Feeds

back to article Dell ‘xpands XPS line with 'WORLD-FIRST' MEGA-RESOLUTION laptops

Dell has extended its XPS line of “prosumer” notebooks with an 11.6-in model that takes its cue from Lenovo’s Yoga tablet-cum-laptop. Dell XPS 11 The XPS 11 sports a 2560 x 1440 display Yes, the new XPS 11 is a notebook with a keyboard hinged to fold right back against the rear of the screen housing, just like the Lenovo …

COMMENTS

This topic is closed for new posts.
Nya

Finally!

A decent screen...how much?!

7
1
Anonymous Coward

Re: Finally!

Amazing resolution, but it is just a waste, no one can discern the difference anyway.

Still after the lack of support and updates I had from Dell, having owned 3 different XPSs, they tend to forget once a new model comes out, I felt it was better to invest in a MacBook Pro.

I wasn't wrong.

Dell support stops the moment a new model comes out, sod them.

8
10
Silver badge

Re: Finally!

>Amazing resolution, but it is just a waste, no one can discern the difference anyway.

Whilst I can't discern any jaggedness to onscreen text when my eyes are further than 12" away from my screen (17", 1920 x1200 = 133 PPI), this test image demonstrates why some people will find a high PPI screen useful:

http://www.bealecorner.org/red/test-patterns/star-chart-bars144-600dpi.png

From a distance of around 30" from the same monitor I can make out jaggedness in lines in a CAD draughting application - which unlike much onscreen text doesn't employ anti-aliasing.

There have been a few high resolution laptops released in the last year (including a very high res Lenovo Yoga), but all the reviews suggest that many Windows desktop applications fail to scale properly (including Adobe Photoshop).

4
0
Pint

Yep!

When it came time to retire my T61P (1920x1200), the best replacement I could find at Lenovo was the heavy, expensive W520, with a lower-resolution (1920x1080) display. So I switched to a 15" MacBook Pro, with a 2880x1800 screen, better build quality and battery life -- at a lower price. Fedora installed and ran without any issues... the only downside is working around the lack of a middle mouse button!

2
0
JDX
Gold badge

640 (x 480) should be enough for anyone

As a wise man never actually said

2
1

Re: Finally!

@AC 18:08

Basing my experience on a sample of >500 desktops, laptops and servers over about 6 years at my current workplace, I reckon that if you buy a Dell consumer/prosumer laptop without seeking out a warranty upgrade, you'll have probably had an inconsistent-at-best experience. If, however, you get them to apply a ProSupport-type warranty you get excellent support including NBD onsite service for repairs/replacements. (The problem remains getting the buggers to actually offer ProSupport for any laptop with a decent-res screen in a <14" display form factor...but they're slowly getting better in this regard).

For context, bear in mind that the fastest turnaround I've gotten on a repair for an Apple portable or display (not desktops as they still get onsite support...for now) is about a week and a half - even the shops that turn things around in a day or two still require you to wait a week or so to get an appointment, because even if you've got a case ref with Applecare that doesn't translate into any prioritisation mechanism in the Apple stores (because Apple has realised that shitty consumer-level support is cheaper to provide than anything remotely like business-class support, despite charging premium prices all the way...)

0
1
Silver badge

Re: Finally!

A retina style display is actually sufficient, a more than retina style display on a standard laptop screen, 15", 13", 11'" etc really makes no difference to what you see, 336ppi are seen no differently from 666ppi, but as someone else commented Apple scales better than Windows.

We will probably see a 1000ppi 11" screen in a few years but for what purpose?

I'm more interested in colour reproduction, light and reflections than I am with the pixels per inch.

It's a bit like this FAD for 3D, it's not necessary, doesn't enhance a crap film any more than if it were on a normal screen and imposes restrictions on the way you have to view it.

All it gives is bragging rights.

2
6
Bronze badge

Re: Finally!

Can you clarify this a bit more for me ? Are you saying that they no longer honor warranties or support agreements(on site etc) when the new model comes out since that makes no sense? Or are you saying they don't work to provide driver updates or something?

I've never owned a Dell laptop myself only IBM(before Lenovo) and since Lenovo I have had Toshiba Tecras. My current laptop has a 4 year on site agreement I've used it twice in the past two years(new keyboard, and new motherboard to fix a broken SD card slot), still got a year left on it, works very well, only complaint I suppose is the speakers. I don't travel around with it too much.

0
0
Anonymous Coward

Re: Finally!

Adobe applications fail to scale incorrectly because they now implement their own stupid GUI, which is invariably alot slower, worse and buggy than the native GUI. it was possible to accidently position the top of a dialogue above the top of the desktop, and because you couldn't resize windows and dialogues by dragging the bottom, only the top for some stupid reason, it was stuck there until you reset the whole workspace

So although super high res screens on laptop monitor's is pointless, the lack of scaling is very much the fault of the GUI amateur hackers who think they know better and should leave well alone.

2
0
Def
Bronze badge

@LarsG; Re: Finally!

I would bet large amounts of other people's money on the fact that just about everyone can see pixels on any screen released this (and next) year.

Simple test: Create a fullscreen black image, with a single white pixel in the middle. View it at 100%. Can you see the white pixel? When you can't see the white pixel with the screen resting on your nose, then you have reached the maximum required screen resolution. Exactly what the resolution of that screen would be, I don't know. I do know, however, we're not there yet. The ultimate goal for the resolution junkies is to not have to use any form of anti-aliasing to make up for screen deficiencies.

While it's nice to wax lyrical about faithful colour reproduction, that's not going to happen while we're stuck with 32-bit displays. Using more than eight bits per colour channel needs to happen first - Personally, I think full 32-bit floating point values per channel would be the best thing to aim for. Switching away from RGB or adding ancillary channels to improve CIE 1931 colour space reproduction wouldn't be a bad thing either.

Overall quality of screens is improving all the time. You wouldn't argue that the speed, viewing angles, brightness, etc hasn't improved since the first flat panel monitors were released. And these things will continue to improve as they have been already. Increasing the resolution is still the driving force, because that's the thing that's most noticeable to the consumer.

1
1

Re: Finally! - And aren't u a fine convert to the iReligion!

And aren't u a fine convert!

0
0
Bronze badge

Simple test:

> Create a fullscreen black image, with a single white pixel in the middle.View it at 100%. Can you see the white pixel? When you can't see the white pixel with the screen resting on your nose, then you have reached the maximum required screen resolution.

Except for two things.

The eye will still register points of light that are smaller than the resolution it can see.

(Single black pixel on a white image would work).

Most people can't focus as close as the end of their nose. (I can't focus much closer than 9 inches, and I would not want to use a screen at less than 14 inches, preferably 18)

0
0
Wam

Re: Simple test:

I think the better resolution test is to have two points separated with dark space and determine if they are distinct points or not

0
0
Def
Bronze badge

Re: Simple test:

The eye will still register points of light that are smaller than the resolution it can see.

That was sort of my point about seeing individual pixels though. The smaller the pixel, the less light you'll see, until at some point it will not be visible. At that point, there is no point increasing the resolution. You can argue that you don't need to go quite that small. But no matter how much you argue that, I'm sure you'll find someone else to argue with. :)

0
0
Holmes

Re: Simple test:

Young children can focus as close as ~11cm, which is quite further than anyone's nose (that I know). Of course it goes downhill with age.

0
0
Silver badge
Holmes

Meanwhile...

Dell, HP and the other usual suspect will continue to pump out 'Bog Standard' 1366x768 laptops for the rest of us who have to pay for them ourselves to use.

1
0
Anonymous Coward

Re: Meanwhile...

Dell, HP and the other usual suspect will continue to pump out 'Bog Standard' 1366x768 laptops for the rest of us who have to pay for them ourselves to use.

I actually bought my Macbook mid 2010, and I took the HiRes screen, which was 1680 x 1050 (which appears still available as an upgrade), for the rest it's pretty much bog standard apart from a hybrid drive. I won't go back to a lower resolution, too useful to have lots of data on one screen :).

Slight aside: does anyone else recall the time when the only motive for getting XWindows up and running was the ability to have many more terminal windows on the same screen? :)

1
0
Silver badge

What's the use...

when all you can see is the reflection of your own face because some dimwit forgot to apply the anti reflection coating?

8
0
Anonymous Coward

Re: What's the use...

Yeah, there is a reason I dread going into work. Or I could just shave.

0
0

samsung does the same in 13.3"

and it's already out for 2400NZD... google Samsung 940X3G-K01AU

0
1
Silver badge

Re: samsung does the same in 13.3"

From thr amazon.co.uk site

Sharp and Smart Display

ATIV Book 9 Plus has a 13.3" FHD (1920 x 1080) LED Display with touchscreen panel. See the world in high detail with its sharp, vivid images, even in direct sunlight (SuperBright+ 350nit). What's more, it's easy on the eyes, so you can enjoy screen time for as long as you want. Light and portable, you can immerse yourself in the experience, anywhere and everywhere.

* The best resolution setting with Windows 8.1 is QHD+ (3200 x 1800).

So, is it a 1920x1080 screen or what?

Can someone care to explain the Windows 8 setting?

0
0

Re: samsung does the same in 13.3"

ATIV Book 9 Plus, 3200x1800. on sale now just 1,100 of your earth pounds

http://www.very.co.uk/samsung-ativ-book-9-intelreg-coretrade-i5-processor-4gb-ram-128gb-ssd-hard-drive-133-inch-touchscreen-ultrabook-ash-black/1281652912.prd?aff=google&affsrc=acquisition&cm_mmc=google-_-PLA_Electricals-_-computers+ultrabooks-_-3g9wVOZy_29821781114

no soup for you, Register or Dell. fail fail fail.

0
1
Meh

Re: samsung does the same in 13.3"

I think there are different revisions of the same model number, which is confusing.

http://www.samsung.com/us/computer/pcs/NP940X3G-K01US-specs

It seems the current one does indeed have a 3200x1800, 10 point capacitive panel which if you want to touch your laptop screen is impressive. The big problem is the 13.3" screen size. It means an equivalent 2:1 resolution of 1600x900 in a 13.3" notebook... You'd better have *really* good eyesight. Alternatively, it means Windows is going to be asked to scale even higher than x2 standard; and good luck with getting *that* working reliably across all apps! To make this particular panel really legible at that size, you really need an OS which can manage arbitrary scaling, or at least something around the x2.5 mark. OTOH, it's clearly really nice to be able to get something that high res at that size if you really want it and great to see the industry finally moving towards higher resolution panels (even if the underlying driver for all this is likely to be 4K TV so we're probably going to be stuck with 16:9 displays everywhere still).

People have criticised Apple's decision to lock OS X into a 1x or 2x scaling mode, meaning that the so-called "retina" screens are always going to be x2 versions of traditional resolutions lest user interface elements appear too small. But the thing is, it works well and is cheap to implement; the illusion of arbitrary scaling can always be achieved just by running the frame buffer at a different resolution from the panel; and even though the "retina" marketing is a retch-inducing it's based on a sound principle of typical viewing distances and average ability to "see" a single pixel. Going higher resolution is pure spec-chasing with little real world benefit. As for scaling reliably - unfortunately Windows 8 hasn't quite got there yet as Microsoft historically took the more difficult, though more flexible (near-)arbitrary scaling approach, but often apps don't seem to cope very well. I don't know what stage Linux is at here.

All-in, given the scaling mess of Windows, comparing to Chrome Pixel might make more sense.

1
0
Roo
Silver badge

Re: samsung does the same in 13.3"

Not being funny here, but open source GUIs have supported SVG icons and scalable fonts on the desktop for a *very* long time now - what is stopping Apple & Microsoft doing the same ? It's not as if they are short of cash to throw at the problem, and they have had plenty of time to do it (including at least one major revamp of their UI code).

0
0

Re: samsung does the same in 13.3"

OS X does not lock retina displays to a 1x or 2x mode. In the System Preferences, you choose the "virtual resolution" you want and all the elements scale to that resolution. It's quite impressive hands-on.

0
0
Go

Dell announced the Latitude 14 7000 series two months ago with rather nice specs, but they're still only selling stripped-down versions—only 4GB RAM, no smart-card reader, only 768p display. If I'm going to upgrade my 2010 MBP (which my L5-S1 disc has been advocating), I'll damn well want to take full advantage of Haswell. That means 16GB RAM and at least an HD 5000 GPU. The Clevo W740SU (System76 galu1) would be great if its keyboard didn't make the PCjr's look good.)

Please ship some of this rather than just announcing it, Dell. I'd love to leave Apple, but if they're the only ones bothering to ship ass-kicking Haswell laptops, I can't very well do that, can I?

0
0
Silver badge

Back pains

Kick-ass laptops do seem to weigh a lot especially if the Power Brick is included.

My back was playing up so I bought a wheeled trolley bag. Now the only time I lift it is to put it in the Overhead Lockers when I take a flight.

The big problem is the budget airlines. Some only allow 5kg hand baggage! The last time I flew with my camera jacket with its pockets stuffed with lenses I was told in no uncertain terms that I'd be refused access to the plane if I tried that stunt again.

1
0
Coat

Re: Back pains

I should've mentioned that I'm looking for 2 kg maximum weight, so the gaming/desktop-replacement laptops need not apply.

Your comment about budget airlines is why I flew traditional carriers whenever I could when living in the UK—it wasn't even much more expensive when you fully account for the checked-bag fee, boarding-pass fee, ticket-buying fee, fee-paying fee, and Helvetica fee.

Coat because I always took a filled-to-near-breaking SCOTTEVEST jacket on Sleazyjet/Ryanair and never ran into your gate agent attempting to close that loophole. (Perhaps they've changed their tariff conditions since 2010.)

0
0
Bronze badge

WTF? Quad HD?

WTF is Quad HD, and who changed the definition of the word "quad"? Since when did quad mean something other than 4?

0
0
Unhappy

Re: WTF? Quad HD?

Normal marketing specmanship.

2560x1440 = 4 x 1280x720 720P "HD" TV resolution.

1
0

samsung does the same in 13.3"

Samsung 940X3G-K01AU --- 13.3" IPS LED 3200x1800 $2400 NZD - http://pricespy.co.nz/product.php?p=2170601

dell are slow and unreliable in New Zealand too.

0
0
Anonymous Coward

the British version has been out a while too: Samsung NP940X3G-K01UK

0
0
Meh

Meh - When it comes to resolution ...

What you really want is one of these from Panasonic.

http://mashable.com/2013/09/08/panasonics-20-inch-4k-tablet-is-huge-museum-friendly/

0
0
Silver badge

WTF 16:9 again?

Good to see more resolution, but why oh why this fixation with 16:9 ratio? Myself, and others, want more vertical estate to actually read documents!

Same for this retina resolution, nice but it is no f-ing substitute for a usable vertical display size!

3
0
Silver badge

Re: WTF 16:9 again?

Yup. They cram in all those pixels, and still get the ratio wrong. Top and bottom bezels are huge.

0
0

Glossy

Still looks glossy in the photos, so still ruined by reflection.

1
0

Keyboard

What, no comments on the keyboard yet? I'm intrigued by this solid keyboard thing - I'm hoping they don't mean ZX-81 style but there's no information about key travel or what it feels like in use. A useless keyboard would be more of a deal breaker for me than lower resolution or 16:9 aspect ratio.

0
0
This topic is closed for new posts.