Sager introduces the new NP2092 (Compal JFL92) with Penryn processsors

Sager introduces the new NP2092 (Compal JFL92) with Penryn processsors

Shipping begins January 31, 2008

 

Any word of getting a better gfx card in the Sager 15.4 inchers?

 

Not at this time

 

Is it possible to find out somewhere what brand/model lcd they are using and if it is a nice lcd?

I heard there is a lcd shortage and I hope they are not using poor quality lcds like some other notebook sellers (dell).

 

Those Dell screens are the glossy Samsung SEC3350.

Compal is currently using the beautiful Chi Mei CMO1520 WSXGA+ (1680x1050) Matte screen.

 

Yes, Samsung SEC3350 is one of the worse lcds I've ever seen!

I never heard of Chi Mei CMO1520, but you said it's beautiful and there's a smiley face too. Is it really nice with pretty good viewing angles?

 

Yes it is good viewing angles. Just do a search here and you will find user's comments about the IFL90 screen...and the JFL92 is currently using the same screen.

 

Any word of getting a better gfx card in the Sager 15.4 inchers?

/facepalm

Sager, give us a faster GPU in a 15.4" model! Please!


I suspect they'll have to do more than just update the chip or motherboard to take advantage the 8800m's though. They'll probably need to redesign the cooling system and thus the entire chassis, warranting a completely new model number instead of just a revision of sorts.

 

WHat 8800? I don't see that happening. Just because Alienware did it, doesn't mean that Compal will do it any time soon.
People, wake up, Sager doesn't manufacture laptops.

 

Cool, I agree. but then....

???


Well, I'll stick with my hope: Compal/Clevo release a new model very similar to the NP2090, and with the GeForce 8800m GTS .

 

What I was saying is that people mention Sager as a manufacturer, when it's really a reseller.
Also, I don't see Compal making a laptop with a 8800M inside. All they managed until now was to have a sub-clocked mid-range card in their laptops. They couldn't even manage to have a normal clocked card inside. Clevo on the other hand might do it, although I haven't seen a 15" coming from them since a long time ago.

 

According to all the information I can kind, the IFL90's 8600gt is clocked at normal speeds (475 Mhz core, 800mhz effective RAM clock) ; it is not underclocked, so that's incorrect.

Beyond that...neither of us can predict the future, I suppose, but if Dellienware can do it, I believe Compal can as well. There's nothing special about Dell that would allow them to use that technology exclusively.

 

You forget that the version is the DDR2 one. So it`s subclocked compared to the gddr3 in other 15 inchers, like the asus g1s.

 

Correction...Sager is a true OEM, not a reseller. As an OEM they use shells from both Clevo and Compal. (See http://www.powernotebooks.com/articles/index.php?action=fullnews&id=17)

I agree that you will probably not see Compal put out a 15.4" laptop with the highest end video card...that just isn't what they do...but that IS what Clevo is capable of so don't give up on that idea yet.

 

I meant that the final result is the same: they only sell the laptops, don't actually manufacture the barebones (you get the idea).
For the second part, yes, you and me agree that Clevo is the ODM that provides people with powerful laptops, while Compal is more of a budget ODM (at least with the IFL90) with good build quality.

 

Well, it is only a choice of words...but words do matter.

1. Compal is a more "conservative" ODM, the IFL90 and JFL92 are in no way "budget" laptops.
2. Sager and PowerNotebooks.com are clearly true OEMs (not ODMs).
3. The Multi-National Brands (other than ASUS, Lenovo and MSI...see the article I previously linked to) like DELL, HP, Sony, Toshiba etc are the real resellers since they never touch the laptop, leaving it to be built, labeled and boxed by the 3rd party ODMs. They only advertise and sell them.

 

True enough insofar as Sager doesn't own the fabs that actually create the various parts and components in any of the Sager notebooks but, then again, neither do Dell, HP, Sony (although I believe a subsidiary may do some in-house production for the Japanese market), etc..., so Sager really is in the same league as those brands - thus, if they're OEMs, then so is Sager. QED :wink:

 

The distinction I was trying to make is that Sager and PowerNotebooks.com are TRUE OEMs...we actually take the lifeless shell and build them.

The MNBs like Dell, HP, Sony and the like never touch them until they are built, labeled and boxed...

Call them OEMs if you like, but in truth they are really only marketers (resellers).

I know it is a little hard to wrap our minds around the distinction due to the massive advertising the MNBs do, but when you look at the life cycle as detailed in the Article, it is really hard to couple the title of manufacturer with any of their names since they only handle the completed laptop in its box (other than the ODMs that brand their own product like ASUS, Lenovo and MSI)

 

Donald, I was saying that Compal makes budget laptops in comparison to Clevo, not in comparison to a stupid Toshiba or whatever. They never really excel in performance, but get the job done at a very reasonable price (with a very good build quality).
I wasn't trying to say anything to diss Sager, but wanted to make people understand that Sager sells the laptops Clevo and Compal make.

 

You are still missing the point. Try turning on one of those laptops that Clevo or Compal make.

They only make the shell...not the built laptop. Until a true OEM builds the laptop what Clevo or Compal make are only lifeless shells.

While I agree that Clevo makes some more powerful shells than Compal, they also make less powerful shells than Compal as well.

 

You are right, but it's not the same thing as saying that Sager manufacturers the laptops. They receive the parts, put them together, provide warranty and either sell them by themselves or sell them through the resellers. Clevo has it's hits and misses, that is correct, but compared to Compal they have a much more powerful line, geared towards gamers and people needing lots of processing power.

 

So what is a manufacturer other than a factory where they "...receive the parts, put them together, provide warranty and either sell them by themselves or sell them through the resellers."??

See: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/manufacture e.g. "to make or produce by hand or machinery, esp. on a large scale." or "put together out of artificial or natural components or parts"

NOTE:: The MNBs don't do any of the above...only the ODMs and OEMs do!

At least you are not calling them "resellers" anymore

 

I'm confused. If Clevo only makes the shell and the OEM put's everything together, why is Clevo responsible for motherboard revisions and firmware updates? Wouldn't that be the job of the OEM who is chosing which components to put inside the shell by going to the motherboard manufacturer and having them update it?

 

The motherboard is part of the shell, as is the BIOS, and the thermal solution (including the heatsinks, copper piping and fans). So any BIOS or firmware revisions would come from either the ODM, or through a cooperative effort between the ODM and the OEM.

 

Donald, to me manufacturer = some(thing, one, whatever) that actually manufacturers the laptop, not someone that puts it together. To me Sager just assembles the laptops, just like Apples does with the MacBook Pros (the parts come from Asia). They don't make the barebones (motherboard + case + whatever may be specific to one).
A little confusion here...but so be it.
I was calling Sager a reseller, but it was wrong to call it so. However, I still mentain my view on it: they don't make the laptops, just put assemble the parts.
I don't see the part when they actually assemble the laptops or if you want to, we can call it manufacture (it's not an ironic comment and must not be taken as one). All I know is that their 9262 is a D901C (which is manufactured by Clevo) or that their 2090 is a IFL90 (which is manufactured by Compal).
afitzwater, Clevo doesn't want anyone sticking their noses. They make "shells" that have their own motherboard and therefore they are the ones responsible for the software that makes the laptops work (after assembly). It's probably because they want to keep things at a centralized level, so that if something doesn't work they can just make a BIOS and give access to anyone.
Sager had something to say regarding the fan's firmware and, ultimately, everyone benefited from what was developed (although in the beginning a lot of people wanted to download it, but couldn't, due to them wanting to keep it at a Sager level). They also want to keep a high quality level (not sure if you know the Quads in the first motherboard revisions of the D900C/D901C) and that can only be done through centralization of the BIOS and motherboard revisions. Letting people do whatever they want is not the best idea all the time. Instead, by inter-cooperation, the final result is much, much better.

 

One last try:

1. Look at the definition of manufacturer from the Dictionary.
2. Understand that Clevo and Compal are Original Design Manufacturers (ODM) and Sager and PowerNotebooks.com are Original Equipment Manufacturers (OEM). The reason for this industry distinction follows:
3. Intel, Seagate, Hitachi, Panasonic, etc. are also ODMs that build components for a laptop.
4. You cannot use what any of the ODMs manufacture for any useful purpose other than a doorstop.
5. It is the OEM that manufactures the useful working laptop as they "put together out of artificial or natural components or parts" that which is provided by the ODMs, including the shell ODM, processor ODM, hard drive ODM, DVDR ODM, etc.

Whew! I hope that clarifies it

 

1. OK.
2. I know and fully understand that.
3. OK.
4. OK.
5. OK.

What I was trying to say through all those OK is that I'm an idiot (even though I fully understand your points) and you shouldn't bother with me too much. You will not make me smarter by any means!

 

I think you get smarter everyday

 

I think that every day you learn something new, but I'd much rather think it makes you wiser.
I am made for off-topic and I'm sorry.

 

Nothing at all to be sorry for; you held your ground admirably on a reasonable interpretation of the word "manufacturer" and, even better, you most gracefully conceded defeat - and that's a vanishingly rare trait online these days. so, kudos to you

Nonetheless, and notwithstanding that, on the basis of dictionary definitions and industry practice, Paladin44 is correct, you do bring up what is at least conceptually a very valid point, namely, at what point in the spectrum from I-polished-the-case-in-the-showroom to I-distilled-the-oil-to-make-the-plastic-case should we draw the line between people who make an object and people who merely assemble parts made by others into goods ready to go on the retailers' shelves.

For example, take the process of manufacturing cars: to oversimplify, all the people involved can be classified as follows: (i) those who dig up the iron ore and other minerals that go into the smelter, (ii) those who smelt the iron ore, add trace metals and other elements in, and produce ingots and sheets of raw steel, (iii) those who cut the steel to size, and then stamp out the various parts - doors, roofs, floor panels, hoods (bonnets, if you prefer) and etc - that end up being incorporated into the finished car, (iv) those who take the component parts as they flow down the assembly line and assemble them into the finished car, (v) those who apply the final decals, insignia, pin-stripes, and etc to the car, and (vi) those who put them out on a lot, brand them with the dealer's name, and sell them.

Each of the functions described above could easily be performed by a separate, independent company, which purchased its raw materials from one, and sold its finished product to another, until the dealer ultimately sells a finished car to a retail customer.

In terms of functions (i) and (ii), those could be performed by companies that had no interest in, and no idea that, they were contributing to the making of a car - one roll of thin sheet steel is much like any other, and could just as easily be used to make the framing members for a building as to make a car.

Functions (v) and (vi) are, I think we would all agree, not acts of making in any reasonable or practical sense of the word.

So that leaves us with just functions (iii) and (iv). Now, since each function could be performed independently of the other, can we identify the "manufacturer" of the car, and do we have any good reason for preferring one over the other. For example, consider function (iii) - cutting sheet steel and stamping it into the shapes of doors, hoods, wheels, etc is certainly what most of us think of when we think of "making" or "manufacturing" something.

Nonetheless, the end-result of function (iii) is demonstrably not a useable or functional car - at most you have a heap of parts, bits and pieces that, if properly fitted together in the right order, would yield a useable car.

That leaves us with function (iv) - the assembly line. However, in another sense, function (iv) doesn't completely "manufacture" the car because the people who perform that function have absolutely no control over what kind of car will result from their assembly efforts - i.e., if function (iii) sends over parts that go to make a four-door sedan with a V-8 and rear-wheel drive, there is no way that function (iv) could produce anything other than a four-door sedan with a V-8 and rear-wheel drive. At most, function (iv) gets to determine whether or not it'll be a white sedan or a yellow sedan, but in either event it will necessarily always be the same type of sedan.

Thus, if we cannot give the "manufacturer" crown to function (iv) because they are mere assemblers with no control over the substance of what they assemble, and thus are not really producers of the cars in question, we find ourselves in an interesting position - we cannot identify the "manufacturer" of the car we drive, notwithstanding the fact that it is indubitably a "manufactured" product.

So, as between Clevo and Sager, if all Clevo provides is a bare-bones - motherboard sans cpu, BIOS and basic firmware, chassis, and LCD - while Sager takes those bare-bones, adds cpu, hard-drives, CD/DVDs, and an operating system, as a result of which you end up with an object that is capable of performing the functions we all ascribe to computers (functions that cannot be performed without a cpu, for example), is it really the case that Clevo, as opposed to Sager, is the "manufacturer" of the computer in question?

Sure, Sager has very little control over the form of the final product - the motherboard, the BIOS and firmware, and the chassis shape will all impose very significant limitations on the kinds and numbers of cpus, hard drives, CD/DVDs and the like that Sager can put into a bare-bones in order to assemble a completed product; however, the end-result of Clevo's endeavors cannot really be called a computer yet.

Thus, as a merely theoretical matter, there may not actually be a real "manufacturer" of the computers we buy that bear the Sager logo; however, since we need to be able to point to someone or something as the "manufacturer," we ("we" being society at large - sort of like the ant colonies in Hofstadter's Godel, Escher, Bach (my Lord, how'd I manage to sneak that reference in? )), we end up drawing an arbitrary line, largely on the basis of preference and ability to make one's own chosen terms stick. Of course, since the process is essentially arbitrary, the other actors usually get something in return and, as we have in the computer industry, you end up with ODMs (Clevo) and OEMs (Sager).

It only gets weirder from there - for federal income tax purposes, it would be entirely possible for Sager to be treated as the "manufacturer" of even the motherboard and the chassis, notwithstanding that Clevo actually owns the fabs, bought the raw materials, and molded them into same - the so-called contract-manufacturing rule.

Lordy, now that's going off-topic!

 

I'm pretty sure this is the first time I've ever seen the words "smelt" and "smelter" used at NBR.

After reading through this entire thread, being the dummy that I am, the term "manufacturer" as used here, really seems a stretch to me despite whatever the dictionary has to say (no offense meant, paladin).

Actually, though, I don't really care which company does what, which is a manufacturer/assembler of parts, ODM/OEM, or just a reseller. As long as the product works well, whoever wants the credit for the "manufacture" of the machine can take it as far as I'm concerned.

 

Many IFL90/IFL90 derivative owners, among others, would dispute this, and would argue that these notebooks outperform many, if not most, similar models from Dellienware, Dell, Asus, etc. Many reviews on these forums and the internet at large have been glowing toward the IFL90/IFL90-based NBs.

 

How come the Penryn processors have less cache?

For example, which is better...
T7500 2.2GHz 4MB cache
T8100 2.1Ghz 3MB cache

 

Because that is the way Intel designed them.

2.2GB with 4MB L2 Cache is better than 2.1GHz with 3MB L2 Cache. Of course the best "sweet spot" right now would be the 2.5GHz with 6MB L2 Cache.

 

They did decrease the cache in the slower (GHz) models and increased in the faster models. There are added benefits going with the new Penryn 45m technology. Here is a link to more info on Intel's website.

 

d*** it Shyster, im going to develop a program to block all you posts, they make the eyes of stupid people bleed. Lets try to speak in plain english...

Kinda like wiki simple english encylopedia...

 

Oh, I see, it actually went more up than down 2->3 and 4->6.

Interesting. Thanks for the link too.

 

ThePyro, it's a budget laptop because of it's price-tag. It's not a gaming laptop either, as the DDR2 card isn't up for everything and it's not a very portable one (going close to 6+ pounds). All you get is pure raw performance at a very decent price.

 

What's plain English?? Unattractive people from the U.K.?:laugh: