Talk:Dell XPS/Archive 1

Archive 1

Dell XPS M1330, M1530, and M1730

These XPS models are discontiued as of 2009. Please do not list them under current models. Thanks. Blound (talk) 21:36, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Expansion of the Dell XPS article

The XPS article is of low quality with shallow description of the XPS models, it's a joke comparing to Apple Macbook Pro /Apple Macbook article. The article need to expand with each current model having it's own page. Detail description and review of the system would be good. Best is to include the timeline of each generation of the XPS class. As a flagship product, XPS deserves a better presentation of itself in this encylopedia. With emphasis placed on unique product feature and using Macbook Pro as a yardstick to gauge the XPS's capability. XPS is considered to be a rival of the Apple Macs. So let's try to do a better job than Macs. By the way, the merge vs. split discusstion. I would suggest the current models like M1330, M1530, M1730 have their own page each. But last generation systems like M1210, M2010, M1710 will have a common page for that particular series. Each generation of XPS will have a common page, current in circulation models will have a detailed and dedicated page. Thanks, Rock On. Resistivefall (talk) 16:07, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Cleanup

I edited the XPS 700 h20 system to clarify some points. the QX6700 is not a core 2 dup, it is a core 2 extreme(or a core 2 quad) Also, the water cooling unit doesn't enable the system to be overclocked, a system can be overclocked regardless of whether or not it has a lowend water cooling unit on it, what determines overclockability is largely the motherboard. Also, other members of the XPS700 family were capable fo software overclocking through nTune.

As of 2006

IchigoKurosaki 19:46, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Changed to As of 2007 because it mentioned the "XPS M2010"

October 2006 Discussions

Robert 00:52, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

I am sitting in the library of my home looking at an old Dell until that is stored in one of my cabinets. It dates from ... no earlier than summer of 93, no later than the spring of 94, so somewhere in that time frame (say Nov 93 for a median) with a P75 processor, ?2 or 8? MB of RAM, 1gig harddrive, 3.5inch drive, and a 2x CD-ROM drive (all top of the line at the time if I so recall)

And written directly on the tower is: XPS.

Therefore, I don't think the 1996 date is accurate as the origin of the XPS line.

Research/correction is in order.

---

XPS M140 and Dimension E310 info at http://www.pcworld.com/news/article/0,aid,123219,00.asp . Can somebody with a good handle on these matters please integrate into main article? Thanks -- 29 October 2005

---

I belive so far there are 5 Generations of XPS desktop, and you only listed 3. I have Gen 3 myself, but have seen the new one and it is Gen 5.

---

I think we should fix (or remove) the links. The page looks really bad with all but one of the links in red. If not possible, just remove the name.

Merge vs Split

Do we need separate articles for each model such as Dell XPS 4 or Dell XPS 600 Renegade? Shawnc 21:49, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Oh jeeesh I agree. If we had a page for every model Dell ever released, where would the madness end? We've been through this nonesense in the graphics card category. What I have repeatedly said, and seems to have become accepted, is that there should be a page for each SERIES of hardware, not individual models. That works pretty well, and it should be the same for PCs. No more than a page per series Dells, I think.

http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Category:Graphics_cards

Looking at the Dell Dell_XPS_4 page, its just a list of parts. What is the point of that? A simple copy and paste job from the ordering page on the Dell website? In what way does that enlighten, inform, or explain? I just don't see the WIKI as a parts database. It should be a living, readable, alive document. Timharwoodx 22:35, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

I think the Renegade page should be preserved for now, as the Renegade is the best computer in many catergories (making it unique and worth reading about) and is different in many ways from other computers in the XPS line (graphic and processing capabilities, cost). However, the Dell XPS 4 article is badly written and is only a parts list. I agree that it should be merged with this main article. Mystaker1 18:46, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps it should be merged in order to make the information more easier to find under one consolidated source. It would reduce clutter. --198.41.70.2 14:13, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Yep i really think we should merge all of Dell's computer generations under the Generations category. I didn't even know the 4th Gen page existed until i just clicked on the hyperlink by one of you guys on this discussion page. --KittenKiller

If Dragonite and Karen and all the other Pokémon have their own pages, I think the XPS 4 and XPS 600 Renegade and indeed all Dell systems should have their own pages. Mikesc86 01:23, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

I removed the Dell XPS 4 page and it now redirects to Dell XPS. The article contained no original information and Wikipedia is not a collection of information. WP:NOT Masterpjz9 01:37, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

I think the Renegade was notable enough to have its own page. The one that they code named greenland or something like that probably is too... Just because those are fairly unique and different, but as a rule most of the Dell lines should only have one article each unless there is something unique about that particular PC. --Pboyd04 22:40, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Merge. I don't think the submodel is notable enough to have its own page. It isn't innovative in a permanent way; it's just the first product to do something that all products were eventually on-path to do. The seperate page that we ahve now demonstrates how thin the content can be for this thing. Merging it here would give us a place to put the paragraph or two that the XPS Renegade deserves, and that's about as much coverage as it can possibly have. -- Mikeblas 16:59, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

MergeThe XPS Renegade should be included in the XPS articles, but the earlier versions (e.g. XPS t700r etc.) should be seperated into their own catagory. MediaRocker 20:05, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Clean-up

I noticed the "cleanup" tag on this pageand I attempted to clean up the tagged article with a little more detailed information. More work is required however. I provided what I could with the limited time I had. --Kyle 14:33, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Article Redone

This article was rediculously pathetic. It was swarming now only with useless information (who the heck cares who the manager of the XPS divison was?) but with a load of English errors!

NOTE! Beacuse I agree that all of the other XPS articles should be merged into this one, I have included a significant amount of information on each current XPS model (including the 600R, X-Men thing and Media Concept).

XPS 600 Renegade linked, other cleanup

I've added bits and pieces of information to this page, and linked the XPS 600 Renegade section to the appropriate article. Hopefully this is the first step to merging all the XPS articles together.

Additionally, I feel that the XPS logo should be on the top of this page. It is available from Dell at http://www.dell.com/downloads/global/corporate/press/xps_logo.jpg

The problem with moving the XPS Renegade into the general XPS category is that the Renegade was an XPS in name only. This was not a typical parts bin raid, and the parts from the Renegade have not surfaced on other Dell models. The case was unique, the power supply was unique, the motherboard was unique, the overclocked processor was unique and the Caviar drives were unique. The RAM and the video cards were unique until the launch of the XPS 700 one month ago. Because the Renegade was a limited edition run that actually STAYED a limited edition run, I think it should remain a separate article."

The article should have referances to Alienware's range of products. Dell acquired Alienware in March 2006. Some note should also be provided to compare the product range of the two companies to make the article more holistic in its approach.

Series

I don't think we should include Alienware's products (in response to the dude above me) and if we were going to, we should do that on the main Dell page, not this XPS page. And i completely agree with the dude who posted after Shawnc and before Timharwoodx- we should have all the series hyperlinked onto this XPS page and when we click on those, we will see all those models within the series. KittenKiller

Pictures

This article needs some pictures. All it has is a bunch of text. • s d 3 1 4 1 5 talk • November 20, 2006.

Here's an image http://flickr.com/photos/toufeeq/163017103/ but it's small (300 x 273). feydey 19:45, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

It's also of unknown copyright status. Please don't use it until the photographer has given his permission. -- Mikeblas 20:08, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I have photographs of my own XPS M2010 system. I'll put one up soon. And remember to login when I do so.

Perhaps you should remember to sign your comments too. (Where is SineBot when you need him?)--136.159.209.71 (talk) 04:00, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

The current picture is not very good as it is an outdated model, and it's not really representative of the line. A current model like the M1330 or 1530 or that big not really a laptop thingy would be better. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.194.30.174 (talk) 15:54, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Revised, cleaned up

I've cleaned up the article quite a bit. Formatting is now more consistent, and the obvious weasel words have been nuked. Hopefully this is more informative. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Thegsrguy (talk • contribs) 07:51, 8 February 2007 (UTC).

The Section on the current (October 2010) XPS Laptops was not neutral in point of view. I rewrote it in a better way, or so I think. Tahabi (talk) 21:42, 29 October 2010 (UTC) Tahabi

I rewrote it too A412 (talk) 21:45, 29 October 2010 (UTC)A412

Question

Are there kits to build these (or other gaming) computers at home, or do I have to look for parts separatly (ie. not build one of these, just similar)? · AO ^Talk 16:51, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Dell computers are build to order, and not sold as kits. Try a site like http://www.newegg.com. Also, this kind of discussion isn't really appropriate for the talk page. Rstandefer 21:50, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Outdated

The specs for the XPS 710 and XPS 720HC are outdated, and the XPS 720 isn't mentioned at all. Anyone care to take a stab at updating? I might if I can find the time. Rstandefer 21:51, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Problems with the XPS M2010 section

I've twice removed unreferenced and POV material from this section; it was added again. The prose is very poor and of a tone I'd expect to find in an advertising leaflet or a review. There are several uses of vague statements and weasel words, and most of the content is uncited. Instead of removing the text for a third time, I've tagged the specific sections that are problematic.

This article is in very bad shape, and I'd rather see it get better before it gets worse so I hope these issues can be addressed promptly. -- Mikeblas 00:11, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

You've removed factual information; referenced at Dell's own website, and correcting errors in the specification such as the memory (1GB is the base config, for example; the machine supports two HDs which was not clarified in the original article). It's unusual technology; detailing WHY the system is unusual seems relevant. Of course, given your own range of knowledge, perhaps actually researching what you are deeming to be inappropriate first, instead of making assumptions, would be helpful. Your tagging IS helpful, and seeing as how you are so dedicated to making this section accurate, I'll google and retrospectively replace the sources.

I'll ignore your remarks regarding prose, as you know damn fine I'm a reviewer, I stated as such as my source. I'm also an editor. You want a comprehensive information resource in Wiki, then make the information work, rather than removing it. I freely admit that I'm new to adding information to WP, and if I continue to meet this sort of attitude, I will stop bothering to contribute at all. TastyOther 03:10, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I don't know who you are or what you do. My "attitude" is just a matter of following the rules. The things that you're claiming are facts aren't verifiable given the single M2010-specific reference in the article. Wikipedia articles are meant not only to be to be well-referenced, and this article is neither. I'm glad you've agreed to repair your contribution. -- Mikeblas 03:15, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Right. So you've tagged the rest of the article accordingly, which I see also has similar errors, editorialising, etc? Or would it just be the M2010 section, because I felt more information could be provided? The facts are not only verifiable, I provided links to the Dell setvice manual and configuration pages for the UK and US, where the differing specifications and some of the terminology were clarified. Whilst in matters of history, theology, science and so forth, "facts" are hard to ascertain, when it comes to a computer, it's pretty easy - there is no dispute as to what CPU is in it, who made what component, etc. Capabilty and subjective comments like the quietness of the computer I have removed - the only source I have is myself, and having owned about 600 computers, I'm probably not qualified to know if the laptop I'm using is 'quiet' ;)

FWIW, that line about blurring the distinctions wasn't mine, and I removed it with this edit. I know why the Dell M2010 was made, but I'm guessing "Dell" isn't a reliable source ;). Michael Dell wanted a flagship machine to show Dell can make a flash computer too, essentially. Without corroborating evidence, I'm not sticking that in. TastyOther 03:28, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

If we're relying on your opinion of "quiet", then we're relying on your original research. There's no dispute when an assertion is cited; the cite provides an easy way to verify the assertion. That's the whole point.

I'm not sure why all the tags I've placed were removed, as many of the issues they flagged remain. There are several more uncited assertions: that Dell markets the M2010 as a laptop; that it is similar to an "all-in-one" device; that the screen placement is more ergonomic (uh, than what, specifically?).

You've removed other tags without resolving the associated issue. For example, who specifically often reports the keyboard attaches magnetically? "equally similar" sounds pretty weasely. There's a hanging closing parenthesis, and sentence where "Gyration Inc" is linked for the second time in the same paragraph is superfluous.

The few things which are cited aren't footnoted. If you need help with the footnote syntax, just let me know. -- Mikeblas 20:57, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm curious as to the validity of "my knowing" by being told by Dell marketing why the M2010 was built - I can cite Dell marketing, but not sure how valid that is. That Dell markets the M2010 as a laptop is utterly verifiable by merely checking said links to Dell's store - to find the M2010 you go to "laptops" "(category, i.e. home/business etc. In the UK makes little difference, in the US, reveals different bundles or customisation)" and it's listed as the only 20.1" option. That it's "similar" to an all in one device... I mean, exactly where do you draw the line at "common sense"? The M2010 is CPU and monitor all in one, and has a substantial screen. Some would compare it to devices like the iMac - are you suggesting that a computer that combines the monitor and base unit in a single permanently attached unit is NOT similar to the devices classed as all-in-one models?.

As I said before, I'll google and find the articles I found stating the keyboard attaches magnetically. The "computer press" reports it - or did, when the machine was news, at least. Equally similar seems uncomfortable, I'll tweak that.

Thankyou, at least, for just fixing the literals and the double-link, instead of erasing the whole lot or just tagging it all. That's helpful. FWIW, I'm the only contributor on that page that has even put references to the Dell pages where the information is clearly stated... the tags were removed as I edited the text; the rest of the article needs extensive tagging IMO, I just have a different attitude to the content and like to research what I'm about to cull before removing it, rather than assuming it's incorrect unless there are extensive references and cites ("Unlike other 12" notebook computers, the M1210 features a built-in optical drive rather than an external" - cite? IIRC Apple's iBook was 12"; it's got a built-in optical drive. The 12" PowerBook definitely had...) Taking the time to further improve the article instead of removing swathes of new information seems rather more productive.TastyOther 22:22, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

The location on the website that you're describing isn't useable as a reference. It's a listing, and subject to change at the whim of aesthetic desire, and not a documentation of Dell's strategy in marketing the product.

You're very confused, so let me try to set you straight again. I'm not challenging the facts of what you wrote; I'm pointing out that, for it to become a part of Wikipedia, it must be referenced and verifiable.

The rest of the article is already tagged; you'll not the {{unreferenced}} section at the top. Despite that tag, you added more original research and unreferenced material, which is why I've reverted your edits.

Removing unreferenced, original research is improving the article, as verifiability and accuracy are keystones of Wikipedia. -- Mikeblas 02:49, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Dell will likely never write a book about its marketing strategies and product offerings. The only content that will likely ever exist for citation and reference purposes will be via Dell's website which is of course subject to change and reorganization at any time, potentially rendering all such citations invalid.

So whose fault is this, exactly, and why are you placing such an ardorous level of "perma-linkable cite requirements" onto other editors? It is really your call to make? Or must editors write and publish a book documenting Dell's marketing practices before it will be acceptable as a perma-linkable cite for you? Oh wait, then I suppose you'd call it original research unless someone else cites the book they've worked to publish...

URLs used as cites may change. Big deal. Since this is a wiki, dead URLs can be updated as necessary. Just a few days ago I updated a dead moved reference URL for the PDP Spacewar! article. Live with it and move on. DMahalko (talk) 19:08, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

XPS / 9100

I have an Inspiron 9100 which I have been told, is basically the original XPS laptop but without the rebranding. Is this true and if so could it be mentioned in the article? It certainly weighs the same at just over 4kg. -- 82.153.173.168 08:52, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Added References

I have added a couple of references to the Dell XPS wiki, concerning the Dell XPS All-in-One and the XPS M1730 notebook, as well as updating some irrelevant/expired information, mainly concerning the XPS 720 - 02:14, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Doing cite research using Dell's website

The citations and references that some editors are seeking are readily available right on Dell's own website. There is no need to go any further than Dell itself to find what you seek, though some of the older models are categorized differently from current models and don't appear alongside current XPS offerings.

To start your search:

• 1. Go to http://www.dell.com/
• 2. Move cursor over the Support item and choose Drivers and Downloads
• 3. Click on Choose a model
• 4. Select your product family

This should take you straight to the product selector page:

http://support.dell.com/support/downloads/index.aspx?c=us&l=en&s=gen

OLD XPS DESKTOPS:

Click on Desktops, then Dimension. Scroll to bottom and you'll see all the older XPS models.

After you've found an interesting model and the drivers/downloads page appears, over on the left side you will see a Manuals selection, which should include a Specifications sheet for each model as well as other system documentation.

Model	CPU and mHz
Dell System Specifications URL
XPS __FS	DX2 50/66, DX4-OD 100
http://support.dell.com/support/edocs/dta/XPS_F/00000005.htm
XPS 4100V / 66V MT	DX2 50, DX4 100
http://support.dell.com/support/edocs/dta/XPS2T/00000001.htm
XPS 50 / 66 MDT	DX2 50/66, DX4-OD 100
http://support.dell.com/support/edocs/dta/XPS_M/00000005.htm
XPS 66 / 100 MDT II	DX2 66, DX4 100
http://support.dell.com/support/edocs/dta/XPS2M/00000001.htm
XPS B__r	P3 533/600/667/733/800/866/933/1.00/1.13
http://support.dell.com/support/edocs/systems/dmag/specs.htm
XPS D__	P2MMX 233/333
http://support.dell.com/support/edocs/systems/dalex/Specs.htm
XPS H__	P2MMX 233/266
http://support.dell.com/support/edocs/systems/dcor/Specs.htm
XPS M__s	P-MMX 166/200/233
http://support.dell.com/support/edocs/systems/dter2/Specs.htm
XPS P__c MDT	P54C 90/100/120/133/150/166
http://support.dell.com/support/edocs/dta/XPSPCMDT/00000001.htm
XPS P__c MT	P54C 90/100/120/133/150/166
http://support.dell.com/support/edocs/dta/XPSPCMT/00000001.htm
XPS P__s MDT	P 133/166/200
http://support.dell.com/support/edocs/dta/_trmntor/00000005.htm
XPS P__s MT	P 133/166/200
http://support.dell.com/support/edocs/dta/_trmntor/00000005.htm
XPS P60 FS	P 60
http://support.dell.com/support/edocs/dta/XPSP60F/00000001.htm
XPS P60 M	P 60
http://support.dell.com/support/edocs/dta/XPSP60M/00000001.htm
XPS P60 MT	P 60
http://support.dell.com/support/edocs/dta/XPSP602/00000001.htm
XPS P75,90,100 MDT	P54C 75/90/100
http://support.dell.com/support/edocs/dta/XPSP9M/00000001.htm
XPS P75,90,100 MT	P54C 75/90/100
http://support.dell.com/support/edocs/dta/APMT/00000005.htm
XPS Pro__ MT	PPro 150/200
http://support.dell.com/support/edocs/dta/XPSP150/00000001.htm
XPS Pro__n MDT	PPro 150/180/200
http://support.dell.com/support/edocs/dta/XPSP200n/00000001.htm
XPS Pro__n MT	PPro 150/180/200
http://support.dell.com/support/edocs/dta/XPSP200n/00000001.htm
XPS R__	P2-MMX 350/400/450
http://support.dell.com/support/edocs/systems/dkhan/Specs.htm
XPS T__	P3 450/500/550/600/650/700/750/800/850
http://support.dell.com/support/edocs/systems/dkub/specs.htm

POSSIBLE EARLY XP[S] LAPTOPS:

The naming for these is interesting. Click on Notebooks, then Latitude:

• X1
• X200
• X300
• XP 4__
• XPi
• XPi CD
• XPi CD w/MMX
• XPi P100SD/P133ST

So Dell isn't hiding anything. You just have to know where to go look for it.

Oh, and since the content locations of these URLs are not immutably burned into a stone obelisk for all eternity, User:Mikeblas might possibly be upset with the ephemeral nature of these URL citations. Which is just too bad.

DMahalko (talk) 17:33, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

XPS M1710

Info about this system says that it was used in Stargate. Should the fact that it was used in Ocean's 13 also be mentioned? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.107.114.58 (talk) 00:41, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, an apearance in popular culture (stargate) is relevant, but an appearance in unpopular culture (Oceans 13) is not. :P —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.194.30.174 (talk) 15:52, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Salvaging this article

This article is an absolute wreck. If we delete everything that's not cited, we end up with nearly nothing. The individual models aren't notable, and piling them up in the article doesn't add encyclopedic value to the article. The "references" section has become a link farm.

If the Apple people can have page upon page for every single iteration of the Macintosh product line, then logic suggests that other computer brands should also be able to have this luxury.

Should it go to AfD again? If not, how should its repair be approached? -- Mikeblas (talk) 16:31, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Dell XPS One (All-in-One)

Dell announced an All-in-One unit early in 2008, reviews were posted on the internet, and people were saying it was "an iMac killer", and it appears in the Dell USA website but not in Canada. There is no mention of the all-in-one XPS line in the article. My guess is that it is not available in many countries, although it exists in the US Dell site.

uncited

I've again removed uncited material from this article. I don't expect it to be replaced without explanation until it is finally cited. Wikipedia requires that material in its article is not original research, as most of this article appears to be. Further, it requires that references to reliable sources be provided. -- Mikeblas (talk) 16:02, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

XPS M1530 / Intel Turbo Memory

Is Intel Turbo Memory really available for the M1530? I have been researching this laptop for some time, and have yet to see this option. I'm removing the reference for now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.118.239.125 (talk) 13:57, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

XPS-Wiki.com

I moved this external link from XPS. It clearly didn't belong on the disambiguation page.

I'm not saying I support including it in Wikipedia. It actually looks a bit too advertisement-y and link-farm-y for my tastes. However, I didn't want to get into that potential fight, so all I'm doing is moving it to a more appropriate place where others can decide whether it should remain.

Jordan Brown (talk) 01:21, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

I've removed the link per WP:ELNO. The linked site is essentially a blog. The forums and wiki are under-populated and of little real value. The wiki has very little content, and neither the wiki nor the blog are authoritative. I'll be cleaning up some of the other links, too, I think ... -- Mikeblas (talk) 01:45, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

World of Warcraft Special Edition XPS

Shouldn't this be mentioned as well? DuckReconMajor (talk) 03:12, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Minor fixes regarding the Studio XPS 1340

I modified the Studio XPS 13 section to clarify the GPU present and mention the presence of Hybrid SLI. It is a GeForce 9500M GE, not the 9500M GS that is present. Lord Destros (talk) 21:58, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Minor fixes regarding the Studio XPS 1340

I modified the Studio XPS 13 section to clarify the GPU present and mention the presence of Hybrid SLI. It is a GeForce 9500M GE, not the 9500M GS that is present. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lord Destros (talk • contribs) 21:56, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Dell XPS Throttling

Add the issue Dell laptops have been having with throttling when running intensive games. http://forum.notebookreview.com/showthread.php?t=446193 http://en.community.dell.com/forums/t/19320784.aspx http://en.community.dell.com/forums/t/19306277.aspx

It doesn't only concern XPS systems, but the issue has been seen most prominently in them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.183.148.93 (talk) 11:16, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Dell Dimension XPS P75/P90/P100 MDT

What about the earlier models such as the dell p90? Also at http://www.support.dell.com/support/edocs/DTA/XPSP9M/ .Smallman12q (talk) 16:00, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Dell Studio XPS 8100

What about the current Studio XPS 8100? I just bought one, and I expected to find a reference to it in this page. 72.146.111.162 (talk) 14:09, 6 August 2010 (UTC)