News Dell’s New XPS 13 Shows the Price of Going Too Thin

[Admin]

The latest Dell XPS 13 (9315) is thinner than ever, but it foretells a future where engineering focused on thickness, rather than upgradeability, comes to the world of Windows laptops.

Dell’s New XPS 13 Shows the Price of Going Too Thin : Read more

 

[Alvar "Miles" Udell]

So much for the right to repair, eh?

 

[MGipsy101]

The latest Dell XPS 13 (9315) is thinner than ever, but it foretells a future where engineering focused on thickness, rather than upgradeability, comes to the world of Windows laptops.

Dell’s New XPS 13 Shows the Price of Going Too Thin : Read more

This is really disappointing to see from Dell. I picked up an XPS 17 last year specifically because it had good upgradability options while maintaining a thin and light design (for a 17 inch laptop, at least). Upgradability is the one thing I always put as my #1 requirement for any laptop or PC I own. Dell (and other Windows Laptop manufacturers) should take notes from projects like the Framework laptop.

 

[Brian D Smith]

The overwhelming majority of end users simply would never 'upgrade' or 'fix' a laptop these days....so the argument 'too thin' is a bit of a non-starter. Most Tom's readers are interested in upgrades (and repairs because they botch their upgrade or repair...) of course, so this argument is going to get traction here. But...it is not an argument for your average consumer..
This IS an attractive 'non-Apple' think laptop!

 

[waltc3]

If you want user repairable, user-upgradable, user component-replaceable...you need an "x86" desktop. One that you assemble yourself from hand-picked components. Nothing "mobile" comes close to a desktop in those categories. Wishful thinking will unfortunately not make a silk purse out of a sow's ear...😉 It's just laptop territory, that's all. Most people don't expect laptops to be user-serviceable to any degree, anyway. And especially when dealing with Dell--I recommend a desktop--just not a Dell desktop. Dell desktops love a lot of proprietary connectors and other components that are only replaceable by--you guessed it--Dell replacements. Self-assembled desktop's come with "the right to repair" and have done so for at least the last 30 years.

 

[rwalle]

If you want user repairable, user-upgradable, user component-replaceable...you need an "x86" desktop. One that you assemble yourself from hand-picked components. Nothing "mobile" comes close to a desktop in those categories. Wishful thinking will unfortunately not make a silk purse out of a sow's ear...😉 It's just laptop territory, that's all. Most people don't expect laptops to be user-serviceable to any degree, anyway. And especially when dealing with Dell--I recommend a desktop--just not a Dell desktop. Dell desktops love a lot of proprietary connectors and other components that are only replaceable by--you guessed it--Dell replacements. Self-assembled desktop's come with "the right to repair" and have done so for at least the last 30 years.

Sorry this is nonsense. Going back a decade, almost every laptop on the market had replaceable RAM and storage (which is also mentioned in the article -- if you have actually read the article). Manufacturers went as far as labeling RAM and hard drive slots on the back of laptops and you did not even need to read a manual or anything in order to replace them. It was the norm until it was not.

 

[rwalle]

The overwhelming majority of end users simply would never 'upgrade' or 'fix' a laptop these days....so the argument 'too thin' is a bit of a non-starter. Most Tom's readers are interested in upgrades (and repairs because they botch their upgrade or repair...) of course, so this argument is going to get traction here. But...it is not an argument for your average consumer..
This IS an attractive 'non-Apple' think laptop!

Users are not as dumb as you might think. They understand whether 4GB RAM is too low, or whether 256GB storage is enough for all the applications and documents.

 

[CrEdge]

I'd think dongles would be the bigger issue.

 

[wr3zzz]

The last time I upgraded a laptop was more than 10 years ago when 5lb devices were considered light. I will take 3lb hard to repair over 7lb ease to upgrade laptop anyday IF I were still a road warrior where those extra lb makes a huge difference. For desktop replacements no one will be using XPS 13.

 

[Findecanor]

There are many things more important for me when choosing a laptop than thinness.
For instance, it must have a good keyboard, and it must have a good selection of ports — both properties in conflict with thinness.

I want the option to use wired headphones!
Because I wear headphones 10+ hours a day, I don't compromise on comfort, isolation and audio quality.

 

[shady28]

I don't particularly like thin and light laptops due to their lack of upgradeability.

That said, out in the world of 90% of laptop users, what @Brian D Smith said is correct. And of course, it was easy to predict the reaction of the users on a place like tomshardware, because none of us much care for things we can't upgrade. If we did, we wouldn't be here on this site.

The best selling laptops in the world are Macs and of those the Air is easily #1, all of them pretty much not upgradeable - especially now with the Apple Silicon chips having memory embedded on the SoC.

I know very few people who buy laptops of any kind thinking they are going to upgrade internal components later. The ones that do are mostly gamers, and a smattering of professionals, both groups tending to buy a laptop more like a workstation class desktop replacement.

I fit in that category too, but to ignore the other 90% or so of people is disingenuous. To most people a laptop is like an automobile, they want to buy it and use it for 3-5 years and replace it, and they want to be fashionable about it. Dell has plenty of other laptops for people like myself and the folks that read tomshardware, this one just isn't it.

 

[Brian D Smith]

Users are not as dumb as you might think. They understand whether 4GB RAM is too low, or whether 256GB storage is enough for all the applications and documents.

"Dumb"? Those are your words, not mine....and I do not think they are.

People get what suits them and their needs. As shady28 points out, yours is a view likely to be found here on Tomshardware.
By the way the best computer purchase I probably ever made is the one I am typing on right now...12-13 yr old Dell Laptop. FAR from thin and light, but it's been rock solid, sounds great, great screen a CPU that handles what I need it for.

 

[magbarn]

Good thing there's other windows laptop choices other than Dell. Looks like they've adopted the worst of Apple's habits of having everything soldered in so you get to pay Dell's tax on their overpriced upgrades.

 

[hotaru.hino]

So much for the right to repair, eh?

This isn't a "right to repair" issue. Right to repair is making it hard if not impossible for anyone other than "authorized" third parties to perform repairs or controlling the supply of a crucial component. In the case of Apple, Apple required authorized third parties to only buy from them and certain parts were more expensive than they should've been.

This is more of a general ease of reparability issue. If someone has the right equipment and Dell doesn't have some special chip they control of the supply of, then there's nothing stopping you from repairing it.

 

[slurmsmckenzie]

This isn't a "right to repair" issue. Right to repair is making it hard if not impossible for anyone other than "authorized" third parties to perform repairs or controlling the supply of a crucial component. In the case of Apple, Apple required authorized third parties to only buy from them and certain parts were more expensive than they should've been.

This is more of a general ease of reparability issue. If someone has the right equipment and Dell doesn't have some special chip they control of the supply of, then there's nothing stopping you from repairing it.

A good point about "Right to repair" vs general repairability, although the wiki for "Right to repair" says:

Four requirements are of particular importance:

1. the device should be constructed and designed in a manner that allows repairs to be made easily;
2. end users and independent repair providers should be able to access original spare parts and tools (software as well as physical tools) needed to repair the device at fair market conditions;
3. repairs should by design be possible and not hindered by software programming;
4. the repairability of a device should be clearly communicated by the manufacturer.

It sounds like "Right to repair" does include general repairability at least to a certain extent?

 

[hotaru.hino]

A good point about "Right to repair" vs general repairability, although the wiki for "Right to repair" says:

It sounds like "Right to repair" does include general repairability at least to a certain extent?

The first point I'd argue is subjective and should be better defined. Most of our electronics are using SMT components these days and if any one of them fails or breaks off, it's not that easy for the average person to replace, let alone know exactly which SMT part to get (I don't think the tiny ones even have a label on them). So that would basically throw most PCBs on the market out of the window of "ease a reparability."

If I wanted to jab on Framework (don't get me wrong, I like their philosophy), their reparability with regards to easily replaceable components is still worse than desktops:

• The CPU, cooler, and motherboard is essentially a single unit. If any one of those fail, I have to replace the entire thing. Which also means I can't upgrade later down the road.
• Also said motherboard is of their own design, so I can only get it from them. Yes it's not a fair point because laptops don't have standardize formfactors, but it's still a point against them.
  • If they have the motherboard specs up somewhere, then that's cool and it would increase repairability slightly, but it doesn't make it any easier for the average Joe to replace it
• Most of their "add-ons" are simply USB-C modules. I don't see this as any different than say a MacBook or Dell XPS with multiple USB-C ports that I just attach doodads on. The only advantage with Framework's approach is the doodads are part of the chassis design.
  • Which also means that any of those components, if you want to make sure it doesn't interfere with the chassis, must conform to that shape. Though this doesn't necessarily mean third parties can't make doodads in that shape

I'd draw the line basically at: as long as you know what you're doing, you have the right equipment, the manufacturer doesn't control something vital to the operation of the computer (in Apple's case, the security chips), and the manufacturer isn't going after or demonize third parties that aren't "authroized," then I don't see a right to repair issue.

 

[Gnikmit]

This isn't much news for me. I wouldn't buy a Dell to begin with. They've made everything so proprietary, even in their desktop lines. Unless you go through Dell, replacing a failed component is often impossible. That's just not how computers are intended to be, and it creates dependency on Dell for the average computer user. It's evil.

 

[SyCoREAPER]

Dell has been killing itself off for years. So many corporate environments are moving away from Dell and to HP. I don't see them being around too much longer, especially with their controversial decisions as of late.

 

[bogda]

The last time I upgraded a laptop was more than 10 years ago when 5lb devices were considered light. I will take 3lb hard to repair over 7lb ease to upgrade laptop anyday IF I were still a road warrior where those extra lb makes a huge difference. For desktop replacements no one will be using XPS 13.

How about choice between 3lb non-upgradeable vs 3.25lb upgradeable? For me clear choice is the second one. I am typing this comment on one such computer now.

 

[bogda]

The overwhelming majority of end users simply would never 'upgrade' or 'fix' a laptop these days....so the argument 'too thin' is a bit of a non-starter. Most Tom's readers are interested in upgrades (and repairs because they botch their upgrade or repair...) of course, so this argument is going to get traction here. But...it is not an argument for your average consumer..
This IS an attractive 'non-Apple' think laptop!

If I wanted Macbook like laptop, I would buy MacBook not its copy.
Thinning laptops further in 2022 brings no practical benefit to the user. Few extra millimeters o thickness can do wonders for Intel powered laptops (perfromance, thermals, battery life...).
Windows laptop manufacturer should stop chasing MacBook because they will always be worse in copying Apple than the original. Promote your advantages over Apple (pefromance, upgradability, repairability...). Does not matter if most users will never upgrade it, is is till good marketing.

 

[Brian D Smith]

I have to disagree...
If 'upgradabity' is more important and you want a Dell laptop, you pick the larger version. If 'thinness'/portability is more important, you pick the 13". It's called 'options'. The more, the better.

 

[hotaru.hino]

Few extra millimeters o thickness can do wonders for Intel powered laptops (perfromance, thermals, battery life...).

Not necessarily.

How about choice between 3lb non-upgradeable vs 3.25lb upgradeable? For me clear choice is the second one. I am typing this comment on one such computer now.

But how upgradeable is it? If it's only the storage drive and RAM, I would say that's not much in terms of upgradability. When I think of upgradability, I think "performance improvement." Granted I guess if you have an HDD and are going to an SSD that's an improvement, but if I can't upgrade the CPU or GPU, then it's not really that much of an advantage.

Like I pointed out before: Sure Framework makes upgradable platforms, but the motherboard and CPU are one unit and you can only get it from them. Compared to say my desktop which I can mix and match either or and can source the parts from a variety of vendors.

Is it better? Sure. But there's still a long way to go compared to what you could do with say a laptop from 17 years ago or what you can do with one of those Clevo desktop replacements.

 

[shady28]

This thread is getting beyond silly.

Dell has a lot of laptops. Most of them are upgradeable. The XPS line has for some time been moving more and more towards 'thin, light, powerful' and within that particular market, they all tend to be not upgradeable.

That doesn't mean that all Dell laptops can't be upgraded. Most of them can be. You just don't want this laptop, fine, move along and do a logical comparison of other models with competitors.

Oh and be ready to complain and whine when AMD and Intel release chips with integrated memory like the Apple M1/M2. That's coming, it's a logical next step. I give it 2 years max before we see something like that from AMD / Intel. The latency and bandwidth advantage is significant, they just need to get on sub 5nm nodes to make it really practical without exorbitant costs.

 

[bogda]

Not necessarily.


But how upgradeable is it? If it's only the storage drive and RAM, I would say that's not much in terms of upgradability. When I think of upgradability, I think "performance improvement." Granted I guess if you have an HDD and are going to an SSD that's an improvement, but if I can't upgrade the CPU or GPU, then it's not really that much of an advantage.

Like I pointed out before: Sure Framework makes upgradable platforms, but the motherboard and CPU are one unit and you can only get it from them. Compared to say my desktop which I can mix and match either or and can source the parts from a variety of vendors.

Is it better? Sure. But there's still a long way to go compared to what you could do with say a laptop from 17 years ago or what you can do with one of those Clevo desktop replacements.

I have to disagree. Upgradable RAM and SSD is a huge thing. You add more once you need more.
For CPU it is different thing. Ugradeable CPU motherboard requires CPU socket with around 2mm of additional thickness under the thickest part of a laptop (motherboard, socket, CPU, cooler/heatpipe all stacked one on another). Memory and SSD socket requires no additional thickness. Laptops never had upgradeable GPUs.
Further, for Intel laptops when user wants to upgrade a CPU, one needs different chipset, socket etc. User is left with upgrade withing same generation. Within same generation, laptop performance is very much limited by thermal performance of the cooling solution.

 

[bogda]

This thread is getting beyond silly.

Dell has a lot of laptops. Most of them are upgradeable. The XPS line has for some time been moving more and more towards 'thin, light, powerful' and within that particular market, they all tend to be not upgradeable.

That doesn't mean that all Dell laptops can't be upgraded. Most of them can be. You just don't want this laptop, fine, move along and do a logical comparison of other models with competitors.

Oh and be ready to complain and whine when AMD and Intel release chips with integrated memory like the Apple M1/M2. That's coming, it's a logical next step. I give it 2 years max before we see something like that from AMD / Intel. The latency and bandwidth advantage is significant, they just need to get on sub 5nm nodes to make it really practical without exorbitant costs.

The problem is, we get little benefit in terms of performance that we get with MacBook, while loosing all of flexibility. On many PCs, there is space for slots, manufacturers just choose not to include them.
We complain and whine because we do not like where the whole thing is going and want to put our 2 cents on this matter. If more people would do it, it might matter.
I also vote with my wallet. All computers in my company are upgradeable.
Why are you commenting, I do not know?