Switching out my MacBook Pro for a M1530

Hi all...

Having owned a MacBook Pro for a few months now, I've decided to get back to Dell. I tried out a M1530 earlier this year but ended up returning it (after much trouble). But since it is the only computer that looks good and have the 8600 GT (with DDR3 RAM) besides the MacBook, I guess I have to give it an other try. I do hope I'm more lucky this time. I do however have a few questions I hope you guys can help me with:

- Since I live in Denmark I don't yet have access to the LED screen. Is it worth waiting for?
- I've hear a lot about the 5.400 being faster than the 7.200 drives... Is this true and what drive should I get?
- I know that they'll make an update soon for it, but for the next week I can get a 15% discount and other things, meaning I can get it and a Wii and more goodies for the money I get for selling the Macbook Pro

Thanks for all your help and a great forum guys. I don't know what I would do without you = )

Kind Regards,

Peter

 

1. hell no. led is over rated
2. get the 320gb 5400rpm drive

 

1. hell YES, the LED screen is NOT over rated i have compared my 1330 LED to a bestbuy and a staples M1330 without it and it is a 100% improvement in brightness and clarity.

2. i agree with boypogi, i have the 160gb 7200rpm drive, but with double the capacity that will almost make up for the speed loss and u gain a butt load of storage space.

 

The LED screen sure is nice. The diffrence in brightness between a LED wxga and a WUXGA is about 10 - 15%

Btw doesnt your mbp come with LED backlit screen?

 

It does indeed, and it's a great screen, I know the M1530 LCD wont be as great.

I intend on sticking with 1440 x 900, mainly due to the games I'm gonna play (Warhammer Online and maybe Age of Conan), I don't think the games will run smoothly in the higher ones.

 

Actually, i compared my xps m1530(LED backlit) to my friend's MBP. They are both the same except MBP's screen has better color reproduction.

When i say i better, i meant you can notice it only when you look for details. However his MBP set him back over $3K. Where as i paid only $1580.

WarHammer online is a good game! i just think the graphics seem bit outdated. But yea, both games should run fine with the Geforce 8600go.

 

I couldn't agree more.

 

Why do you say this?

 

They say it because they have never seen one. If they did, they would regret their purchase on a non-LED display. Buyers remorse is what they call it I believe.

I used to think LED was overratted, but after seeing the actual screen itself, and now having an LED backlit display myself.. looking at all the other laptops in my house, Im thinking wow... how the heck could I have used non-LED displays.

Aside from improvements display-wise, remember it saves 30% battery life, makes the M1530 100 grams lighter compared to the non-LED displays. Plus, it futureproofs for the day when CCFL displays are down the drain.

 

I love how everyone makes those 100 grams to be such a big deal. I know a lot of us are geeks...but hit the gym people!

Seriously, It's all preference. I went for a higher resolution rather than LED. I don't travel much..so screw the battery life thing. But thats just me.

If you want something comparable to MBP...get the LED.

 

What's the reason for ditching the MBP?

 

Its a Macintosh, who wouldnt ditch it.

Probably just for the sake of having a native windows OS and not having to use bootcamp running windows on a mac. Just a guess.

 

I've seen both side by side and LED is over rated. With ~15% better brightness and somewhat better colours it's not the CCFL killer people think it is. OLED is the killer screen when ever it becomes avaliable at a decent price.

Again your making that statement about a mytical 30% battery saving that no manufacturer has advertised anywhere for the LED panels. From what people have reported in real life testing you get like 15-20 minutes more on a 3 hour battery which is around 10%.

As for future proofing, there is no such thing. Computers have a short life, by the time CCFL are outdated your current M1530 will be as well...

 

I was thinking the same thing

 

If you really want to know if LED makes a difference,

Take your MBP and compare to it to your friend's laptop. I am sure one of your friend has a Laptop with CCFL screen

then you might judge the difference for yourself.

 

As for battery life 30% of 2 hours and 30 minutes is about right for 6-cell, not 9 cell.

As for your future proofing, Im referring to displays only. Obviously nothing is 100% future proof, but if Dell comes out with a refresh and all the screens are LED backlit... those with CCFL, will be outdated whereas those with LED backlit displays will at least have the satisfaction that their displays are still latest gen mainstream.

 

Please show us someone who claims 30% on 150 minutes (yes 2.5 hours is 150 minutes)... That would be an additional 45 minutes...

 

My mistake, forgot to mention that the 2 hours and 30 minutes is the battery life of my LED backlit M1530. It would be 30 percent of what the standard battery life without LED backlit.

 

Well I'm not pleased with the Bootcamped Windows, it's just a bit to annoying having to switch around all the time. When I got it I didn't plan on gaming a lot. But Warhammer Online, Spore and Starcraft II will change that. So I decided I would change back to Dell (and with better hardware and a handful of cash who can blame me).

I don't think I'll wait for the LED (no one know when it will become available here in Denmark) and the 15% discount + more really makes it a great buy. As mentioned I did try out the M1530 and I was very happy with the screen even though it isn't as great as the Macbook Pro.

I'm still undecided about the HDD, 5.400 or 7.200?
...and what resolution to get it for, if I plan on gaming in 1440 x 900 it would be stupid to get a higher resolution right?

Once again thanks for all your help guys.

 

I called it.

Seriously, using a Windows on a Mac PC is like using Leopard on your M1530. Its just plain wrong.

 

And I get almost 3 hours with my CCFL screen and less efficient CPU...

 

6cell or 9cell? Im sure your not on maxed brightness and high performance mode to get 3 hours. My 2 hours and 30 mins are on max brightness and high performance mode. Hm... maybe one day I will try out power saver and lower the brightness a bit and see what I get. ^^

 

3 hours? Damn, at what brightness?

 

6 cell, brightness 2 notch down, web browsing, writting emails and other such tasks. Just like what you wrote yourself in another post except you had your brightness set to max.

 

Out of sheer curiosity, did you choose to upgrade to SP1?

 

I have not installed SP1

 

Huh? Maybe I'm missing something, but how will CCFL screens go "down the drain." Even if LED someday becomes the sole type of display on new machines, it's not like existing CCFL screens will suddenly go black. Or are you expecting that Microsoft will program Windows 7 to only display on LED screens?

 

Quoting from earlier post..

outdated does not equal suddenly go black. Its like CRT monitors, once flat panels are released, choose to get a flat panel as it will futureproof as the mainstream majority of displays now are flatpanel. Sure there are still CRTs like there will still be CCFLs, but they will be minorities.

Its like Windows 3.1. It still works, but the majority use Vista and XP etc. Understand? Good.

 

Well, when someone uses the term "futureproofing" and suggests that the other option will "someday be down the drain", it suggests more than "your display won't look as nice as displays manufactured 3 years from now."

No display today (even yours) will look as nice a new displays 3 years from now. And who cares? No one buys a laptop in 2008 and expects it to compare in any way to something purchased in 2010.

I'm just saying there are probably good reasons to get an LED display, but "futureproofing" isn't one of them.

BTW, equating the difference between flat panels and CRTS or Windows 3.1 and Vista to the difference between LED and LCD is pretty specious. Your talking about a minor level of brightness and a little less power consumption. It's not revolutionary.

 

other factors: eg Penryn processor, using DVD drive/wifi etc.

 

the speed is about the same due to data density.

 

What word would you use to convey the meaning you now know I'm trying to convey?

 

Personally I wouldn't bother with LED, I'd purchase a higher resolution screen.

Why? Because seriously, who uses their laptop at full brightness all the time? On the rare occasion outdoors, then yes - but apart from that it's usually at about 60-70% brightness. At the moment (and probably for some time to come) CCFL is the way to go for readily available WSXGA+ and WUXGA screens, and in my opinion WSXGA+ is a minimum for a display as large as 15.4".

With the brightness argument aside, how beneficial is extra real estate? Once you get used to it, there's no way you can go back. I came from a UXGA screen (on 15"), and knew I wanted the same if not better when I changed laptops.

So I bought the WSXGA+ (which was good really), but swapped out the panel myself for a brand new LG-Philips WUXGA. It's stunning, it burns my eyes at full brightness, and the extra real estate is awesome.

With the 8600 overclocked I can run all my old games at 1920x1200 (which look awesome + killer framerates), and most new ones will scale nicely still. Crazy pixel density = quality scaling.

Anyway that's my take. I'd get the 1680x1050 display, especially if you aren't getting LED, might as well exploit the benefit that becomes available to you by skipping that option.

 

I just switched from an MBP to a MacBook air and now on to the 1530 with the WSXGA+ screen and I couldnt be happier. I love my macs, but for business and gaming you cant beat the PC. And I'm very happy with my purchase.

 

I did consider geting the screen at either 1920 x 1200 or the 1680 x 1050, however I'm concerned that newer games won't run well at those resolutions, that's why I thought I would be better to get the 1440 x 900.

Wouldn't that be the best bet for running games like Warhammer Online and Starcraft II more fluently?

 

I'm unsure on the requirements for those games as I don't play them, though I can't imagine them being that high?

Could be wrong though, either way lower resolutions will scale great on the higher res panels and for the games that will run in the higher resolutions, they look really nice for it. But if you don't need the extra real estate for other work (and/or don't think you'll be running any games at higher resolutions) then I guess there's no need for the higher res displays.