Sager 8800 Update

I agree but if the samples were consistently changing but at first looked promising they may have been going from that. however, if Nvidia pulled a crazy ivan and changed the samples completely then they have a different problem on their hands.

No one knows for sure though.

 

That might not be as true as it used to be given that this time around NVidia chose to manufacture most of the video-card itself in-house, and left a lot less to be customized by the vendors/ODMs.

 

Hopefully it will be resolved soon, and the truth will come out.

 

In my view it is irrelevant if they knew about it or not. Even if Clevo knew that problems were coming it does not mean that resellers knew etc etc.

Either way it does not makes my overall good opinion about their technical expertise or about the good customer support we get from resellers.

Of course if I want to sell you something I don't focus on the problems, but I sell you the benefits. One of the benefits dealing with Clevo and their resellers is that there is in most cases a roadmap for upgrades. I can actually talk about MXM very well while avoiding the issue of upgradabaility and let you make up the rest. This does not make anyone a liar IMHO.

Setting this aside, any product supplier should honor the product spec. If you say that something is compliant to X it is compliant to X. If problems get in the way after its is bad to ask customers for money to fix it. Of course some people may fall for it, others argue their point. There is also a question of timing here. The 8700 GT in SLi just came out in October, one more reason to actually fix it at no cost irrespectivly were people bought their Clevos (this only Clevo can enforce). We still don't know if the issue was really on the MXM interface (chipsets etc) but judging ny the information available so it seams.

And we all know what full MXMIV compliance really means for us. Upgradebability to future cards without a motherboard replacement. I knew it before and I know it now. This considering that new cards don't change interface formats as it happens with the 8800M GTX.

Stay cool,

Trance

 

if the odm's continue to produce the snake oil while the resellers continue to sell the snake oil then blame needs to be passed on to all the parties involved, except the end user.

 

After reading some of the recent posts here (btw most of them well written and thought out whether one agrees or not, so kudos), I have a couple questions that hopefully can be answered:

1.Isn't the 8800M MXM III?
2.Isn't MXM IV ( found on the D901C and M570) a hybrid spec initiated by Clevo?
3.Finally, are there any MXM III notebooks that are 'plug and play' compatible with the 8800M ( doesn't require a motherboard swap)?

Thanks!

 

MXMIV is in the latest published spec from NVIDIA. Actually your question is one that always puzzled me since I started doing some research to buy the laptop. Information seamed contraditory depending with whom do you talk to (some say it an invention of Clevo other say it is an invention from NVIDIA).

I always believed that Clevo could be not using the MXM brand/spec in their spec sheet without the consent of NVIDIA. The confirmation came in the latest spec.

Nevertheless I believe that the MXM spec allows ODM's to put their bells and wissles on their cards as long as it does not compromise conformance (it is conformance that in one way or another reduces production costs both to NVIDIA and ODM's by bringing in system predictability). Indeed what happens is that ODM's put in changes just enough to make it incompatible with other ODM's laptops while leaving the door open to future video cards ... if they don't screw up the conformace it self in the process.

Trance
PS: If you read the spec one of the MXM types (Type one or something) describes actually the interfaces of an embedded video card. So I'm starting to think that almost all ODM's and their new laptops use one way or another the MXM spec in their implementation. Some of them advertise it usually meaning that it is modular and upgradeable, some of them don't ... meaning that is not upgradeable ... at least without a motherboard replacement.

 

this is my belief i think people are getting confused on vendors manufacturers and resellers
manufacturers are nvidia /western digital and so on.
vendors are seger/ dell /toshiba and so on
resellers are xoticpc pcpowernotebook and so on
then there is us consumers
now this is very vague but i think i will get my opinion across
ill go backwards with resellers they do very little if anything in regards to technology they are buying a lappy from there vendors and selling them for a profit they get a good discount for buying in bulk so they must sell to live.
for there business they give tech support customize ur lappy and maybe more of a warranty to keep them better then other resellers its VERY competitive.

now u have the vendors that put all the parts together and put there name on it. sager/ dell/toshiba so on. these guys know whats up with there suppliers (manufacturers) prior to the resellers . resellers are 2nd to last to know whats up. consumers are the last. so when the manufacturers do something new they call the vendors and say here's what we have so far and they send specs. now the vendor makes sure that the case MB's fans and all work together with testing from the manufacturers once its OK they then they call the reseller and tell them what is going to be the next lappy then starts production . then send them to the reseller .then send them to u

now u cannot blame the reseller for anything, other then ur order, they didn't make the gpu MB case so on. they are the most helpful because u are dealing with them from start to finish. they are what the name says resellers they can not and will not tell there customers that they are going to recall a lappy for what ever reason they don't have that power. that's the power of the vendor, sager dell toshiba ect. if u have a problem with the design u can call the vendor and if the reseller advertised it wrong (to make a sale)the vendor with take it up with them and maybe take away there dealership. to stop them from selling there product. if its the vendor u have to take it up with (for design issuses) it gets hard to get them to deal with you if you didn't buy it directly from them they will redirect u to who u bought it from to get you to go away. its hard to place full blame on them when u didn't buy it from them. u are small to the vendor. just one lappy but if a large reseller says they will not buy dells anymore that will get the vendors attention. that's a lot of lappys. our problem is not with any of the resellers with these lappys. its the vendors they are not honoring there advertisement of the MXM upgradable lappy the reseller is in the middle. if i want them to correct this problem it does not go back to my reseller it goes to there vendor. they are out of the loop not there problem. i know I'm not totally accurate with this but it is basically how it goes . that's why i say i would not buy another sager/clevo (vendors product) i do not blame the reseller (xotic pc) they have done nothing wrong but i do think they should put the pressure on sager to stop MB's every 2 months sager will listen to them if they buy a lot of lappys.
this is all my opinion on this topic of sager 8800's upgrade

 

My head hurts.

 

LoL.......

 

It is an accurate description of the food chain.

 

Lol if only the spelling and punctuation was as accurate. that was painful, no offense.

 

Althought the description is accurate for most cases it is not the perception that I have when it comes to Clevo laptops.

By definition a vendor is a product or company that supplies something to another company or person (aka as supplier). So the application of this term is relative to who supplies a product and who consumes it. For instance a PowerNotebooks is a Vendor (supplier) to final customers and Clevo is a vendor/supplier in relationship to Sager etc.

In the IT world the roles of a company within the suplly chain are Parts Manufacturers, System Builders, Distributors, Wholesalers or Retailers, Resellers and Shops.

Indeed I understand that Sager, Eurocom and so on want to be in the group of System Builders and at some extent they succeed. Indeed they put in the CPU and Memory on the notebooks but in terms of system building they do little more then that. They don't have any kind of control over technology or the core system building process and R&D, that is owned buy Clevo. (An example of that was Eurocom stating that you could put Quad Cores in the first motherboard Revision untill Clevo told them to shut up as they were not supporting it, this is what happened IMHO). One word that comes to my mind when I think of Sager and Eurcome support system is of Clevo Consultants.

So they are actually Value Added Retailers (They can be big or small and put their label on it but that is what they are). They buy big quantities of goods (clevo barebones and modules), store them in some warehouse, and they provide some value added services through technical support to resellers and end customers. But they do not control in anyway the product/technology like DELL, TOSHIBA, ALIENWARE, HP, SONY and Clevo do, these are true System Builders (System Builders "own" the R&D and the full assemply process).

Now you have the Resellers and their Shops. These shops go to System Builders, Wholesalers or Retailers to get the goods to sell. They also give some support to end clients. But when things are a little more complicated a customer needes to go to the Wholesaler, Retailer, or System Builder.

Having understood this here is what I think is the chain.

Clevo (System Builder) - Sager, Eurocom and so on (Value Added Wholesaler/Retailers) - Powernotebook, XoticPC and so on (Resellers, Shop).

The problem with this chain is that the final customer "cannot" reach the System Builder (Clevo) to make a complain. Clevo jumps from being a System Builder to Parts Manufacturer as it seams fit to deal with a particular situation (ambiguity).

Although Clevo Wholesalers/Retailers (Sager, Eurocom, Pioneer and so on) want to be System Builders, they don't actually control the technology or product to be one of them. So responsibility over it is blured. So much that they jump from being a System Builder wannbe to the role of Wholesaler/Ratailer as it seams fit to deal with a particular situation.

For instance if one believes that MXMIV compliance is broken with whom do you talk to? Naturally to whoever owns the system spec, that is Clevo, but then the company it is not available to get your inquiries neither to provide a solution becouse with this respect it is seen as a Parts Manufacturer for Sager. But when ones talks with Sager they say they don't have any information from Clevo regarding this issue apart from the need for a motherboard replacement. Neverteless this answer is inadequate as this is the kind of answer one would expect from a Value Added Retailer not a System Builder, that is Clevo really . Got the Picture?

Clevo says "here it is what you can sell, do you want to sell it and support it?". Sager says "yes I can sell that and provide some support". This is the kind of "language" typical between System Builders and Value Added Wholesalers or Retailers but not between a Parts Manufacturer and a System Builder. In the later is more like, "Here are the Parts I can provide to your next System". You can see this kind of conversation going on between for instance NVIDIA and Clevo.

One paradigmatic company working as a "true" Wholesaler/Retailer is indeed Rjtech in this supply chain. They actually sell you the Clevo System (the the d901c barebone only) and all the available Clevo modules (video cards, bluetooth and so on) so that you can put in the CPU, RAM and Hardrives as you see fit and according to the system spec. If you have a problem with the barebone, you go primarly to them. But the customer still lacks the ability to enquiry directly the System Builder (Clevo) when things get more complicated, as for instance one can do with a Asus Barebone. This explains the reason why I believe the supply chain is somewhat broken.

This what I believe it is the case, in no way I'm saying that actually it is like this ... but it seams to be so. So read all this with a pintch of salt.

Stay cool,

Trance
PS: Hope I'm not giving anyone headaches These are all issues of a supply chain that is not yet mature IMHO.

 

So what you are saying is that Clevo is the system designer. Sager and Eurocom are the system integrators and retailers. XOTIC and Powernotebooks are the wholesalers.

 

No what I'm saying is that:

* NVIDIA, Intel, Hitachi, etc are Parts Manufacturers

* Clevo is the System Builder (they build the Barebone System and available Options apart from RAM, CPU and HDD of course). That we don't have access to a direct inquiry.

* Sager and Eurocom and others are the Value Added Retailers (not only they Import the goods from Clevo and regionally supply complete Clevo based systems to resellers but they also provide support and integration services to the end customer over Clevo Barebones). But Clevo system are just one within the line of products they supply (They also work with ARIMA and other System Builders).

* RJTech is also a Value Added Retailer and Clevo Reseller. Unlike Sager and Eurocom not only they provide complete systems, but also the Barebone System itself working as Reseler pure and simple.

* XOTICPC and Powernotebooks are Resellers of Sager. They also provide value added services on top as they see fit such as Paint Jobs. But mostly they sell the as provided by Sager (not meaning as manufactured).

* Most companies not in US work more like value added resellers of Clevo. They don't use a company like Sager or Eurocom that actually whishes to present itself as a System Builder, but use one that works more like a Wholesaler as the midlleman between them and Clevo.

Definitions:

Wholesaler: http://www.investorwords.com/5310/wholesaler.html

Value Added Retailer: http://onlinedictionary.datasegment.com/word/value added retailer

Reseller: http://www.investorwords.com/4203/reseller.html

DELL, TOSHIBA, ASUS etc are all the roles in some regions, and in others they use Resellers and Wholesalers. What distinguishes them from Sager and Eurocom as that they own the System Build, in other words, they are the System Builders. They can say "let's do this with the BIOS", or "MXM compliance is broken, we will replace the motherboard free of cost in order to honor the published Spec" as they own the System Build and the System Spec etc etc.

Stay cool,

Trance
PS: Hope that this helps to understand that when you complain with an issue related with the spec of the system, in the end it is not Sager or Eurocom that can actually provide a solution if it was not already provided by the System Builder that they don't control. They can pretend they are the ones offering the solution, but they are not. Either the technical solution provided by Clevo is already there or if it is not there is no way they can give you one without a finantial impact on their share of the bargain so full stop. This is actually a a problem, especially when we are talking about $4000 computers. Something that does not happen with a $1000 Asus laptop for instance. That is why our complaints about MXM compliance or even lack of flexibility in the BIOS rarely echoes in the supply chain (never seen it echoing really). If needed MXMIV should be fixed free of cost, but only Clevo have the legal obligation to apply that measure IMHO. So where is Clevo? Nowhere and everywhere

 

Thank you for posting the most sanity I've seen yet in this thread.

 

Its all beating around the bush --

The term "MXM" is bandied around as a specification, which implies more than is in effect reality. I'm sure it is intended to be where we all think, but the reality is simply different.

So the real learning here is that "MXM" at this point cannot be trusted per se.

I don't blame any one of the organizations really; anyone whose in IT will know -- design by committee is destined to mediocrity; design by spec will onyl work if the spec is highly well defined. Any avenue for interpretation leads to problems.

We the customer have to pay for these failings; but its not any one organization, and especially not the resellers. It is an unfortuante thing.

I'm not too annoyed, since with the M570RU it doesn't sound like too bad an issue. If I had just bought a 901 or whathaveyou, I'd be pretty damned PO'd. Not because I didnt' know better, but because MXM is there for a reason, and it suggests promise.

As others have said.. if MXM cannot perform as it suggests, it doesn't really need to be there; it should not be advertised. People compare MXM to PCI -- you just buy a PCI card and in general it works. Not so here.

jeff

 

actually Eurocom was actually doing a solder job on the motherboards of d900's when the d901 quad mobo came out. they could do the JOB in 20 min for a heck of a lot less than getting a new mobo....

Someone who works for Eurocom told me this. they also told me that Sager got mad that they had an advantage and complained to clevo to ask them to stop.

i believe it. they wouldn't tell me this if it weren't true. also it would give an edge sales wize. as people h8 mobo upgrades.

This was told to me From someone @eurocom.

 

That would depend upon the contracts the various vendors have; I don't doubt you, but I imagine there are reasons for it.

jeff

 

Well, any chance of this person also telling you (or giving you some useful hints) what the actual needed soldering job is? Maybe at least enough for the group-mind here to puzzle out what the actual mod has to be?

 

Email Eurocom and ask.

he told me that it was very simple for their tech staff to complete.
20 minutes was all it took.

 

"We the customer have to pay for these failings; but its not any one organization, and especially not the resellers. It is an unfortuante thing."

This is were I digress. Honestly this is the first time ever I actually read something like this. If you say that something is compliant to X it needs to be compliant to X period. Yes the spec can be improved. A long the years MXM went fron MXM-I then MXM-II was added, the MXM-III and now MXM-IV. Eacg part dealing with different problems within the same universe.

If I bought a new telly where in the its spec it said that it has a HDMI v2 port. And if this port didn't work it when I connect it with a HDMI v1 device I would go back and ask for free repair if under garantee, just becouse HDMI v2 spec is compatible with HDMI v1 according to the spec, period. If the issue was really bad I would simply get my money back.

Yes, in IT there are standards such as WebService and SOAP, and frameworks that implement it. They are very careful in stating the level of conformance in these cases if necessary so much that the framework builders offer patches to customers for free to solve bugs in the system. An example of one is Microsoft that so many people dislike.

In E-Learning there is a standard called SCORM and multiple levels of compliance that vendors actually state which level their products comply. And if you find a case within the realm of the specced compliance level you get a free patch for sure.

And so on and son. I don't understand why with MXM standard should be different.

Trance
PS: Can you imagine if you bought a PCI Express video card from Asus that did not work with a motherboard with PCI Express slot? You would send it back to get replaced or something like that. In our case we understand it may not work like that, but at least it should work with two MXMIV video cards made by the same company that makes the motherboard and the video cards otherwise the MXM implementation is as flawed as any of things stated above as an example and that were fixed without needing further payments in real life too.

 

I totally agree with everything you just said.

they darn well planned to do the upgrades this way. and you know it.

they did it the exact same way with the other d900 back a year or two ago.

nothing changes. they could have found a better way to release like maybe with 1 mobo upgrade instead of 2-3, or with soldering on the mobo?

they should test things before selling items and claiming certian things.

 

I think ppl try too hard to find a scapegoat to blame for this MXM fiasco if you can call it a fiasco. Truth is there's blame everywhere not just any one company.

As a prospective consumer I was already skeptical of MXM when it was being promoted. And don't just blame the retailers..I've seen alot of posters in this very same forum throwing around the MXM moniker treating it almost as an established standard viewed no different than say PCIe. And some of those assumptions came from actual User reviews. So really as much as we like to bash those who are POed because of the expensive upgrades I'm not entirely sure they should bear that exclusively.

I've said it before and I'll say it again: never base your final buying decision of a notebook because it has MXM but rather for a notebook that fits your needs. If it uses MXM then simply view that as a bonus that might or might not pay off down the road.

 

It's not about blame, it's about responsibility.

Trance
PS: If we as customers don't pressure enough to get the implementation of the MXM spec right it will never happen believe me. The major System Builders don't like this spec due to all sorts of business reasons if you think about it. I know that I wouldn't becouse it has the potential to change the business model around the video cards.

 

From what I've been able to gather, I think you're right that there's blame enough to go 'round to everyone (except for the retail resellers, who seem unlikely to be let in on all the confidential high-up talk going on between NVidia and the ODMs like Clevo).

You're also correct inasmuch as the status of MXM as a "standard" is more aspirational than actual; NVidia appears to have issued a "standard" with so many exceptions and outs for vendors who didn't want to comply with this or that bit of the specifications that the exceptions to the "rule" have consumed the "rule" itself (i.e., there's more hole than there is donut).

Unfortunately for the end-user, it may be (and this is purest speculation on my part, so please take it with as many grains of salt as you can stomach) that this "fiasco" is, in fact, part of NVidia's attempt to make MXM more of a standard by putting its foot down and insisting on strict compliance with parts of the specification - compliance that it had not enforced before. In other words, it's possible (again, be forewarned, this is pure speculation) that the current D901C owners got the short end of the stick, not because MXM is not really a "standard" (which it currently isn't), but precisely because NVidia is now belatedly trying to make it a standard.

At any rate, even if that's the case, there is still more than enough blame to go 'round; first to NVidia for not giving more public notice that it was going to enforce MXM as a standard instead of an aspiration (if that is really what happened; I cannot stress enough that on this point I am wholly speculating); second to Clevo for not warning Sager et al that there was enough uncertainty regarding MXM and compatibility that the systems designed to the old 7950 GTX and the 8700M specifications should not have been marketed as being upgradeable; and third to Clevo and the other motherboard makers and BIOS programmers for being hide-bound tinkerers instead of cutting-edge innovators whose "revisions" amount to not more than the electronic equivalent of duct-taping and re-jiggering a fundamentally prehistoric platform to accomodate each individual change that comes around instead of setting a break-point with history at the inception of a new system (e.g., the introduction of the original D900) and designing a new motherboard from the ground up with legacy support only for those functions that do not conflict with the highest level of support for current and imminent technological developments.

(Well, that was quite a mouthful, so to speak ; it needs a paragraph break just for legibility).

Specifically, Clevo and its motherboard designers should have redesigned the D900 motherboard from the get-go so that it complied with every jot and tittle of the MXM specifications, including, in this instance, proper support for reading EDID directly from the display instead of jury-rigging it off of a separate on-board EPROM, and Clevo should have insisted on equiping the D900 with a display unit capable of transmitting its own EDID data. The fact that Clevo did not do this, and instead continued to coast along on the tried-and-true hack (even though, admittedly, allowed by the MXM standard itself) of using a separate EPROM to provide the EDID data, does serious injury to Clevo's claim to be engineering cutting-edge technology (forget about bleeding-edge).

Ok, ok, speechifying is over for now :rolleyes2: .

 

What I really don't get is why we are still talking about this.

The price was set, the deed was done, and there is nothing we can do but, refuse to upgrade, or cough up 1,000$ + USD to get the lastest and greatest, and in truth we'd still be paying 750$ for just the card anyway, which is outragus in it's own right.
if it's anyone we should be angry at, it's CLEVO, they really pulled a fast one on anyone who bought a top of the line notebook in the past 4 months and expected to upgrade to this card no problem.

Sager is doing a lot to help everyone by providing a cheap mobo upgrade to everyone.

 

Yeah it's sad you know.

There are alot of people who got the sharp end of the stick so to say.

It sux, there is no question about it.

The only thing to do is either upgrade and bear the cost if it means that much, or wait, and spend that little extra for a bigger upgrade to say the Nvidia 9xxx series which will need a new MB for sure, and most likely have Penryn support. (Guessing)

I was late on the high spec notebook boat, and it seemed I just missed the situation everyone is facing, but I would be equally as pissed.

For me, I am glad I chose PC MIcroWorks as they offer a wholesale upgrade path, and will even buy back and credit their machines.

Are there other companies like Xotic or others that do that?

It's awesome that Sager is offering that upgrade path.

For those that may be looking to bear the ghastly upgrade cost, is it perhaps better to wait for the new 9xxx series even a year away and spend the money on a new generation upgrade? I could be spitting downwind I know, (and I apologise for that as my opinion is coming froma different angle), but perhaps in the very long term that is a better option, and to skip the 8800M upgrade and wait and spend the money on a better upgrade, which would yield better specs for a cheaper upgrade possibly, (but in reality, who wants to wait that long right?)

And the question also remains, as to what can we do as consumers to ensure this doesn't happen to anyone else? How can we ensure that people are better informed if possible? Are there companies we should support more as opposed to others, or are we totally at the mercy of the corporations/resellers? (I explicitly miss out Nvidia in that statement for obvious reasons)

JUst my $0.05c worth.

-Coors916

 

I would say the point of keeping is thread alive and close to the front page is to that new customers, when thinking of buying Sager and Clevo, can see what is Clevo's business practice and can take their claims of notebooks being "upgradable" with a pinch of salt.

We have a similar situation now with PC MicroWorks in the US and Rock in the UK claiming that they will be able to ship before Christmas for sure. Both companies have now changed their mind and said shipment will be after Christmas because of supplier delays. However, that did not stop them from taking in many preorders during December, even though it was by no means certain that 9262 will be ready in December.

Further to this, I would be very wary of buying a 9262 SLI configuration until nVidia's SLI driver is released and benchmarked. Remember, nVidia is the company who was selling 8800 desktop chips with supposed DX 10 compatibility several month before Vista was released, only to have no 8800 family driver upon Vista's release and for several months afterwards. SLI has only started working on Vista in August/September timeframe.

 

Consider that Rock IS offering a free CPU upgrade for the people that are waiting now.

 

I am sorry anyone feels as if they have been cheated by anyone. However let’s take a moment to look at the facts.

As early as March 16th I made the following post at Notebookreview.com:
http://forum.notebookreview.com/showpost.php?p=1863843&postcount=17

Thereafter I posted several more times including the following:
http://forum.notebookreview.com/showpost.php?p=2139204&postcount=3
http://forum.notebookreview.com/showpost.php?p=2139240&postcount=5
http://forum.notebookreview.com/showpost.php?p=2158332&postcount=5

There are numerous other posts on the Notebookreview.com Forum discouraging anyone from counting on being able to upgrade any video card in a laptop computer, much less upgrading to the nVIDIA GeForce 8800M w/512MB GDDR3.

Can anyone show me where Sager or any Sager reseller advertised that any of their models would be upgradeable to the nVIDIA GeForce 8800M w/512MB GDDR3? (Simply stating that it is an MXM IV module in no way "advertises" or "guarantees" upgradeability to an as yet to be released video card)

Can anyone show me any other Multi National Brand laptop that is upgradeable to the nVIDIA GeForce 8800M w/512MB GDDR3?

Now, as for the cost of upgrading, please keep in mind the cost of the nVIDIA GeForce 8800M w/512MB GDDR3 card alone is $745 and the labor to install it is $80. So at $899 that only leaves $74 for the cost of the new motherboard. Considering that the TRUE cost of the motherboard alone is $400 if you needed to replace it on an out of warranty repair, and considering that this motherboard upgrade will also support the Intel® Core™2 Quad Processor, I would say that Sager is actually showing a great deal of customer care with an installed upgrade price of only $899.

I have to conclude that any accusation of being cheated by Clevo, Sager, or anyone is simply not credible. After re-considering these facts, don’t you agree?

 

Yeah true enough.

I agree.

It is quite a good deal and a plausible fix for the upgrade when put like that. Nothing is cheap, and you get what you pay for. I am sure that the upgrade to the 8800 GTX's will be well worth it. At least there is a fix, and an upgrade path in place. I will say no more as enough has been said already.

Thanks Paladin44 for pointing those facts out.

-Coors916

 

This is why I always believe Donald`s statements. And why I chose Sager

 

Donald,

No, I do not agree. It is true that there was no explicit promise, however the whole point of MXM video standard was about future upgrade and there were plenty of hints that this should be possible.

Even discounting that, I am almost certain that Cleve and Sager knew in September about problems with 8800 upgrade. And yet they released 9261 with full knowledge that it will be obsolete in two months. Had they said 9261 would not be compatible when they started selling it, customers could decide whether to buy or to wait.

We do not yet know if other big brands, such as Dell, will have an upgrade path to 8800. However, none of them advertised MXM, so there was no expectation of a possible upgrade.

 

Myself being a newbie here, is slowly but surely learning the ropes.

And learning whose lead/advice I should follow also (in conunction with my own personal views on products/services).

Cheers all,

 

We understand the frustration. The point of MXM is not only future upgradeability but also that the video card is not soldered on the motherboard. Sager has been upfront with their statements on the problem with nVIDIA changing the design which led to lack of instant upgradeability.

 

darkoroje,

MXM is not Sager's standard, and Sager has never said or implied anything about the upgradeability of an MXM video card.

If you think the whole point of MXM was about future upgrade, then I think you need to revisit the source where you got that concept.

You are correct, there was no explicit promise, and contrary to your statement there were no hints from Sager or any Sager reseller that it would be possible to upgrade any of their models to the nVIDIA GeForce 8800M w/512MB GDDR3 simply by replacing the video card. Quite the contrary as pointed out in my post that you quoted I and others on this forum explicitly stated repeatedly that you should not expect to be able to upgrade. If you had asked your reseller before your purchase you would have been told the same thing.

Also, you have totally overlooked the fact that the rather generous upgrade program Sager has announced only includes about $74 for the new motherboard that not only supports the nVIDIA GeForce 8800M w/512MB GDDR3, but also the Intel® Core™2 Quad Processor.

Further, the fact that laptop technology advances very quickly should not be new information to you unless you are new to laptop computers.

 

Thumbs up for pointing out the obvious to those in need.

 

Both Justin and Paladin44 are correct, and kudos should go to them for being willing to defend their positions in a reasonable manner as well as for being as forthcoming as is possible (no doubt both resellers are subject to a plethora of badly-drafted, vague, overbroad nondisclosure agreements written by a bunch of paranoid attorneys who make regular attorneys look sane by comparison - which is no mean feat :wink: ).

Also, as a matter of simple interpretation, given that the D901C was marketed as upgradeable at a time when it was released with the 7950 GTX, and given that it can, in fact, be "upgraded" to the 8700M, the basic statement, standing by itself, that the D901C equipped with a 7950 GTX was "upgradeable" is, in fact, true - the D901C can be upgraded by the end-user to the 8700M; the mere fact that it cannot be upgraded beyond that point without also upgrading the motherboard (in other words, without buying 51% of a new computer) does not take away from the fact that the D901C as initially released was upgradeable.

That being said, the problem with Clevo's marketing strategy is that it did not do enough to ensure that everyone understood that "upgradeable" did not necessarily mean endlessly upgradeable, or even upgradeable to the 8800M (or whatever else comes out after the 8800M). Since the expectation of a possible upgrade to the 8800M was in-the-air, Clevo should have done more to qualify or temper that expectation.

As it is, Clevo did not temper that expectation, with the result that their advertising appears somewhat misleading in that it failed to contain the additional statements necessary to curb everyone's enthusiasm. Clearly, Clevo f'd up, and their marketing strategy has backfired on them, no doubt to the detriment of their sales.

However, in the understandable rush to tar Clevo for its failure, we need to be very careful about tarring the resellers such as xotic or powernotebooks with the same brush. As Paladin44 as pointed out, the resellers did make an effort to temper people's enthusiasm; unfortunately, (and this is just my uninformed guess), it is most likely the case that the resellers found themselves in a dicey position - they clearly wanted to downplay the possibility of upgrading to the then-in-theory-only 8800M, but were probably hamstrung by their agreements with Sager/Clevo and limited in the amount of pooh-poohing they could do in regard to such an upgrade.

In other words, since, at the time the D901C was released, noone could state with certainty that the 8800M would, or would not, work in the D901C as released, the resellers couldn't be prohibited from refusing to state positively that the 8800M would fit (i.e., they couldn't be forced to lie), but at the same time, they could be prohibited from making any statements that would be generally construed as implying that the 8800M would not fit, or that there were serious, specific, concerns that it might not fit.

That is a very fine line to walk without getting into trouble with Sager/Clevo and losing your distributorship, and Justin, Paladin44 and all the rest who've attempted to give us some insight into the issues should be commended for their willingness to talk to us at all. As far as I know, neither Dell nor HP (i.e., Alienware or VoodooPC) have said squat about their similar issues).

So, to everyone who feels that they've been done wrong, and wants to expatiate on that feeling, please do so in a civil manner, and please aim your invective at the right targets - NVidia and Clevo, and not at the resellers.

And, last but not least, in case I don't get a chance to post again - have a very, very Merry Christmas everyone!

 

David,

I have been working in IT industry for 20 years and I have seen all this before. The whole point of advertising and mentioning the MXM standard was to imply a future upgrade without confirming it officially, so as to present the notebook as more upgradeable than it actually was.

However, you are not addressing my second point, and that is that Clevo and Sager knew well in advance that 9261 would not be upgreadable. This, granted, is an assumption on my part, but based on the knowledge and experience of IT industry: new components and specifications are received by manufacturers well in advance of them being announced and made available to the public. In these circumstances Clevo should have made it clear that 8800 would not be compatible.

The upgrade offer by Sager looks good, however put yourself in the position of a customer who has just spent $3,500 on a computer, and is now being asked for an additional $900 plus shipping for an upgrade - I can assure you that those people are not happy and many of them will not upgrade and will not buy Clevo/Sager again.

In any case, there is little point of discussing this further, so I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree.

 

Laptop world is always far more expensive than the desktop one. In time, things may change, but until then, a 74$ mobo sound more than reasonable. Of couse, the GPU itself is a tad too expensive,even the desktop 8800GTX is about 500$,but,again, it is expected.
My compliment to Sager for doing this, they could have not offered the upgrade program and build a totally new laptop for the 8800M GTX.
Tip my hat to both Donald and Justin for points well taken.

 

The question is who did these people buy their laptops from? If they bought it directly from sager and where told it was upgradeable then fine you might be justified, but I guarantee 99% of those people bought from a reseller, who would have definitely not guaranteed they would be able to upgrade to the 8800m gtx.

 

First paragraph with Bolds. You said it perfectly. However, you are failing to understand it fully. What could possibly be the reason for not confirming it officially? Could it be that they know it is not a standard and do not want to be held liable for officially calling it a standard? Unfortunatley, this is legal in advertising.

Second paragraph with Bolds. You said he didn't address your second point. The reason for this is because Justin addressed it in a post before Donald's.

If you need more clerification, this mean Nvidia changed the initial design that was sent out months in advance to clevo/sager. This is the reason upgrades were not available immediatley.

 

Based on this statement, I would assume you do not work in an engineering capacity. I can assure you that specifications change at the last minute -- when there is no independent governing standards body such as the IEEE or ANSI, as is the case with MXM (as far as I know; if there is, then my point is baseless).

 

Why would people spend so much money without researching the product they are about to buy? I've been considering the 579x for sometime but spending an hour on these forums told me to wait it out.

If they don't buy Clevo again then that's their choice, but they are only setting themselves up for disappointment with future purchases of any product if they fail to spend the time to research or can't stop themselves from impulsive buys.

 

Thank you. Same boat my friend.

 

Same boat as well. Been researching for new laptop since late september, and 10 minutes in google, and 30 mins in here, told me to wait, as we were on the tail end or current builds, and new tech was just around the corner. This was clear 3 months ago.

 

MXM is NVidia's own little baby; there's no separate standard-setting body; I think that's in part why the upgrade fiasco happened - first, because it wasn't an independent standard set by an industry body, NVidia probably had to cajole the videocard vendors and ODMs into going along with it, which inevitably means cutting more slack than you should and permitting more variation than is consistent with the standard, and second, because it seems to me that NVidia may now be trying to turn the "standard" into more of a standard by cutting back on some of that slack - unfortunately, they don't seem to be very skilled at plucking the golden goose.

 

lol, Im sure those folks who waited did so not based upon what they read in a bunch of forums . You buy a laptop when you have the need and the money. Forums may steer you in your decision of manufacturer and options... but don't give yourself or the forums more credit then they are due.

Keep in mind forums are public. Have you every seen someone from Clevo or nVidia post here? There's good advice, bad advice, and billions of opinions. You can't always tell who's a 13 year old nerd, and who's a 45 year old MSEE.

I would also wager that most folks buy a Clevo BECAUSE they did their research. It's not a big name like Dell, HP, etc. Don't insult current Clevo owners because they bought their computers when they did.

I'm a MSEE and based upon my experience Clevo would have known the 9261 was not compatible with the 8800M. They didn't magically fab up an 8800M and test it after the 9261's were out the door. It's doesn't work that way and design/layout is a process that takes months, not weeks. Especially for something as complicated as video board.

My complaint in the whole process is that information was not provided up front. I believe most 9261 owners would have streched their personal situation as much as possible to wait for a 9262 if they knew it was required for 8800M's.

That's bad business and will create dissatisfied customers... period. Resellers and others can try and rationalize the bad feelings away, but they are still present.

The D901C is not your run-of-the-mill notebook. It's something a little special and it's purchased by knowledgable folks. Yes it's inferred that the notebook is upgradeable due to it's use of desktop component and modular design.

Overall I'm very pleased with my 9261. However I'm extremely disappointed that it's not compatible with the newest hardware given my notebook is less than 3 months old. My expectations were higher.

 

I think this quote means a lot.

$74 dollars more for new motherboard? Sounds good.

Everybody knew the new video card would be expensive. If anyone thought it would be a 300 dollar plug and play option, they were happily dreaming.

I bet if it was advertised as..

"$899 for the 8800M GTX video card AND you get a free NEW motherboard!"

Then everybody would be happy as hell?

The main problem here is that instead of being a +400 option on the configurator, it is a $ 745 option where you have to keep your old video card.

so I think everybody was just upset because the new card is expensive, considering the fact that the motherboard is CHEAP.

How many people would be upgrading to SLI right now for $1490 bucks if it was plug and play with current motherboard?


-----------


about manufacturers knowing about every revision months ahead of time.

Does this mean, that Clevo doesn't create any motherboards and they just have to sit on their butts and wait for NVidia to fully release their card, completely finalized and tested, THEN Clevo can make a laptop?

Doesn't everybody make their crap at the same time based on prior decisions?

If Nvidia changes their design 2 months after Clevo has already invested 2 months into their design, is Clevo obligated to redo half their work?