Dell Adamo Arrives: Available For Pre-Order Today

Yeah, that's kind of a no brainer....charge premium prices later when you successfully build up brand equity and knowledge. Me thinks that this is gonna be the "first gen Latitude XT" of Dell's consumer lineup, and we'll be able to snatch them up for a song in the Outlet in a year or two."

 

I think the price is competitive since it apparently includes a 128 gb SSD, a ULV processor, and DDR3 RAM. That's less than the Macbook Air with SSD. It's also similar or better than a comparably-configured Sony Z, Voodoo Envy 133, or Lenovo Thinkpad X301.

In other words, the price is fair... whether it'll sell in the current economy, I don't know.

Where this laptop really falls short (IMO) is that it's heavier and less powerful (CPU, GPU) than the Macbook Air.

 

The Apple called. They want their design back.

 

price is fair? you can't configure all those notebooks above as weak as adamo-the low end sony is at least 2x more powerful than it,air has 1.6 and 1.8 CPU and 9400gt!

 

The Air does not have a 9400gt. It has a 9400M G: http://www.nvidia.com/object/product_geforce_9400m_g_us.html
(footnote 1 on that page)

Anyways... Dell chose a weaker but more power-efficient CPU... most computers with the ULV processors are expensive. They just chose power-efficiency over performance. Thinkpad X301 has similar cpu and graphics and a similar price. Sony on the other hand chose their CPU for performance over power-efficiency. So, yes I think the pricing is fair.

But as I mentioned, I do think that this laptop has weaknesses in the areas of performance and weight.

 

Adamo specs are very very disappointing.

ULV processor? and only with 5 hrs of battery life??? Integrated graphics..?? 2k+ price tag? Lastly, 4 pounds? They gone otherboard by thinking the design is justified enough for the price.

So many other alternatives are better than this. Lenovo, Sony, hell even Samsung.

 

I completely agree...there's way too much media hype on both sides, though mostly the anti-Dell is pretty strong coming out of blogs like Engadget and mainstream sites like CNet. Honestly, why can't people just shut up and stop reading their posts letter for letter thinking that what they say is the penultimate truth. $2000 for a laptop is a lot, but for that market (which I don't think is going to disappear anytime soon) its not. I don't think Apple is losing out too badly with the MBP right now, and even if this specific laptop doesn't sell too well...plenty of others are still buying $2K+ laptops still.

 

I guess i was wrong this is still a great notebook but i was SO CERTAIN that this notebook would have been around $1500 .....oh well it will still probably sell.

 

...seem to be paying alot for lightness+style. Though I'd be happy to take 5 of this over the Dell any time.

http://www.amazon.com/10-Inch-Netbo...2?ie=UTF8&s=electronics&qid=1237318755&sr=8-2

Cos its neither here nor there imo. Sure it looks good, but...$1999 for the basic 13 inches model?!? might as well get a better spec'ed portable machine:

Far cheaper netbook with better battery, or
Better featured X61 (on sale for $650 a few days ago),
or a far more powerful 14 incher, like T400 with dedicated graphics.

Or if style is it:

Macbook Air doesn't look bad...

Its just this laptop tries to be hip, but IMO its not: its not nearly as productive and full featured as a thinkpad; and mucher bigger than typical netbook..

 

lol or you are even better off buying an Lenovo X300 and even the X301 which they are having some phenomenal deals on.

 

Yet the Sony Z gets better battery life than all of the above (MBA, X301, Adamo, Envy 133) with standard batteries.

This is ridiculous. Compared to the MacBook Air, the Adamo is much slower, heavier, uglier, more expensive, and gets worse battery life. Compared to the X301 it's heavier, uglier (IMO, with that ugly thing sticking out the back - what is it with Dell and ugly rear ends?), no DVD burner, worse battery life, and way more expensive when compared to some Lenovo deals.

The only good thing about the Adamo is it's thin (0.65"?), but it's way too heavy. I think if it weighed ~3 pounds it would have had a chance of success, but at 4 pounds this is totally pointless.

Yeah I got my ThinkPad X300 for $1300, and it's an incredible laptop - 3.3 pounds, amazing build quality, super high res screen, DVD burner, etc. I don't know what Dell is thinking.

 

You seriously thought this was targeted at the same market as the MB/MBP? Really?

 

Sorry to disagree, that's only a weak excuse of manufacturers
The sole reason to produce 16:9 is because it's cheaper to make, that is it!

 

That's actually horribly depressing (OK, exaggerating, but still). I wanted to buy a new notebook when Windows 7 is released, but now I'm not so sure if I should wait that long anymore...

My real only problem with 16:9 screens is the loss of resolution and loss of available resolutions.

You can't do the standard 1024 x 768 on a 1280 x 720 16:9 screen, but you can do it on a 1280 x 800 16:10 screen.

You can't do the standard 1600 x 1200 on a 1920 x 1080 16:9 monitor, but you can do it on a 1920 x 1200 16:10 monitor.

This sucks balls...

 

Yeah I don't know what Dell is thinking. If it was under 3 pounds, MAYBE you could consider this. The fact that it is 4 pounds throws all that out the window, and that's not saying anything about its mediocre/poor battery life, weak processor (no benefits even with such a weak processor?), and questionable design R&D.

 

I'm not saying cost isn't a factor, in fact, it is one of the largest factors, among other reasons to switch to 16:9 panels.

 

About the 16:10 and 16:9 ratios... What ever happened to just having those black bars on top to fill the gap?

Also, the same people that buy the macbook air will buy the adamo. But I think even less so, because the brand lacks the "cool" factor that Mac's are famous for. But I think this is an attempt by dell to get some more visual/"cool" appeal across their lineup by saying "We can be high end and sophisticated too!"

 

WOW, SUPERB, but too expensive, I was thinking the price would have been lower, but boy was I wrong

 

The design is amazing. I was planning on buying one.. but 2k, 4 pounds and no discrete graphics? give me a break. Even with my employee discount, I just dont see the point.

 

Bluray option+ Intel GMX4500?

 

That's a VERY stylish laptop.
However I won't even consider PC upgrades until Windows 7 is out and lives up to beta reviews.

 

Ya know ... I actually think it doesn't look THAT great.

And too expensive imo as well.

Meh.

 

It's likely that it has an accelerator known as Broadcom Media PC. The Inspiron 1525 had this and used it for Blu-Ray playback. More info: http://forum.notebookreview.com/showthread.php?t=234448

 

There are no other reasons that make manufacturers switch to 16:9 beside the costs.

And I still don't understand why they focus on "coolness" more than on functionalities and durability. Come on, you buy a laptop to use it, not for somebody to look at it. Though that doesn't mean laptops should be looking ugly, the "look" factor should not be the first priority when designing a laptop.

 

Pretty nice design, other than the underpowered CPU (1.4 GHz should be standard, at that price), but way way too expensive. It is even possible to get a Macbook Air for cheaper!

Dell should offer a conventional hard drive version for less money.

As of right now, I think the weight and price would make any customers seriously reconsider - the Sony Vaio Z is cheaper, has better battery life, is lighter, and looks amazing as well.

 

Some people do place a priority on style over performance though. For the, there's the Adamo, for everyone else, there's still the SXPS laptops. Hopefully Dell doesn't find some way to screw those up too.

 

Again, 16:9 is the standard for HDTV and will be better for watching HD videos (eliminates black bars on most HD content). With all the HDTV hype, it's only natural for notebooks to follow this trend. Price is also a major player in determining what aspect ratio screens should be produced, but at the end of the day, there still needs to be a market for a particular product in order for manufactures to produce these products. Screen manufacturers can probably make even cheaper panels; the question is, will consumers ever buy them?

As for the coolness factor, this is all personal preference. And like all new and fancy gadgets on the market, they will come at a premium.

 

The ONLY reason to buy this is because of its looks.

 

This is only partially true. The only HD video sources that use 16:9 are tv shows. Movies use other ratios, so there'll still be black bars.

I don't think it necessarily is that there is a market for these panels, but it's just that laptop makers can't do a ed thing about it. They can't tell panel makers to keep making 16:10. Once LG, Samsung, AUO and CMO decide to make 16:9, computer makers can only oblige. Similarly, the laptop costumers can't do a thing about it. It doesn't matter if they want 16:9 or 16:10. It's forced on them and they have to take it.

 

Why is it so heavy? Its casing is a single sheet of aluminum, its one of the thinnest laptops on the market, and it doesn’t have a dedicated graphics card/associated cooling, an optical drive, or a mechanical hard drive for gods sake. Is the case lined with lead or something?

This is to say nothing of the price ($200 more than the faster MBA…wow, way to bring the value quotient in a terrible economy, Dell) or the performance/lack thereof (this thing is on par with most 2lb ultraportables, need I say more?).

 

For those complaining about the price, I (and everyone else) who bought an XPS M1330 when they first came out paid more.

 

1.78:1 (more frequently referred to as 16:9) is most prevalent in HD television broadcasts. Movies however (particularly action and animation) are filmed at 2.35:1 which will draw place bars into the frame (thus wasting light/power/etc.). 2.35:1 is more and more common anymore in the cinema because it uses the humans field of vision more effectively. That is, per THX standards, a horizontal viewing angle of 36 degrees and no less than 26 degrees, or per SMPTE standards 30 degrees. In contrast vertical viewing angles are recommended to be around 15-20 degrees (a normal human's cone of vision has a radius of approx. 15 degrees). Basically, what I'm saying is that horizontal viewing angles have a much greater magnitude than vertical and the current 1.78:1 convention does not take full advantage of this to give the user the best immersion into the scene. Don't forget that there are still a lot of movies that are in other ratios such as 1.85:1, 1.25:1, 1.33:1, 2.39:1 etc..

So, not to sound rude to either of you, but you are both incorrect. To say that 1.78:1 is a "HD standard" is untrue as movies have been, and will continue to be, released at many other aspect ratios, with 2.35:1 being the predominant alternative and continues to gain a larger and larger following. And to say that "the only HD video sources that use 16:9 are tv shows" is also very wrong, as there are movies that are using 1.78:1.

I've said this in another thread in this section already, and I'll say it again, 1.78:1 should remain in the television market and not in the computer market. Computer MONITORS are not meant to be TELEVISIONS and those that use them for such should have to deal with the downfalls of doing so. To instead take computer MONITORS and turn them more and more into televisions is just hampering a product that is useful to those that use there computers for work, and effectively leave them NO other option or alternative. Meanwhile, if we left the computer MONITORS alone those that wish to use there computers for other "media" means could just as easily choose to hook them up to televisions instead of computer monitors. This move is destroying one segment of products to turn them into something that is already available in another product. This is absolutely no good for consumers any way you spin it.

 

Maybe I'm missing something, but where is the headphone jack on this thing?

 

If you look in the first picture in the OP, you'll see that it's near the hinge on the side facing towards the camera. Haven't seen many laptops where the jack is so far towards the rear of the laptop.

 

A lot of people will still view this as being light weight for what is a 13.4 laptop. It is a bit too pricey though i feel. This must be like £1,500 in the UK which is just a bit much. If you want a really portable laptop with superb battery life then best to look for a <12.1 inch.

Battery life is on par with the MBA (battery life of the Adamo is stated at 5 hours +) and it has many advantages over the MBA. We need to see a review to comment more about the battery life. The MBA is also far from being cheap.

The MBA does have the better processor. Dell probably will offer a more wider selection in the way of processors in the coming months i should imagine.

If it had a dvd drive i might have been interested in it as my main laptop. It is a shame that they could not have designed this laptop to have a removable internal drive.

 

2 JayG30

oh man, how I am with you!!!!! you said almost all my thoughts, I only can add this:

computer monitor primarily is (should be(!)) made for READING TEXT. if you don't believe, that widescreen formats are not suitable for this, go see, what aspect ratios are used in usual text book or even A4 format page, etc...

 

$4300 for a 13" with Integrated graphics? Nice joke, Dell.

 

Ouch, we aussies are not being helped by the currency exchange rates.

 

At the end of the day this is mostly a halo product for Dell, they won't sell a whole bunch but they will get publicity and debate (as is evidenced) and it can't hurt their image to have a high-end well designed offering. As far as a business decision goes for them, they might be wasting their money. Wal Mart found out that people didn't really want to go there to buy more expensive fashion items, just decent quality items at a very good price, Dell might find its customers want the same from it and could care less about fanciful laptops.

I don't know why every company feels the need to have a ridiculously expensive offering that everyone talks about, while the meat of their sales come from the more boring $700 laptop with a 15" - 16" screen. But that's the way it works.

 

What about the Samsung X360? 2.8 pounds, claimed to have 10 hours of battery life, processor about the same, about as thin. 13.3", 700$ on amazon after rebates. Seems to me to better in every aspect.

And most important of all, it looks better. And I disagree, 4 pounds is not light for a 13 inch.

 

Where do you see that price? Got a link?

 

Amazon is selling out like hotcakes (it was in stock when I posted about it a few hours ago). Just wait for Amazon to have it back in stock again when it says "Sold by Amazon.com." They've had it throughout the week but it sells out fast. They sell it as $1000 and Samsung has a $300 mail in rebate, so that comes out to $700 total.

http://www.amazon.com/Samsung-X360-...1?ie=UTF8&s=electronics&qid=1237382610&sr=8-1

Or if you want to pay a $999 after rebates,

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B0...f?ie=UTF8&s=electronics&qid=1237382610&sr=8-1

for the 128 GB ssd version.

 

Why does this keep popping into my head?

 

Yeah I'd guess they'd sell out like crazy seeing how that one is almost double the price. Nice looking laptop.

 

You can't compare TVs to laptops. The only thing you can ever do with TV is watching movies or TV shows, that's it. Perhaps playing some consoles but that's another story.

Now, people don't just buy laptops to watch movies on little tiny screens . Plus, HD is at res 1920x1080 and only some offer that, the rest have some really pathetic resolutions such as this Adamo.

 

Corrected

 

markhedder The Samsung was not that price when it was released.
I still need to read more battery life tests/reviews for the Adamo.
I don't agree that the Samsung looks better.
For a lot of people 4lbs is still pretty light weight for a laptop. If it had the features i needed i would not object to buying it if it weighed 4lbs.
My current main laptop is about weight and i have no problems with it.
However, my travel laptop is 11.1 because i find the size 13.3 the form factor too big for travel use right now.
I need a laptop that can fit on a study desk with no problem and that has excellent battery life.
When my needs change i could back to use the 13.3 on the go and the weight would not bother or concern me at all but everyone is different. I personally would not go over 4.3lbs for a laptop that i intended to be portable with.

 

HEAR HEAR. This man speaks the truth. The market does not want 16:9 and its time the notebook manufacturers realize that.

+REP

 

The Adamo right now is simply overpriced.
As, with all *new* things, it will come down....in time.
My EPP Rep called last night and left a VM regarding if I was going to make a purchase. I spoke with him today, and told him even with the discounts I would receive it wasn't worth it right now.


Cin

 

2 grand for a 4 pounder with a 1080p 13" led, 9400m, and a custom made low voltage c2d a la MBA, in a package this thin would be worth it... as it is it's pointlessly expensive though