Dell Adamo Arrives: Available For Pre-Order Today

Lol that's what the refurbed outlet is for in a couple of months

 

The black bars don't bother me at all. The loss of 120 pixels height wise bothers me greatly. I can understand cost, but some people use thier laptops for more then watching a dvd or tv. I have a 1920x1200 res screen for a reason, heck a lot of times I require 2 1920x1200 screens.

 

Perhaps the best we can do is just avoid all laptops and monitors that have 16:9 resolutions. It's going to severely limit what we can buy, but it's really our only choice right now, and it's the only way to tell these companies that we don't want to downgrade to 16:9 screens.

 

i KNEW someone was going to post saying something along the lines of "corrected." Should have taken precaution.

The price was actually $999.99 when I posted the link, as the people who read it during that time can attest to. Notice the $1999.99 is not sold by Amazon, but another company and it's not "after rebates." Only the ones "sold by Amazon" are that cheap, like I said in my previous post and they are selling like hotcakes. Honest mistake on your part.

1) You're right, the Samsung was not cheap when it released. But you can get it for cheaper now, that's all that matters in the competitive world. There wasn't a laptop on par with the Samsung at the time it was released, but Dell has these competitions now and pricing that high does not help in any way. And even if it was 1-2000$, the Samsung justifies its price because of its long battery life and extremely light weight, the Dell does not justify its price in any way in my eyes.

2) Most likely poor battery life, I'd say around 3ish.

3) Beauty is in the eye of beholder. I don't know anyone who would prefer that brick of a battery over a flush, so I maintain that the Samsung looks much better.

4) 4 lbs is average for a 13" notebook, but it's not light. The Samsung is 2.8 pounds, now that is light. Lenovos are around 3ish, macbook air, etc. Even the Vaio Z is 3.4 pounds, and the specs are vastly superior. 4 lbs is average I would say, but only for laptops with good specs and GPUS and optical drives at the least. This unit does not even come with an optical drive! You are comparing computers with great specs that are 4 pounds and saying that this unit, which is not even close, is light. Those computers with great specs and optical drives are 4 pounds for a reason, I can't seem to find the reason for this.

But I agree that what you say is plain. Still, I don't know who this laptop is catering too? The CPU is really poor compared to modern CPUs, and you don't even have the privilege of saying that you are buying it because it's lightweight or because it has long battery life.

Imagine it like buying a netbook that is 4 pounds and 13" with poor battery life, with the price extremely higher than a fast core2 duo. You would ask, why buy a netbook like that? That's what I see here.

 

well,if you don't need extremely light 13",why not to go with Sony sr or apple mb? both are very cheap compared to this

 

Where is the "extremely light 13"" in this thread? The Adamo weighs more than a base-spec XPS M1330.

 

And thats what i meant

 

The Adamo is nice but ultimately a luxury curiosity like a (Asus) Lamborghini or Macbook Air...stuff for people who don't factor price into their buying decision.

Instead of competing against the Macbook Air, Dell's next Adamo should compete against the $1300 unibody Macbook. Up the thickness and weight a little, give us a plain old spinning hard drive, standard Core2Duo...and charge $1000, also putting it in direct competition with the $1000 plastic Macbook (which would you take for your $1000?) If Dell directly targets Apple's market - which has really grown pretty big with people who want a computer that is more than (barely) functional but stylish, durable, and reliable, not a disposable throwaway - and cuts out the Apple Tax (thus $1000 pricepoint), I would imagine that, together with Windows 7 and the good PR it's getting, Dell could win back a substantial number of the Apple converts who've left in the last few years.

There is no good reason why Dell can't out-Apple Apple, especially in the budget-midmarket category where it has always excelled.

 

the difference between Dell and Apple is that dell doesn't have nor Apple's fan<s>boy</s> base nor MasOS X,which is a factor for some!

 

wow, I thought apple was overpriced...

 

Well they still are Nah but really if the air has a price cut we may see the tides shift.

 

I have to laugh at some of the comparisons being done. Dell has said from the beginning that Adamo was going to be more of a luxury brand (a demographic most of us can only aspire to).

People complain about the hinge design, yet fail to realize that it would be nearly impossible for Dell to put 2 USB ports, e-SATA/USB combo, and display port on the sides of this thing due to its extremely thin form factor. Dell witnessed the masses of criticism the MBA received for its 1 USB port and did what was needed to include a much broader array of ports. The hinge design, with the portion sticking beyond, became a necessity to have those ports (if Dell did not accomodate for this, they would receive the same flaming the MBA received for few ports).

People complain about the weight. Sure, this is on the high end for 13" laptops, but don't be surprised when all the reviews out their talk about this being the one of best build and most solid laptops they've ever seen. (One of the biggest aspects of a notebook serious users demand). Even at that, 4 pounds really isn't that bad. I've been carting my 4.5lb XPS1330 back and forth to school, and all around campus, every day for over a year. It hasn't bothered me one bit.

Furthermore, eople compare tphis with other 13" laptops that have much better features, optical drive, discrete graphics, etc. But, again, those other laptops have much more space to work with in comparison. The Adamo was not built to have a killer feature set. This thing was built for design. And for the luxury market, design is key. After all, this is the thinnest notebook out on the market (to my knowledge).

Lastly, to compare this with netbooks is not fair, either. Sure they offer more features for far cheaper, but netbooks target a totally different market with a totally different value proposition. Apples and oranges. Adamo is not a netbook, it is a LUXURY notebook. So, let's start comparing this with other luxury notebooks and see how it really stacks up in its market.

*phew* Sorry about all that. Just had to get it off my chest. IMO, though, I was a little disappointed by the processor and the price, though with all things electronic price will come down with time (Everyone who stood in line to get a G1 iPhone knows this all too well). Besides, if you're not really a gamer or do serious photo/video editing, the Adamo should be able to handle most everything you need for day-to-day life. And for some people, like me, anything smaller than 13" gets too small and too difficult to work with on a continual basis. If I had 2k to burn, I'd get it without a second thought.

 

yah, just checked the Canadian prices...
Dell Adamo 1.2ghz/128GB SSD 2GB X4500 = 2499$ CAD
Apple MacBook Air 1.6Ghz/120GB HDD 2GB/ 9400GM = 2000$ CAD (and I could get a 50$ off through educational discounts. )

If it had to pick I would take the MBA

//and the people who have seen some of my posts on Mac vs PC threads know I don't look kindly on apple.

 

so x300/x301 is not real?
compare to dell adamo, I don't see what the impossible things with it?

too thin? 3 USB ? Display port? and also has 4 lbs. then adamo finally comes out but after x300 was released about a 1year

 

You know that could very well happen. Shall we start a poll on that???

It all depends on Dell, the consumer, inventory...etc.


Cin

 

There is such a huge discount at the outlet

We may even see a Adamo refurbed for maybe in $1500ish range. That would be great

I honestly can see alot of people canceling there orders because its taking too long or something. Usually when notebooks like this come out the waiting list is backed up.

 

Yup! When I played around with a config' at my Dell EPP site last night..the Prelim. ship date was 4/29 And, I was just perusing the *Admire* version...Yes, I was *admiring*.... Total cost w/my EPP $1901.

Cin

 

I can easily afford this laptop (in fact, before I saw the specs, I was considering it as a possible gift for a sibling), but I don't see what you are laughing at. Luxury laptops at least have the decency to pack a decent punch given their size and weight and the only thing this one has going for it is that it is thin.

This is not a justification for a higher weight in a product that costs this much. It is easy to increase build quality by increasing weight -- what I would pay for is if they somehow made it both solid and light.

OK, so it's thin. Why is this a good idea? It's not that light and it has downright atrocious specs. A thin notebook is nice, but it is not worth all of the sacrifices in hardware. Come to think of it, I'm not sure what the benefit of a truly thin notebook is at all except that being thin typically means being light. I can't think of a situation where the thinness in and of itself makes a difference.

I'm not sure what that means. It sounds like it's a notebook for people with too much money on their hands who mostly care about things look and either don't care about or don't understand what hardware is inside. IMHO, this is a prime candidate for being made fun of and the easiest way to do it is to point out all of the alternatives.

 

^
I agree with everything you've said.

And btw, calling this a luxury notebook is an insult to luxury notebooks everywhere. Slapping on an extremely high price tag on any average notebook doesn't automatically make them a luxury item.

 

the MBA is thinner, faster(in everyway except the disk), cheaper and it is expensive in my books.

 

It has a nice-looking design, reminds me of a Mac. It's good that Dell is exploring other markets though.

As noted, it is the (singular) factor. There are no other factors besides cost.

The funny thing is, there are still bars. I don't see the problem with the black bars - you're still going to have them with 16:9. And when you think about it, it doesn't matter. Let's say you have the same physical width 4:3 and 16:9 screens, with the same horizontal resolution. The movie picture will look the same on both, except the black bars will be larger on the 4:3. No harm done.
My thoughts on 16:9 are summed up here:

 

I'm not getting all these comparisons to the Vaio Z in this thread. I agree that this machine is underpowered and overpriced but which ultrathin laptops aren't. The Vaio Z is not one of these ultrathin laptops like the Envy, X300, or the MB Air and does not have the same design constraints when making a laptop this small. Goodness, the Vaio Z is nearly two times thicker. If you guys are going to be comparing this laptop with other please compare it to laptops in the same class.

 

I'd say the comparison is justified, seeing as both are current-gen 13" laptops, and that the Z actually weighs less than the Adamo.

To the end consumer, to doesn't matter if two laptops are not direct competitors - what matters is that the Z offers the features of the Adamo and more, for less money and weight. The only things the Adamo has going for it are 1. design (subjective), and 2. thinness. But then again, thinness is not what you'll be caring about as long as it fits in a bag/backpack - weight is the primary concern when you're carrying the laptop around.

 

The Vaio Z is not as thin, but it packs a DVD burner and powerful processor in that light chassis and it seriously looks only a tad bigger than the Vaio TT, which itself is tiny.

And it is light. And stylish.

OK, you're right. The Vaio Z totally outclasses the Adamo.
People, please stop comparing the Adamo to any other laptop, it is totally outclassed in every way.

 

Seems like a Dell rep should read this thread, as well as LG and SamSung.
If Dell produces the next precision models with 16:9 res, I will never buy a Dell again.

 

Good for you. Now stop moaning about 16:9 and shut up.

Honestly, have you ever owned a 16:9 laptop for more than a day? There is no noticeable difference plus the extra length is handy sometimes.

Am I the only one on the 16:9 side?

 

16:9 is not as good as 16:10, from my experience, but it isn't unbearable. I find it useful that pages can be placed side by side even easier than with 16:10 screens. Also, sidebars work better. With the Windows 7 taskbar working so well placed on either the left or right, 16:9 shouldn't be that much worse than 16:10 (which I like).

 

Couldn't come up with a nicer way to say it?

Too horrible for me to use more than a day. But yes, I have seen, used, have had my hands on quite a few of those 16:9.

I use my laptop for different purposes rather than just watching movies so yes there is a BIG difference, especially if you do some 3D rendering.
and NO, THERE IS NO FREAKING EXTRA LENGTH!!! the highest res for 16:9 is 1920x1080, for 16:10 is 1920x1200.

I guess you can find the answer for yourself just by reading the thread.

 

I agree with those who say it's worse than 16:10. It's not a complete dealbreaker, but if the trend of accommodating TV manufacturers continues we will soon have the extreme widescreen laptops (see Philips new true Widescreen TV coming out this spring).
(one solution would be to do a double-height cut for laptops then, I guess, then you would still get the optimum number of glass pieces from one sheet).

4:3 was best, 16:10 was good, 16:9 is annoying.

 

News update:

Quanta Computer has landed orders for Dell's new ultra-thin 13.4-inch Adamo notebook, according to a Chinese-language Apply Daily report today. Previously market sources claimed that Foxconn Electronics (Hon Hai Precision Industry) would be the maker for the Dell notebook.

The paper cited market watchers as saying that the Adamo notebook will target the high-end market, and Dell is also planning to develop a 9-inch model later.

Dell Wednesday announced that the ultra-thin 13.4-inch Adamo notebook is equipped with Intel's Centrino platform. The notebook is built by a chassis milled from a single piece of aluminum, and features a backlit keyboard and solid state drive (SSD).

Dell is already accepting pre-orders for the notebook, which is priced at US$1,999 and will be available in two colors - onyx and pearl.

Source: Digitimes

 

The thing is, if you don't like the 16:9 ratio, you'll eventually have to. Normal people are eating up the "16:9 equals no black bars, awesome multimedia" crap like crazy. Soon, the new ratio will probably dominate the market.

1. It's cheaper to make, as mentioned before.
2. It's new, it's refreshing. When a complete newbie is buying a notebook, what sounds more appealing? An average, everyday 15.4" screen or an exciting 15.6"?

If you don't like it, then you will have a substantially less amount of choices.
Or, this could be a mild phase the computer industry is going through and will blow off quickly.

 

No, I will not. I may have to use it, but I won't have to like it.

This is certainly a possibility. Practically every manufacturer is stuffing it down people's throats with the newer models. However, this becomes less likely (albeit almost infinitesimally so) if I loudly complain about how much I don't like it every time it comes up. If many, many people complain and we all recommend laptops that aren't 16:9 to family and friends, the change is no longer infinitesimal.

 

I vote with my dollars.

I think so.

 

Yep,I also agree,I doubt I will continue buying notebook's if they all go 16:9.....can't see them getting rid of 4:3 and 16:10 desktop monitors because it's going to be a hard sell trying to convince businesses that they are going to benefit greatly from reduced vertical res and their movies are going to look better!

 

You think wrong then.

+1 for 16:9 resolution.


I think a lot of people might be neglecting what the image quality of these resolutions are. A 1920x1080 isn't just a 1920x1200 with 120 pixels chopped off the bottom...when you change the screen size you change the pixel density and the image quality.

A 16.4" 16:9 screen is essentially just an extra wide 15.4" 16:10 screen. The heights of the screens are the almost the same at ~8" but the 16.4" screen is ~1.2" wider. That change in size reduces the pixels per inch and increases the pixel size making fonts, icons and images larger and easier to read.

A 1920x1080 resolution on a 16.4" screen displays more like a 1680x1050 resolution on a 15.4" screen or a 1920x1200 resolution on a 17" screen...and when you consider it from that perspective a 16:9 aspect ration is a gain in pixel.

The only problem right now is that no one offers a 2048x1152 resolution on 18.4" screens yet.

 

1. Correct.
2. That whole argument is basically an opinion, and has no bearing on the current debate.

1920x1080 is 1920x1200 with 120 vertical pixels missing . . . unless my calculator is wrong. Image quality is subjective, and in the face of things, I will take more pixels over less. From a productivity standpoint, 16:9 does not hold water next to 16:10 or 4:3.

Also, 1920x1080 is not comparable to 1680x1050, even in the sense you're using it - 1920x1200 is; 1680x1050 is comparable to 1600x900. And 16.4" 1920x1080 is not a gain . . . it's a loss. Remember that 1920x1200 was available on 15.4" screens.

Edit: I'm going to take part of a conversation I was having via PM and paste it here. This is my response supporting why 16:9 is only being used for cost reasons and no other.

The irony of this whole post:I'm typing it on a 16:9 laptop, my Acer 5735Z.

 

why is 16:9 cheaper to produce?

 

It's a glass half empty vs. glass half full deal.

Are you looking at 16.4" as a chopped down 17" or as a stretched out 15.4"?

1600x900 on a 16.4" screen has close to the same PPI(~112) as a 1680x1050 on a 17" 16:10 screen(~115) but it's closer still to the PPI of 1440x900 on a 15.4" 16:10 screen(~110).

And the same perspective works with 1920x1200 on a 15.4" screen since you can have a 2048x1152 resolution on a 16.4" screen with the same pixel density. You'd lose 48 pixels on the vertical resolution but would gain 128 pixels on the horizontal. (supposedly 2048x1152 can display two A4 pages or two 1024x768 windows side by side)

But like I said the problem is they're just not offering the right resolutions yet and are instead offering the next lower resolution. That part sucks.

 

Oh yeah? Good analogy, but sorry buddy there won't be 2048x1152 on a 16.4'' in a million year.
from 15.4 ->>16.4'' if they keep the same vertical then it's a gain. Chopping of the vertical is a loss. Bigger screen but less pixels sucks!
16.4'' IS NOT an extra wide 15.4'', there is a huge difference.
Perhaps you should have 2 laptops side by side to compare, like I did.

 

Because that's the majority size for the glass now due to the advent of HDTV. The glass manufacturers can get more 16:9 screens out of a sheet than 16:10 nowadays.

 

My God. All of you complain about 16:9 screens. I bet you all did the same thing when 16:10 screens came out. Get used to it already, sheesh.

 

15.4" 16:10 screen is approx. 13.1" wide x 8.2" high
16.4" 16:9 screen is approx. 14.3" wide x 8" high
17" 16:10 screen is approx. 14.5" wide x 9" high

DPI Calculator:
http://www.raydreams.com/prog/dpi.aspx

 

Yeah? Bigger screen but less pixels, you call it a gain???
And don't compare the 16.4''to the 17'', because there is the 18.4'' with less pixels to compare with the 17''.

 

1920x1080 on a 16.4" screen is a gain compared to 1680x1050 on a 15.4" screen.

2048x1152 on an 18.4" screen would be a gain compared to 1920x1200 on a 17" screen.

 

For the record, we can buy 15.4'' with 1920x1200 resolution

as I said, we won't have that type of resolution in a million years.
and even if we do, same with 15.4'', 17'' will have something else better.

 

Dell and Samsung just started producing 23" 16:9 LCD screens using 2048x1152 resolutions as upgrades from 1920x1200 so I believe they will eventually start offering that res. on 18.4" screens and possibly 16.4" screens.

They will not likely offer resolutions higher than 1920x1200 on 15.4" screens because the pixel size would have to be too small to fit the DPI....on 17" screens they might be able to go to a higher resolution but an 18.4" screen would still be able to beat that resolution at the same DPI count.

 

Your right,I complained about 16:10 long and hard......and still would prefer 4:3,you have to draw the line somewhere and 16:10 is it for me.

The only way I'm going to use 16:9 aspect on a pc is over my cold,lifeless body,lying in a coffin,with someone playing music on their 16:9 notebook at my funeral ......for the last eight year's,I've bought on average,2 new notebook's a year,if they all become 16:9 aspect,I'm going to buy none,and will go back to building and rebuilding desktop's using 1600x1200 4:3 aspect monitor.

But hey,back to topic,what about this Adamo,if you forget the ridiculous aspect on such a small notebook,I guess it's nice,for a select group of people....can't see it being a roaring success tbh,dell just doesn't have the same subliminal power's of suggestion that the Job's machine does to be trying to sell such expensive,limited products,no matter how nicely made it is....will be interesting to see how it goes.

 

I don't know... even if we ignore the screen, the rest of the components leave much to be desired. The 128GB SSD is decent, but everything else? The 1.2-1.4 GHz C2D has an 800MHz FSB which means you're using DDR3 RAM clocked at 800MHz. A that frequency, what's the point? You might as well use DDR2.

This is not a fast machine and it's not a light machine -- it's one defining characteristic is that it is thin and as I said, I see nothing inherently great about that. And those prices are positively in the domain of Apple, but I somehow doubt Dell has the fans to buy this sort of thing during an economic downturn.

 

Looks pretty slick,but if I had 2k burning a hole I would much rather get a Mac or a high-end gamer.And they really should of dropped "Dell" from the brand name and come up with a singular title(yes i.e. Lexus) that's better than Adamo.

 

In my opinion it looks VERY pretty, but doesn't have any extraordinary functions and costs too much to bother. Kind of like a MacBook Air. Especially because it's starting at $4,299AUD over here!