Dell officially announces Studio line of multi-colored MBP-likes


Dell's announcement of a chromatically-diverse line of Studio laptops will take no gadget reader by surprise. A leak is what happens when a pin punctures a bladder; the Studio line was splattered months ago all over the internet in an explosion of rainbow-hued offal more akin to a mule overdosed on Alka Seltzer.

Still, now that the Studio line is official, it does look like a step in the right direction. The design is similar to the XPS M1530, with a tapered one-inch thick design and a big side hinge. Unlike the brushed metal of the XPS, the Studio line is plastic... but available in multiple customized covers.

Specs-wise, we're looking at an Intel Core 2 Duo Processor, up to 4GB of memory, 320GB hard drives, a Blu-Ray Disc Option, built-in 2-megapixel webcam, Wi-Fi, optional WLAN and optional EVDO. The 15-inch Studio 15 supports a resolution up to 1440x900, while the 17-inch Studio 17 goes up to 1900x1200.

All around, it looks like Dell's trying to move towards Mac-style design: the Studios are about as thick as a MacBook Pro, although they outweigh the latter by two pounds. Outside of a wimpy Intel graphics chip, you can optimize these to compete, feature-for-feature, with an MBP... you can even specify LED backlighting. The Studios also come with a little OS X style Dock installed, prompting one Gizmodo commenter to quip: "How awesome. They preload crap to clean up the crap they preload!"

The Studio 15 starts at $749, although that's bare bones, and all the truly interesting options are going to cost you. If you don't care about a gaming-caliber graphics chipset or Leopard, it looks like Dell has brought a decently attractive and substantially more affordable MacBook Pro clone to the table. It's nice to see Dell starting to give a honk for design.

Dell Studio Notebooks Officially Bring Decent Design to Mid-Range [Gizmodo]

Join the Conversation


  1. Mac hardware is only the much smaller part of Apple goodness. It’s the OS.. it’s the OS… it’s… the… OS.

  2. MacOS is built on an XNU kernel. XNU is a train-wreck OS like HP-UX, but in this case the trains were a north-bound BSD and south-bound Mach. Since MacOS-X is only shipped on hardware that compensates for the massive inefficiency of the XNU kernel, it’s actually pretty nice. I like my Mac. But without the high-end hardware it’s a bloated pig with sassy lipstick.


  3. Charile, how is combining the strengths of both the monolithic and microkernel approach to kernel design a “massive inefficiency” (in the real world)? Do the benefits interrupt your workflow somehow? You hate having the security benefits, etc.? XD

    I have a feeling the REAL reason you use Mac is not because they use “high-end” hardware.. you use it because the OS is currently the most efficient in the world for getting most work (and play) done. Faster than Linux in raw, dumb speed? No, but who cares? Would Linux be as fast if it needed to work in the real world instead of in system admin la-la land? Mac would crush it. If you are happy with second-rate apps like Gimp… then fine… otherwise, some of us have work to do. Will you get most work done faster utilizing the Mac OS than using Linux? Yes, if you know what you are doing with Mac OS X. I’ll take real world ROI over lab geek-benches any day.

    I’ve been using Mac OS X almost since its inception. Guess how many kernel panics I’ve gotten from the OS… NONE. Ever. Heading towards 7-8 years here and not one OS crash (well, except one freeze from Microsoft Virtual PC many years ago in early Panther and that was from gross incompetence on Microsoft’s part)

    During this same period of time, I’ve seen tech support for many Windows XP clients and it’s been a disaster. Constant problems and battles with the OS that have only gotten worse over the years as the proliferation of spyware and viruses have reached critical mass. Linux? Ubuntu? Have fun teaching clients how to throw away Photoshop for Gimp and plug and play for… plug and sometimes write your own driver or wait forever for someone else to write one (if ever).

    I don’t know what massively inefficient, train-wreck, bloated pig you’re running, but my Macs and many of the Macs of my associates are rock solid. I’ve seen 7 year old Macs running on old PowerPC hardware with even the older Panther & Tiger OS X outperform much newer 3-4 year old Intel machines running Windows XP in almost every way possible. That’s no “fluke”… it’s superior engineering on Apple’s part. Once again, Linux is fast, but inadequate for most users.

    I know plenty of Mac users (and some current PC users) that would absolutely love to put the Mac OS on any hardware out there they could get their hands on. If the OS isn’t the true strength of the Mac, then why are so many people attempting to hack OS X to run on other hardware? You argument just doesn’t hold any water.

    Once again, it’s NOT the look of the hardware… it’s NOT the hardware, period… It’s the OS.. it’s the OS… it’s… the… OS. I don’t see Mac users clamoring to switch to Vista.. it’s the other way around and it’s not because of the hardware… once again, it’s… the… OS.

    I think you should educate yourself on the realities, weaknesses and strengths of Apple’s kernel utilization here. Apple’s engineers are some of the best in the world, if you have some dire advice for them on how to improve the OS I hope you get right to work on Snow Leopard with them.

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *