27th October, 2009 by adina
Tags: Adamo XPS, Dell, Laptops, News

New details released suggest that Adamo XPS could be only an upgrade to the existing Adamo 13. The Dell Adamo XPS is an ultraportable-sized device and not a netbook. When the Adamo XPS is on a desk it looks too thin to be an actual computer. So thin in fact that it makes the MacBook Air and other ultra-thin notebooks look fat.
It’s Core 2 Duo processor is believed to be somewhere between 1.4GHz and 1.9GHz, while its challenger MacBook Air has a 1.86GHz Core 2 Duo S processor.
The built-in solid-state memory will apparently be either 128GB or 180GB, less than for current Adamos. Still using a 13.4-inch LCD, 4GB of RAM and Intel’s GMA 4500 integrated video, Adamo XPS could start at a price of $2,000 even if there are only a few performance changes.
A notebook this thin would have to overcome several challenges, including heat and battery life. Battery runtime is only 2.5 hours in a standard 25wH version and could be extended at four hours with the extended-capacity four-hour pack.
One of the Adamo XPS’ features could generate disputes. A heat-sensitive strip is used to unlock the system. This is designed to work when the system receives power and could prevent it to open for repairs if the power is absent. Windows 7’s Experience Test shows a score not greater than 3.3, which is an average one.
These details might impact on Adamo XPS’s launch. The portable is 0.4-inch thin and weighs 1.5 pounds, less than its rival from Apple, but the price could be out of its category if performance is not similar. No information regarding the launching date is available for the moment.
The Dell Adamo is a horrible computer in terms of cost versus performance.
I wouldn~t change my Mac for this…..
Dell will drop to 4th position once Lenovo pass them in the beginning of next year
Thomas.
Any Apple is a horrible choice when it comes to price/performance, so what’s your point?
You are clearly just jealous that Dell produce sleeker and sexier laptops all the line at the moment. Why would you else waste your time attempting to bash something that Apple are unable to re-produce?