What laptop is that?

On the Cizmo gaming notebook site, the cizmo cx1730m (or the sager np5796) shows a sleek, blueish laptop without the trademark racing stripe. but when you click on the laptop, it shows the normal design (the black and orange one). imo, the misprint laptop looked pretty cool and was def not the qx1730, as it was too thin and had a different touchpad. does any one know what laptop that is?

 

It is an NP5796. Just most people don't know that there's an alternate option for a silver trim instead of the orange one.

As far as "too thin", the picture is just taken at the exact angle, with enough shadowing to conceal the thickness.

You can order the silver trim version from XoticPC. http://www.xoticpc.com/sager-np5793-custom-laptop-built-clevo-m570ruu-m571ruu-p-2276.html

 

i knew about the silver trim but i didnt consider it. wow, cizmo is really good at bringing out the best in laptops in their photos. just look at that m860tu gallery! if only pcmw and xoticpc could advertise like that

 

how come the chassis Cizmo using is different from our 579x?

 

When I click on the 1730m and click gallery, it shows some of the same CGI looking pics that are supposed to be the m860tu jumbled in with the pics of the 17 inch machine. I wouldn't take the pictures on this site too seriously.

 

Actually, it says only orange trim "Current NP5796 ETA is the week of July 14th, Orange trim only"
But its sick that they are starting to take preoders. Now which one is the m860tu?

 

This one I think.

http://www.mycizmo.com/index.php?main_page=product_info&cPath=72&products_id=189

 

anyone know the answer to my question?

 

The blue finish and the touch pad on the 1730m look photo-shopped on to me.
Look at the blue, it doesn't even color the whole thing, it's more like a blob.

I just think this site has a lot of altered pics.

 

@Nirvana

you mean the chassis in the picture here or the chassis in the picture here . and do you mean the m869tu or the cx1730?

 

I meant Here

 

@Thug21

my first impression was that the blue was the light coming on the screen. i hope they didnt photoshop the m860tu's pictures, they look so awesome!

 

@Nirvana

Thats there custom skins, they got heaps of them. where did u get those pics?

edit: you can edit there version of the 9262 to have the same skins too here

 

it's not just the skin; it got different speakers, no trim. if you look at the right side, it has no USB/Firewire ports, but 2 holes that look like audio ports.
any 579x owner can spot the difference easily.

 

that white one looks hot.

 

wow correct .. nice.. different lid cover as well if you look.. this has a ribbed middle section

 

http://www.mycizmo.com/gallery.php?pid=191

third pic down shows the lid and fourth pic down look at the bottom with only one fan?????

 

I really like the back lid of it.

 

Seems to be 570TU also redesigned..?

 

maybe, but I've seen those pics a while ago.

 

Single fan solution for 570TU, not bad.....If its true....

 

It looks like it still has 2 fans, but one is much bigger, and one is much smaller than the regular RU fans.
Hmmm.

 

so ignore the tiny 1.

 

I wish I can read that little sticker on the bottom.

 

Maybe they changed it due to the fan noise?

 

those pictures are computer generated. THEY ARE NOT REAL

 

Whatever that picture is, it's not a real picture directly out of a digital camera. That means that it's been sufficiently reprocessed such that, if it were originally a real digital camera picture, all of the relevant EXIF data has now been removed from the file. Thus, at the very least, it's been very heavily photoshopped.

Just for comparison' sake, here are two screen clips I just made. The first shows the EXIF data that remains in the JPEG file from Cizmo named product_192_1_500.jpg:


The second one shows the EXIF data I managed to extract from another picture that I downloaded from the web several months ago:


(this is the original picture):


Now, keep in mind, just because a pic file used for commercial advertising does not contain any of the original EXIF data, that does not mean that the picture itself has necessarily been doctored. However, it does clearly indicate that the original picture file has been heavily managed, and once the EXIF data has been removed (or can no longer be correlated with the image being displayed, e.g., because the EXIF data itself has been manipulated) there is little or no circumstantial evidence that can be used to vouchsafe that, notwithstanding that you ran the picture through photoshop to balance the colors and crop it, the picture displayed is still, in fact, of a legitimate pre-existing object.

So, just for comparison, I pulled a copy of one of the Sager NP9262 pictures off of xoticpc's website (which actually hotlinks to Sager's site)(presented in slightly shrunken format here),


and ran it through exiftool; here are the results:


The astute amongst you will quickly realize that I've changed font styles in the screen clips I'm presenting - that's right, I had to for the xoticpc/Sager picture because otherwise the EXIF data would not have all fit on one screenshot.

In addition, the astute will also notice that this file, despite the fact that it's been heavily edited (it doesn't have a realistic background anymore, for one thing - wasn't sure if everyone could spot that one ), still contains EXIF data indicating that it was originally a real picture of a real object taken with a real camera. If we wanted to prove this up in court, we'd still have to get a forensics analyst to determine whether or EXIF data really matches the picture we see; however, from what is in the file, it appears that someone at Sager took a picture of a 9262 with a Canon EOS 20D on February 27, 2007, at 5.35 pm, and that the picture file we actually see was created on November 30, 2007, using the Feb. 27th original as the base file. Whoever took the picture was almost certainly using a tripod since they shot manual, using an exposure time of 1/8 of a second, with an f-stop of 9.

Now, like I said, we still don't know whether or not the Sager picture is just as phoney as the Cizmo picture, because we haven't done enough forensic analysis to determine whether or not the EXIF data in the Sager picture bears any relation to the image we see; however, the EXIF data is still there, and is still fairly detailed, and thus gives us an initial basis for making the reasonable claim that what you see in the Sager picture is really there - it's a picture of an actual machine that actually looked pretty much like that.

By contrast, we cannot get any such assurances from the EXIF data that remains in the Cizmo picture; for all we can tell, that picture was invented out of thin air by some photoshop expert, and there is no way we can say with any degree of comfort whether or not there is a real machine out there, sitting in Cizmo's shops, that bears any resemblance whatsoever to the "machine" depicted in the Cizmo JPEG file.

With all of the shenanigans going on around these new Clevo machines, I think it's entirely possible that the Cizmo folks ginned these pictures up without actually having a real machine that is supposed to be reflected in the Cizmo pictures.

Bottom line, I trust that the photographs I see on the Sager website, or the xoticpc website bear some close correspondence to reality, based on the fact that the photographs contain data tending to support that conclusion; on the other hand, I do not trust that the Cizmo photographs bear any sort of correspondence to reality at all, again, because the data that would have supported such a conclusion is not there.

Lastly, as an addendum, all of the data I've been referring to is EXIF-data contained in most/all digital picture files, and can be read out of most files using a wonderful little utility called exiftool that was developed by a gentleman named Phil Harvey. If you have any interest in poking around in your own digital pic files, I would highly recommend it (comes in all flavors: Win/Linux/Mac).

 

in English please shyster

 

Hmm...well I was hoping for the picture to be real, cause the new design looks hawt

 

Sorry, only Amurcan spoken here. Just kidding.

In brief, if you use that tool I mentioned, exiftool, you can read the EXIF data contained in a picture file (.jpg, .png, etc) to try and get some idea of how/when the picture file was created and/or modified.

Applying that tool to the Cizmo picture yields very little information, meaning that there's very little reason to believe that it is anything other than a fabrication. On the other hand, the Sager picture still contains a lot of what appears to be the original EXIF data, meaning that there's some reason to believe that the picture in fact represents some sort of reality. Keep in mind, though, that EXIF data can be spoofed just as easily as the underlying image can, although a careful forensic analysis of the file itself would almost certainly find indications of such forgery.

Basically, I believe that the Sager picture is actually a picture of a real computer that was taken with a real digital camera; I have no reason to hold the same belief about the Cizmo picture.

 

man shyster, always taking it to the next level lol. Being the camera expert I am though I think i understand all that stuff. PS: I'm not really a camera expert just a fake.

 

would you take my word then that the cizmo pics are fake?
they have the tell tale signs of EXACTLY a rendered image.

The fact that they have a cizmo branding on it already is significant enough to suspect forgery. the gloss and sheen of the reflection on the edges of the keyboard to the screen is too perfect and the reflection on the hinge has no annomalies in it as if there was endles space behind it with no actual light source, but still a light as if it were floating in outer space.

looks nice though^_^

 

Whew! I was afraid I was the only one.

 

Thanks for all the info, Shyster.

Do you happen to be a detective?

 

Eh, what's that? Defective? Probably....oh, wait, let me just clean my glasses off (grubby little kiddy finger-prints, one of the lesser known...joys...of fatherhood ), a detective? No, unfortunately, nothing quite so socially redeeming as that, I'm afraid.

 

lol, well if you wrote all your law cases as detailed and conclusive as that, I'm guessing you work at a pretty high level firm. Partner maybe?

 

I wish; nope, just a lowly associate.

 

Ah well, as long as you're not as old as your avatar, I'm pretty sure you'll get there soon.
Making more moolaa then me at least. lol.

 

Shyster, i just gotta give you a +1 for everything you do on here... I dont post much relevant stuff, but i DO look at just about everything pertaining to this laptop/clevo/nvidia/sager/pcmw etc. etc., and ive seen you act as laptop informer, lawyer, economist, even political commentary mistro with the colombian jobs lol. Not to mention you cool down arguments left and right. Anywho, i just gotta say nice work and kudos to you my friend.

 

Maybe if shyster spent half as much time working as he does posting on these forums he'd be a partner already :wink: :tongue:

 

Undoubtedly, but I'd be a hundred times more boring than I am already.

 

I find your posts quite intersting actually (I must be used to it)