So, How Long Will Your M1710 Last YOU? - Page 3

I still want a clarification of what the differences in resolution were! =P That would play a major factor.....

From what to what? that could be 1600x1200 down to 640x480. That's not a fair comparison. I will not deny there is degredation in image quality. If you read all my posts, what I've said is it is not enough for me to drop down to 1440x900 as my standard res. Also I said that mine was not near as bad as the example you showed, which in the end you have no facts to share about what the change in Resolution was. Not really complaining to you, just saying there are not enough facts present by your example to say that that is the norm. Let's also look at what the people who ran the tests say: "As usual, with standard resolution the result is sharp while it´s slightly blurred with others. Here, however, it´s better than average. Mac users should be even less bothered than PC users as Apple uses a filter on characters to soften them. This type of blurred effect would be unbearable for PC users and is just a matter of taste." So in fact that example is overly blur due to the processing of the monitor on non native resolutions. though I do recognize that some distortion takes no matter what you do. Please understand for one last time, I do agree with you that it does degrade quality and as others have said we are not in denial, but we don't see that drastic of change. I know I don't going from 1920x1200 to 1440x900. I tried to take pictures but as you said before, you need a great camera and the one I have access to wasn't good enough to accomplish this.

Since you posted this I while I was posting my last, I will respond to it. Person 1. Some website told me the sky was green. (you) Person 2. Realy? I just looked and it appeared blue. (me) The fact is that you don't know what the resolutions were on the examples shown except that one was at the 20" Apple's native resolution. The other you are oblivious to, so you are basing that fact on incomplete information. I hope we can all agree to disagree and just get on with our lives and be friends Edit: as recommended by 5150 Joker in the following post, I have emailed the author to find out the resolutions used for that specific test and will post the results here if/when he emails me back with the information.

I don't know what resolution they dropped down to, you'd have to e-mail and ask them though given the fact that they're experts at testing LCDs I'm sure they stuck to the same aspect ratio. I'm going to see if I can take some pics using my canon camera though I doubt I'll get far. Regardless it doesn't matter, dropping down to any resolution below native results in a blurry picture.

Well, I wouldnt say it results in a "blurry" picture. I think it would be more precise to say that dropping resolution below native results in a "less crisp" picture. This statement best reflects the ongoing argument about the amount of degradation that results from dropping resolutions, in regards to the pictures that were presented as examples. Although, the problem was that the example had an "unknown" resolution for comparison.

5150 joker: I agree with you. If XPS had an option with a WXGA-screen instead og WUXGA I would have gotten it right away, now I`m rather planning on getting a i9400 with a 7900GS, I feel playing games at native res is required in order to make the most out of them My favourite game ATM is oblivion, but the XPS M1710 cant run it very well with high gfx-settings at 1920x1200.

It depends on the person viewing it ("Eye of the beholder") - I have a friend at work who also gets to play WoW at work (lucky SOB!). He has a Dell with a 15.4" 1680x1050 screen. He plays WoW at 12xx x 8xx (can't remember exactly). Everyone who has seen the game has always commented "Wow the graphics on the screen are amazing"). I personally thought they looked pretty good and couldn't really tell that it was running non-native.

However hardcore gamers will be able to tell and hence may find it unacceptable. For me? After seeing WoW run non-native I think I can handle running games on a non native screen. Besides I don't tend to notice the "extra" effects that might make a difference. Someone else of course will not accept it. It is a matter of personal choice. All I can say is try something at non-native and see with your own eyes whether it is acceptable or not.

That being said it may be possible to drop a g80/81 into the 1710 in the near future anyway which may negate this discussion...

How long will my m1710 last me? probably 2-3 years at least. Granted there will be much faster laptops out by then but i suspect that it will take that long or even longer for the run of the mill laptops to catch up.

I do a lot of web design so the WUXGA screen was a must for me. If I want to game at lower, native res I can always plug it into my desktop monitor or even the hdtv.

By next year if there are notebooks with G80/ATi R600 GPU's + 2nd Gen Merom these XPS M1710's will be lucky to get $1700 even with warranty. XPS laptops are huge money sinks, I bought mine for $2500 and tomorrow I'm selling it for $1400 locally so that's an $1100 loss. These M1710's are going to be even worse because a loaded one costs around $3500-$4000 (depending on which color M1710 you get) so they'll be losing over 2 grand - that's another reason I went with an E1705.

i dunno, i play fear at 1600 by 1200 and it looks beautfiul. thats not native.

I agree with Joker, buying an XPS = losing an easy grand

It isnt nearly as bad as the losses you would take on a desktop, laptops comparably hold their value pretty well.

I decided to lease my M1710 with only a 2 year term. I'm tired of trying to sell my computers 3 years down the road for nothing.

I got a decent rate for my lease and it will allow me to write off 100% of the lease payments instead of just 45% per depreciation.

2 years is maximum I go without a computer upgrade these days. Fortunately I make a living on them so I can justify leasing.

Of course I game a little as well. I'm not hardcore by any means so the 7900GTX should last me the 2 years.


Of course 1 year down the road I'll be salivating over the new XPS.

Ok this is the way I see it. Yes laptopd depreciate but so do desktops and yes the upgrade path is much less with a laptop then a desktop. But from what i have herd here about upgradeing to merom the first and second release well yes we will have the option to upgrade to the first release when it comes out. But you also have to consider that many people have desktops that don't support dual core and will not support merom as well and guess what they have to spend money too!! for the latest and greatest. Looking at the M1710 it will see the first release of merom if you choose also look at the futureproof of the machine the newer WiFi card will support features that arent even into effect yet and the express slot also we all know the M1710 will take up to 4 gigs of Ram so I would say that the M1710 will see also a direct X 10 card and vista .We already know it will see the first release of merom. We also know that laptops are becomeing more and more comon as desktop replacements and used for gaming also. so I would say that they will become more upgradeable as time goes on but I also feel the M1710 will have the longest life expectancy yet. I have owned all of Dells top gaming laptops from the XPS Gen 1 to current the M 1710 and beleive me I understand that when you order a PC it is outdated already because as soon as you get it somthing new faster and better is coming out. But looking back at all of Dell's top of the line laptops the M1710 is the most futurproof laptop I have seen to date. Which is a good sign! Just My 2 cents

the resolution drop does make images blurry. but with the fine pixels on a 17' UXGA screen, the blur translates to a sort of "AA" effect. It reduces jaggy edges and makes images more natual-looking. I kinda appreciate it.