Slashdot Mirror
Dell Adamo Review — Macho Outside, Sissy Inside
Odelia Lee writes with a full review of Dell's new Adamo slimtop over at Gizmodo. While it may have an sleek exterior there are definite gaps (both literal and figurative) in their engineering. "The Adamo is both a compliment and an insult to Dell engineering. It's possibly the most beautiful computer Dell has ever manufactured, but I'm not sure that Dell has caught up to competitors in either aesthetics or power. There have been lots of qualitative Adamo reviews out there, but we got the first of the units that will actually ship to customers, so it's time for real benchmarks. As it happens, performance is really what's at stake here."
Why don't you just wind it down and give the money back to your shareholders? Or stick to servers.
I think the article summary nails it.
Bigger, heavier, louder (which, to me, is half the point of something like the air), integrated battery (just like the air), bad performance, higher price... what's the point?
It's nice looking, but it sounds like an Air is a much better all around computer. The only thing in it's favor is the higher max RAM (Apple will probably change that) and the integrated 3G option (I'd expect Apple to change that too). Gizmodo is also right that nVidia's next chipset for netbooks will outperform this, at 1/5th the price. It has eSata too though, which is a plus.
Nice try Dell. It is certainly very nice visually. But you need some substance to go with that, or at least a cheaper price point.
Comment forecast: Bits of genius surrounded by a sea of mediocrity.
Dell Adamo, for when you want to be pretentious, but you can't afford Apple.
And yes, that website is hideous Flashturbation. I dare you to "encounter," "admire," "discover," or "commit" anything useful about the Adamo on the page. Apple gets credit here for blending marketing and tech specs. Where is the audience for Adamo? They already bought Apple or they're scratching their heads trying to find out how much RAM and CPU it has.
(-1, Raw and Uncut is the only way to read)
Gizmodo mentions the CPU speed thing, but they also point out the Air is cheaper in it's minimal configuration but still faster than the Adamo.
Comment forecast: Bits of genius surrounded by a sea of mediocrity.
Your entire post would make sense if only one thing were true. If this PC weren't MORE expensive than the closest Mac counterpart, you could excuse poor build quality, under-powered processor, and heftiness as merely being good value for dollar. But that's not true. It's MORE EXPENSIVE than the Air. A slim laptop that's more pricey than the already overpriced status symbol that is the Macbook Air, but provides significantly less value? Somebody failed, and failed hard.
Just another "DOJ fascist authoritarian totalitarian bootlicker" -- Zeio
They could give it a gruff exterior, but it would kick the ass of any other computer that got in its way, Apple or Cylon.
Adamo commercial
Thank you, Gizmonic, for introducing me to yet another word I expect never to use in polite company. :)
Cheers,
"What in the name of Fats Waller is that?"
"A four-foot prune."
This is a genuine question, not a troll. I'm really interested in the answer.
What is the meaning of comparing the GHz as a major factor in evaluation of a laptop? I'm a bioinformatician. I do most of my work on an X40 Thinkpad. For small jobs, this is more than sufficient. For major calculations, one or two cores will not suffice, no matter what the GHz.
From my experience, for most of the tasks, a difference of even 10% in the speed is not an issue, and anyway, there are dozens of other factors that influence both, the real computing speed and the reactivity of the interface. To me, things like memory, disk access, networking, cacheing, usage pattern and last but not least, what software solution you have picked for your task seem to be more influencial on the overall perfomance than a difference between 1.6 or 1.86 GHz. Yet in most comparisons (e.g. several posts here on Slashdot), when talking of a laptop, first two things to mention are the price tag and the GHz.
Question: am I missing something? What is so important about the GHz of the processor to use it as a proxy for "performance"? Is it just historical, or maybe because it is easy to quantify, like in the case of megapixels in digital cameras (which are nowadays mostly meaningless, but easy to compare)?
j.