NotebookForums.com › Forums › Notebook Manufacturers › Dell Forums › Dell Home (Inspiron, XPS, Studio) › M1730 Configuration Changes
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

M1730 Configuration Changes

post #1 of 23
10/12/07 at 2:00pm
Thread Starter 
I was just on the Dell site and noticed that some configuration options for the XPS M1730 have changed...for instance it doesn't come with Blu-ray by default anymore and you can't select a single hard drive option. Before I was able to select a "200GB SATA Hard Drive (7200RPM)" but I don't see that as an option anymore. The equivalent seems to be the "RAID Performance: 400GB (2x200GB) 7200RPM". Do you think it is RAID-0 or RAID-1?

Also do you think they will bring back the old choices or can I request them? Also what do these changes in configuration usually mean...did they find that the original configuration was causing problems?

Finally with the two SLI 8700 NVIDIA cards...is SLI enabled by default or will Dell have to release drivers for them? I thought on the Alienware website, when customizing a M9750, it said that you can purchase SLI but Vista doesn't support it yet and you will be e-mailed the drivers when available...so does Dell have the drivers already (or is SLI not enabled yet on the XPS M1730 either)?
Reply
Reply
post #2 of 23
10/12/07 at 3:10pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by dm982 View Post
I was just on the Dell site and noticed that some configuration options for the XPS M1730 have changed...for instance it doesn't come with Blu-ray by default anymore and you can't select a single hard drive option. Before I was able to select a "200GB SATA Hard Drive (7200RPM)" but I don't see that as an option anymore. The equivalent seems to be the "RAID Performance: 400GB (2x200GB) 7200RPM". Do you think it is RAID-0 or RAID-1?

Also do you think they will bring back the old choices or can I request them? Also what do these changes in configuration usually mean...did they find that the original configuration was causing problems?

Finally with the two SLI 8700 NVIDIA cards...is SLI enabled by default or will Dell have to release drivers for them? I thought on the Alienware website, when customizing a M9750, it said that you can purchase SLI but Vista doesn't support it yet and you will be e-mailed the drivers when available...so does Dell have the drivers already (or is SLI not enabled yet on the XPS M1730 either)?


I saw the changes. I ordered the 2999.99 and ill add things later when prices drop... shoot that 2999.99 config was plenty of mustard for me!

as for the SLi, im using windows XP and I can just turn one of the cards off when ever I want... When I turn the second card off, my GPU temps drop 10 C

Dont even bother with Vista... Seriiouslly! I bet everyone on there things im a vista terrorist because its terrible! My total ram use dropped 50% and performance increased atleast 2x

Prog

Prog
Reply
Reply
post #3 of 23
10/12/07 at 3:37pm
You can turn on/off SLI in both XP and Vista. However, I was asked to restart Vista.
Reply
Reply
post #4 of 23
10/12/07 at 8:18pm
Vista uses more memory for a reason. It's called superfetch. Memory not used is memory wasted.
Reply
Reply
post #5 of 23
10/15/07 at 2:24am
You know how you get used to the way your rig does things, and then you get on someone else's you immediately notice if it's faster/slower? I run XP, and my wife runs Vista. When I have to use her laptop for something, it is blatantly obvious how much slower it is. And how much RAM is being used for eye candy?
Reply
Reply
post #6 of 23
10/15/07 at 2:36am
Dude you got 3gb ram. Plenty there to spare for a better looking OS. Besides Vista uses more ram so it can be fasterthan XP theoredically. More ram is used for caching programs and files used often to the ram. I know it's not a good comparison but my wife has a 1.86 Pentium M 1gb533 80gb5400 with XP and the XPS in my sig with vista absolutely crushes it.
Reply
Reply
post #7 of 23
10/15/07 at 2:57am
hey TurbodTalon, do you run those clocks on your 7950 24/7? or have a profile for it when you want to use it?
Reply
Reply
post #8 of 23
10/15/07 at 3:17am
***sorry off topic kinda*****

On the Vista/XP debate, I run XP @ Vista on separate HDD - I'm not sure Vista is that much slower but the extra issues like, poor driver support and OC issues plus punk buster constantly kicking me from servers regardless of any settings made me drop back to XP. I now run Vista only on my 80gig HDD, waiting for SP1 to see if that helps.
Reply
Reply
post #9 of 23
10/15/07 at 6:57am
Quote:
Originally Posted by melshaw View Post
Dude you got 3gb ram. Plenty there to spare for a better looking OS. Besides Vista uses more ram so it can be fasterthan XP theoredically. More ram is used for caching programs and files used often to the ram. I know it's not a good comparison but my wife has a 1.86 Pentium M 1gb533 80gb5400 with XP and the XPS in my sig with vista absolutely crushes it.


You vista fans are almost getting as bad as mac users...trying to convert everybody that has just stated they don't like it.....your not a mormon or something are you.

Super felch errr fetch ....memory not used is memory wasted,yeah.... vista also thinks that hard drive space not used is wasted as well,or cpu cycles not used..................oneoneoneon as MrEvil would say to me.


And Melshaw,your comparison isn't a good one,if you have to compare your powerful vista machine to an average 2 generation old platform running XP to make it look good,your not exactly doing your sales pitch any good.
Reply
Reply
post #10 of 23
10/15/07 at 12:05pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by diefool View Post
hey TurbodTalon, do you run those clocks on your 7950 24/7? or have a profile for it when you want to use it?
24/7.
Reply
Reply
post #11 of 23
10/15/07 at 12:22pm
Off topic still but everytime I meet someone that says they don't like Vista (I run it on 2/3 of my machines), I ask them why? Their response is ALWAYS: "Cancel or allow". Once I inform them that it can easily be disabled they realize they have no reason for disliking Vista 90% of the time. I realize this doesn't apply to the people here but of course vista is going to be slower than xp... just like xp is slower than 2000, but who still uses 2000? When xp came out thats all everyone said is how slow xp was compared to 2000 but they switched over; ladies and gentlemen, it is just a matter of time before you all switch to the dark side...
Reply
Reply
post #12 of 23
10/15/07 at 12:33pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by atwood7fan View Post
"Cancel or allow". Once I inform them that it can easily be disabled they realize they have no reason for disliking Vista 90% of the time.
How do you disable those stupid prompts? And you're right about most of that other stuff too. I've never seen any official documentation stating that Vista is slower than XP...all I know is that I gained almost 1000 3DMarks by switching back to XP with no other changes.
Reply
Reply
post #13 of 23
10/15/07 at 12:37pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by gerryjoson View Post
You vista fans are almost getting as bad as mac users...trying to convert everybody that has just stated they don't like it.....your not a mormon or something are you?
Dude don't be an ass. I'm not trying to convert anyone. I have run XP and Vista on my machine and prefer Vista. That's all. I haven't had a single problem with it. The only problems I had were on my end not the OS. People always want something new and when something new does come along all they do is complain about it. People complain tha Vista is bloated and uses more resources. It's no different than when XP replaced Win 98. Also, I know my comparison wasn't a great one, cause I stated that in my post. Thanks for repeating what I had already stated. I hope you enjoy your 1730 when it comes in. There's enough threads around here of people complaining about it too.
Reply
Reply
post #14 of 23
10/15/07 at 12:44pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by TurbodTalon View Post
How do you disable those stupid prompts? And you're right about most of that other stuff too. I've never seen any official documentation stating that Vista is slower than XP...all I know is that I gained almost 1000 3DMarks by switching back to XP with no other changes.
Goto "users accounts" in control panel and click "Turn User Account Control on or off"; uncheck the box then click ok. If you are bugged by the security center icon that will pop up saying that UAC is disabled, you can disable security center notifications by going to "Security Center" in control panel, and on the lefthand side, click "Change the way Security Center alerts me" and choose the 3rd option "Don't notify me and don't display the icon"
Reply
Reply
post #15 of 23
10/15/07 at 12:56pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by TurbodTalon View Post
How do you disable those stupid prompts? And you're right about most of that other stuff too. I've never seen any official documentation stating that Vista is slower than XP...all I know is that I gained almost 1000 3DMarks by switching back to XP with no other changes.
I also lost points in 3dmark but that was just 3dmark. I haven't noticed any loss of performance in my games though. I don't play many games. Mainly BF2 and I have been playing th UT3 beta demo. They both run great.
Reply
Reply
post #16 of 23
10/15/07 at 1:06pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by atwood7fan View Post
but who still uses 2000? . . . [snip]. . .ladies and gentlemen, it is just a matter of time before you all switch to the dark side...
Waaaay off topic, but: My company still uses 2000 on more than half its PC's. There is no compelling business reason to switch. 2000 can run on old clunkers with 256MB RAM and still get the job done. There were actual reasons to go back to 2000 after XP SP2 was released. A lot of custom (admittedly, poorly written) applications stopped working and there are still no drivers for certain serial devices we use in our lab. My only personal experience with Vista is on a P4m 2.8GHz laptop with 1 GB RAM and a 40GB 5400rpm HD. And all I can say is what a PIG! Takes forever for anything to open and the HD thrashes constantly even though it says memory at 47% usage. Some applications lock it up (Firefox in certain situations), Skype will occasionally consume 100% CPU, plus other little annoyances. I, too, hope SP1 fixes it because there are some really cool features.
Reply
Reply
post #17 of 23
10/15/07 at 2:21pm
Just waiting my upcoming 1730 and reading comments,
Quote:
Originally Posted by melshaw View Post
... People complain tha Vista is bloated and uses more resources. It's no different than when XP replaced Win 98..... .

Ehm, "XP replaced 98" is wrong; the history was:

Customer: w95-w98-wME
------------------------------ -- - - wXP
Business: wNT-w2000

So Xp replaced both wME () and w2000. And Xp was born faster then 2000 (boot up and with UI configuration similar to 2000 also runtime) and more stable then ME (anything is more stable than ME...)


Quote:
Originally Posted by atwood7fan View Post
.... but of course vista is going to be slower than xp... just like xp is slower than 2000, but who still uses 2000? When xp came out thats all everyone said is how slow xp was compared to 2000 but they switched over; ladies and gentlemen, it is just a matter of time before you all switch to the dark side...

the time to switch will arrive, thanks to MS.

XP was a needed evolution, introduced great OS news. One for all: the stability of w2000 mixed with game compatibility of 98. (no mention of ME )

I can't see, for now, any relevant improvemente in Vista; except for DX10 (deployable to XP but obviously not released by MS). ah SuperFetch....wow, when it works, maybe

Sorry for my terrible english
Reply
Reply
post #18 of 23
10/15/07 at 9:07pm
Your right there felix. I never used ME or 2000 which is why I stated like I did. I went from 98 to XP
Reply
Reply
post #19 of 23
10/15/07 at 9:48pm
Hey I'm not gonna lie, 2000 was a good OS and 98 was decent too (not so much for ME), but evolution happens; yeah vista is bloated for older hardware and it really does need 2gb ram to be fast but lord help anyone that tries to run xp on less than 512mb ram, even though its minimum required is either 64mb or 128mb.
I could go on and ramble but I do believe that like XP, after a service pack or 2, vista will be the only way to go because it will be more secure and stable and thus the OS of choice
Reply
Reply
post #20 of 23
10/16/07 at 3:16am
Quote:
Originally Posted by atwood7fan View Post
Hey I'm not gonna lie, 2000 was a good OS and 98 was decent too (not so much for ME), but evolution happens; yeah vista is bloated for older hardware and it really does need 2gb ram to be fast but lord help anyone that tries to run xp on less than 512mb ram, even though its minimum required is either 64mb or 128mb.
I could go on and ramble but I do believe that like XP, after a service pack or 2, vista will be the only way to go because it will be more secure and stable and thus the OS of choice

You've got the right answer here. I've used every OS for several gens. You may as well switch now to go ahead and keep up with the tech. Vista may be bloated a little for now, but give it time.
Reply
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
NotebookForums.com › Forums › Notebook Manufacturers › Dell Forums › Dell Home (Inspiron, XPS, Studio) › M1730 Configuration Changes