Dell Precision M4600 Review: Mobile Workstation Muscle Discussion

[Morat]

This family of notebooks are fantastic performers but I'm very sad to see they've gone to 1080p. I have a 17" 6400 with 1920x1200 and it is a far superior screen format for doing any kind of work. I realise that 1080p is cheaper but surely Dell could retain the option for their flagship range?

[MidnightSun]

This family of notebooks are fantastic performers but I'm very sad to see they've gone to 1080p. I have a 17" 6400 with 1920x1200 and it is a far superior screen format for doing any kind of work. I realise that 1080p is cheaper but surely Dell could retain the option for their flagship range?

That's where the display manufacturers are headed, not just Dell. For the moment, only Apple laptops (and perhaps the rare tablet or ToughBook, not sure) still retain 16:10 displays, and even the MBA 11 is now also 16:9. And that probably won't last much longer as well.

[Charles P. Jefferies]

The 16:10 format has been dead for years, since early 2009. It's not showing signs of coming back.

Apple MBP as MidnightSun noted is the only notebook that comes with it anymore.

I wholeheartedly agree that 1920x1200 is considerably better than 1080p for actual work.

[yknyong1]

I just hope the manufacturers do not do the crazy 21:9 on computer screens. 16:9 saves them only a few dollars at most, but causing loss of productivity when not everyone uses computers for movies.

[mcharkowski]

The comments (Cons) on battery life are not fair. NotebookReview should have checked with Dell. I have had 2 of these M4600s (FHD IPS and FHD) and so I can speak to the issue from experience. The issue is that the M4600 they had in their configuration was the IPS screen, which is ABSOLUTELY BEAUTIFUL. The problem with the IPS however, is that to get the color gamut it supports requires a 10-bit video connection. The NVidia Quadro does support just such a 10-bit connection, however the onboard Intel integrated graphics supports only 8-bit connections. What this all adds up to is that the system can't use the Optimus switching technology that gives most notebooks in this class such better battery life. With the still very nice UltraSharp FHD screen (1920x1080), I get 6-7 hours from the very same battery. When I had an M4600 with the IPS screen, I was lucky to get 2:30.

[Mitlov]

I just hope the manufacturers do not do the crazy 21:9 on computer screens. 16:9 saves them only a few dollars at most, but causing loss of productivity when not everyone uses computers for movies.

I disagree that it causes a loss in productivity for most people. Sure it does for programmers and people doing coding, but these are a tiny subset of users. For most users, a 15-17" screen is going to be displaying two pages side-by-side, regardless of whether it's two windows side-by-side or two pages of a multi-page Word or PDF document side-by-side. I use my laptop for work a lot more than I use it for watching movies, and I have to say, having a 1920x1200 screen wouldn't add an ounce of utility for me over a 1920x1080 screen. I'd still be doing the same thing--looking at two whole pages side-by-side.

[MidnightSun]

I disagree that it causes a loss in productivity for most people. Sure it does for programmers and people doing coding, but these are a tiny subset of users. For most users, a 15-17" screen is going to be displaying two pages side-by-side, regardless of whether it's two windows side-by-side or two pages of a multi-page Word or PDF document side-by-side. I use my laptop for work a lot more than I use it for watching movies, and I have to say, having a 1920x1200 screen wouldn't add an ounce of utility for me over a 1920x1080 screen. I'd still be doing the same thing--looking at two whole pages side-by-side.

Well, given the choice, I wouldn't mind more pixels

On the other hand, though, I do agree that the loss of pixels isn't as drastic of a change as some people do claim. I'm more than willing to make the trade if it means a greater availability of FHD screens in 14 and 15" laptops than WUXGA in similar laptops of the past.

[Mitlov]

Well, given the choice, I wouldn't mind more pixels

Given a choice between a 1920x1080p screen and $75-100 in my pocket and a 1920x1200p screen and nothing in my pocket, I'll take the former. I bet most people would, including people who use the laptops for average white-collar-business use in addition to recreational and family use, which is why the market has moved the way it has.

Yes, there are always some people who do coding, etc, who just want to maximize vertical pixels no matter what and will pay extra to do so...but how many of these people are routinely using laptop screens instead of external monitors for their work?