Talk:Dell XPS

This article was nominated for deletion on October 13, 2005. The result of the discussion was keep. An archived record of this discussion can be found here.

I edited the XPS 700 h20 system to clarify some points. the QX6700 is not a core 2 dup, it is a core 2 extreme(or a core 2 quad) Also, the water cooling unit doesn't enable the system to be overclocked, a system can be overclocked regardless of whether or not it has a lowend water cooling unit on it, what determines overclockability is largely the motherboard. Also, other members of the XPS700 family were capable fo software overclocking through nTune.

As of 2006

IchigoKurosaki 19:46, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Changed to As of 2007 because it mentioned the "XPS M2010"

October 2006 Discussions

Rob e rt 00:52, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I am sitting in the library of my home looking at an old Dell until that is stored in one of my cabinets. It dates from ... no earlier than summer of 93, no later than the spring of 94, so somewhere in that time frame (say Nov 93 for a median) with a P75 processor, ?2 or 8? MB of RAM, 1gig harddrive, 3.5inch drive, and a 2x CD-ROM drive (all top of the line at the time if I so recall)

And written directly on the tower is: XPS.

Therefore, I don't think the 1996 date is accurate as the origin of the XPS line.

Research/correction is in order.

XPS M140 and Dimension E310 info at http://www.pcworld.com/news/article/0,aid,123219,00.asp . Can somebody with a good handle on these matters please integrate into main article? Thanks -- 29 October 2005

I belive so far there are 5 Generations of XPS desktop, and you only listed 3. I have Gen 3 myself, but have seen the new one and it is Gen 5.

I think we should fix (or remove) the links. The page looks really bad with all but one of the links in red. If not possible, just remove the name.

Merge vs Split

Do we need separate articles for each model such as Dell XPS 4 or Dell XPS 600 Renegade? Shawnc 21:49, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh jeeesh I agree. If we had a page for every model Dell ever released, where would the madness end? We've been through this nonesense in the graphics card category. What I have repeatedly said, and seems to have become accepted, is that there should be a page for each SERIES of hardware, not individual models. That works pretty well, and it should be the same for PCs. No more than a page per series Dells, I think.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Graphics_cards

Looking at the Dell Dell_XPS_4 page, its just a list of parts. What is the point of that? A simple copy and paste job from the ordering page on the Dell website? In what way does that enlighten, inform, or explain? I just don't see the WIKI as a parts database. It should be a living, readable, alive document. Timharwoodx 22:35, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think the Renegade page should be preserved for now, as the Renegade is the best computer in many catergories (making it unique and worth reading about) and is different in many ways from other computers in the XPS line (graphic and processing capabilities, cost). However, the Dell XPS 4 article is badly written and is only a parts list. I agree that it should be merged with this main article. Mystaker1 18:46, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps it should be merged in order to make the information more easier to find under one consolidated source. It would reduce clutter. --198.41.70.2 14:13, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yep i really think we should merge all of Dell's computer generations under the Generations category. I didn't even know the 4th Gen page existed until i just clicked on the hyperlink by one of you guys on this discussion page. --KittenKiller

If Dragonite and Karen and all the other Pokémon have their own pages, I think the XPS 4 and XPS 600 Renegade and indeed all Dell systems should have their own pages. Mikesc86 01:23, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the Dell XPS 4 page and it now redirects to Dell XPS. The article contained no original information and Wikipedia is not a collection of information. WP:NOT Masterpjz9 01:37, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think the Renegade was notable enough to have its own page. The one that they code named greenland or something like that probably is too... Just because those are fairly unique and different, but as a rule most of the Dell lines should only have one article each unless there is something unique about that particular PC. --Pboyd04 22:40, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. I don't think the submodel is notable enough to have its own page. It isn't innovative in a permanent way; it's just the first product to do something that all products were eventually on-path to do. The seperate page that we ahve now demonstrates how thin the content can be for this thing. Merging it here would give us a place to put the paragraph or two that the XPS Renegade deserves, and that's about as much coverage as it can possibly have. -- Mikeblas 16:59, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

MergeThe XPS Renegade should be included in the XPS articles, but the earlier versions (e.g. XPS t700r etc.) should be seperated into their own catagory. MediaRocker 20:05, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Clean-up

I noticed the "cleanup" tag on this pageand I attempted to clean up the tagged article with a little more detailed information. More work is required however. I provided what I could with the limited time I had. --Kyle 14:33, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Article Redone

This article was rediculously pathetic. It was swarming now only with useless information (who the heck cares who the manager of the XPS divison was?) but with a load of English errors!

NOTE! Beacuse I agree that all of the other XPS articles should be merged into this one, I have included a significant amount of information on each current XPS model (including the 600R, X-Men thing and Media Concept).

XPS 600 Renegade linked, other cleanup

I've added bits and pieces of information to this page, and linked the XPS 600 Renegade section to the appropriate article. Hopefully this is the first step to merging all the XPS articles together.

Additionally, I feel that the XPS logo should be on the top of this page. It is available from Dell at http://www.dell.com/downloads/global/corporate/press/xps_logo.jpg

The problem with moving the XPS Renegade into the general XPS category is that the Renegade was an XPS in name only. This was not a typical parts bin raid, and the parts from the Renegade have not surfaced on other Dell models. The case was unique, the power supply was unique, the motherboard was unique, the overclocked processor was unique and the Caviar drives were unique. The RAM and the video cards were unique until the launch of the XPS 700 one month ago. Because the Renegade was a limited edition run that actually STAYED a limited edition run, I think it should remain a separate article."

The article should have referances to Alienware's range of products. Dell acquired Alienware in March 2006. Some note should also be provided to compare the product range of the two companies to make the article more holistic in its approach.

Series

I don't think we should include Alienware's products (in response to the dude above me) and if we were going to, we should do that on the main Dell page, not this XPS page. And i completely agree with the dude who posted after Shawnc and before Timharwoodx- we should have all the series hyperlinked onto this XPS page and when we click on those, we will see all those models within the series. KittenKiller

Pictures

This article needs some pictures. All it has is a bunch of text. • s d 3 1 4 1 5 talk • November 20, 2006.

Here's an image http://flickr.com/photos/toufeeq/163017103/ but it's small (300 x 273). feydey 19:45, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's also of unknown copyright status. Please don't use it until the photographer has given his permission. -- Mikeblas 20:08, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Revised, cleaned up

I've cleaned up the article quite a bit. Formatting is now more consistent, and the obvious weasel words have been nuked. Hopefully this is more informative. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Thegsrguy (talk • contribs) 07:51, 8 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Question

Are there kits to build these (or other gaming) computers at home, or do I have to look for parts separatly (ie. not build one of these, just similar)? · AO ^Talk 16:51, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dell computers are build to order, and not sold as kits. Try a site like http://www.newegg.com. Also, this kind of discussion isn't really appropriate for the talk page. Rstandefer 21:50, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Outdated

The specs for the XPS 710 and XPS 720HC are outdated, and the XPS 720 isn't mentioned at all. Anyone care to take a stab at updating? I might if I can find the time. Rstandefer 21:51, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Problems with the XPS M2010 section

I've twice removed unreferenced and POV material from this section; it was added again. The prose is very poor and of a tone I'd expect to find in an advertising leaflet or a review. There are several uses of vague statements and weasel words, and most of the content is uncited. Instead of removing the text for a third time, I've tagged the specific sections that are problematic.

This article is in very bad shape, and I'd rather see it get better before it gets worse so I hope these issues can be addressed promptly. -- Mikeblas 00:11, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You've removed factual information; referenced at Dell's own website, and correcting errors in the specification such as the memory (1GB is the base config, for example; the machine supports two HDs which was not clarified in the original article). It's unusual technology; detailing WHY the system is unusual seems relevant. Of course, given your own range of knowledge, perhaps actually researching what you are deeming to be inappropriate first, instead of making assumptions, would be helpful. Your tagging IS helpful, and seeing as how you are so dedicated to making this section accurate, I'll google and retrospectively replace the sources.

I'll ignore your remarks regarding prose, as you know damn fine I'm a reviewer, I stated as such as my source. I'm also an editor. You want a comprehensive information resource in Wiki, then make the information work, rather than removing it. I freely admit that I'm new to adding information to WP, and if I continue to meet this sort of attitude, I will stop bothering to contribute at all. TastyOther 03:10, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I don't know who you are or what you do. My "attitude" is just a matter of following the rules. The things that you're claiming are facts aren't verifiable given the single M2010-specific reference in the article. Wikipedia articles are meant not only to be to be well-referenced, and this article is neither. I'm glad you've agreed to repair your contribution. -- Mikeblas 03:15, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Right. So you've tagged the rest of the article accordingly, which I see also has similar errors, editorialising, etc? Or would it just be the M2010 section, because I felt more information could be provided? The facts are not only verifiable, I provided links to the Dell setvice manual and configuration pages for the UK and US, where the differing specifications and some of the terminology were clarified. Whilst in matters of history, theology, science and so forth, "facts" are hard to ascertain, when it comes to a computer, it's pretty easy - there is no dispute as to what CPU is in it, who made what component, etc. Capabilty and subjective comments like the quietness of the computer I have removed - the only source I have is myself, and having owned about 600 computers, I'm probably not qualified to know if the laptop I'm using is 'quiet' ;)

FWIW, that line about blurring the distinctions wasn't mine, and I removed it with this edit. I know why the Dell M2010 was made, but I'm guessing "Dell" isn't a reliable source ;). Michael Dell wanted a flagship machine to show Dell can make a flash computer too, essentially. Without corroborating evidence, I'm not sticking that in. TastyOther 03:28, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]