facts instead of fiction/rumors.

If you look in the Apple forums you'll see lots of people switching to Apple hardware with the intent to run Windows 7 (I'm one of them).

 

There still has to be a large enough market to get a profit out of it. Apparently, the market for high end integrated LCD panels is a lot smaller than any of those of us that would prefer one would like. As well, there's a difference in the price level as well. A TB hard drive is more expensive than a 500 GB hard drive, it's true, but even the cost of a TB hard drive is about the same, or less, than a "normal" LCD panel (hard drives, apart from SSDs rarely cost much more than $100-$150; a low end LCD panel costs that much, if not more). The processors have a different excuse; since you can't easily "add processor power" in the same space, the i7-920XM is about the only solution if you want more processing power. On the other hand, at least in theory, you could just hook up to an external panel if you "need" a greater resolution. There's also the argument that 500 GB hard drives and 1 TB hard drives share a lot of components, and sometimes the only difference is that the 1 TB hard drive has more platters (of the same kind) than the 500 GB drive. As well, there have been some theories that there isn't a lot of difference between an i7-920XM and an i7-720QM; that some i7-720QMs are just defective i7-920XMs that weren't up to standard, and thus were "downgraded" to i7-720QMs. Also, demand for LCD panels overall is ridiculously high. There simply isn't the extra manufacturing capacity to produce both 16:9 and 16:10 in any reasonable quantity, so they have to choose to either make one or the other. Suffice it to say that there are many factors involved, but the end result is that the companies that make LCD panels have decided, for whatever reason, that 16:10 high end panels are no longer profitable.

 

and the end result is that the drive many into the arms of apple..
So i can't believe that they will not make profit out of it, apple is quite expensive so they can be in the 2000+ range also for a good configures system..

 

Dell was one of the pioneers in lean/just in time inventory management. We studied them in depth when I was earning my MSBA in MIS. I can believe that Apple would buy long term contracts for panels, but actually taking delivery of several years worth of them would be a lot of warehousing overhead to deal with. Then again, with Apple's breathtaking profit margins, maybe they can afford it

 

The main reason for the death of 16:10. Cheapo consumers screaming for faster laptops and lower prices. People weren't complaining about the first jumps to 16:9 so the trend continued until all consumer 16:10 screens were gone, then it happened to business notebooks.

Until consumers start complaining about crappy 16:9, the trend will continue. I mean who wants 1368x768 on a 16" notebook, it's absolutely gut wrenching.

Why oh why did they have to go 16:9 on Precisions..

 

I think it's more like LCD manufacturers phasing out the 16:9 screeens (like they did with 16:10) because it's cheaper for them to manufacture it.

So, they can just stop making new models of 16:10 screens and reduce the production of current models (thus raising the prices) until they are completely phased out thus leaving the notebook and display manufacturers with little choice.

Though it seems that if the sufficient demand was there, they might have kept the 17" 1920*1200 line open.. I can see that the dektop 30" LCDs are still going strong and new models are coming out. Maybe Dell just wanted to switch so they could have the latest craze - touchscreen support?

 

Any idea whether the M4600 will have 4 memory slots? W510, W520 and 8540w all have 4...

M4400 and M4500 only have two.

 

Sandy Bridge is only 2 memory slots. The Clarksfield processors had 4 memory slots, so no, they will only have two.

Edit: I just noticed you said 'W520' I'm not sure then, all of the quad core's had 4 memory slots last generation, but all the currently coming out ones have 2, except for the W520, so i'm not sure.