Prev: Blowing Away the Recovery Partition...Advice?
Next: How do you make a data-free image of C (system partition) ?
From: Ben Myers on 16 Mar 2010 09:55
On 3/15/2010 10:49 PM, Nick wrote:
>
> On Mon, 15 Mar 2010 16:46:32 -0400, in alt.sys.pc-clone.dell, "Ron"
> <Harvested(a)comcast.net> wrote:
>
>> Could someone explain why the XPS 9000 is so much larger and heavier than,
>> say the 8100? I understand it has more slots, higher end cpu, and larger
>> power supply. But do those factors account for about 20 pounds more weight
>> and several more inches in the main dimensions?
>
> I bet you're looking at this info on the Dell web site:
>
> Dimensions& Weight
> Height: 19.4" (49.3 cm)
> Width: 7.8" (19.8 cm)
> Depth: 20.7" (52.8cm)
> Weight: about 40 lbs (20.01 kg)
>
> Look at the weight line real carefully: the pounds and kilograms are
> backwards...
>
> The computer is actually just 20 pounds. That's what it says on the
> shipping label, that's what it says in the manual that came with it, and
> that's about what it felt like when I was moving it around and setting it
> up.
>
> I just broke out my tape measure, and the dimensions (in inches) are
> correct.
>
> (The weight and size of my XPS 9000 are fairly close to those of the 4 1/2
> year old XPS Gen 5 it's replacing.)
>

Something does not seem right here. The XPS Gen systems are all built
like tanks with an oversized chassis, and I would bet that they weight
around 40 lbs. They sure feel that heavy when I pick them up. If the
XPS 9000 is just as heavy, it weighs 40 lbs, too.

I suppose I could cheat and weigh an XPS Gen 3 here with my UPS-like
scale with the large roller balls. But I gotta go out now... Ben Myers
From: Ron on 16 Mar 2010 11:14
Thanks to all for the comments. I'm still not clear why "high end"
components need to weigh more and require a significantly larger volume of
space. (~170 more cubic inches than my XPS 8250, by my estimation.)
Appreciate the "tank" image, but I don't want to put the thing in combat.
Just want high performance in a box convenient (for an older guy :-) ) for
opening and shifting around once in a while. Also, at that height, it's
going to come near the clearance under my desk's pull-out keyboard tray.

Minor issues, I know. The performance should be worth any inconvenience.

Thx, -Ron

From: Ben Myers on 16 Mar 2010 21:56
On 3/16/2010 11:14 AM, Ron wrote:
> Thanks to all for the comments. I'm still not clear why "high end"
> components need to weigh more and require a significantly larger volume
> of space. (~170 more cubic inches than my XPS 8250, by my estimation.)
> Appreciate the "tank" image, but I don't want to put the thing in
> combat. Just want high performance in a box convenient (for an older guy
> :-) ) for opening and shifting around once in a while. Also, at that
> height, it's going to come near the clearance under my desk's pull-out
> keyboard tray.
>
> Minor issues, I know. The performance should be worth any inconvenience.
>
> Thx, -Ron

A lot of the weight is in the chassis itself and the sturdy power
supply. The motherboard, drives, memory all weigh the same no matter
where installed. Dell designed it to be tall and hefty. Why? Ask
their marketing weenies... Ben Myers
From: RnR on 17 Mar 2010 00:15
On Tue, 16 Mar 2010 21:56:03 -0400, Ben Myers <ben_myers(a)charter.net>
wrote:

>On 3/16/2010 11:14 AM, Ron wrote:
>> Thanks to all for the comments. I'm still not clear why "high end"
>> components need to weigh more and require a significantly larger volume
>> of space. (~170 more cubic inches than my XPS 8250, by my estimation.)
>> Appreciate the "tank" image, but I don't want to put the thing in
>> combat. Just want high performance in a box convenient (for an older guy
>> :-) ) for opening and shifting around once in a while. Also, at that
>> height, it's going to come near the clearance under my desk's pull-out
>> keyboard tray.
>>
>> Minor issues, I know. The performance should be worth any inconvenience.
>>
>> Thx, -Ron
>
>A lot of the weight is in the chassis itself and the sturdy power
>supply. The motherboard, drives, memory all weigh the same no matter
>where installed. Dell designed it to be tall and hefty. Why? Ask
>their marketing weenies... Ben Myers


I'm not familiar with the latest dells but in the past, they made them
bigger to accomodate more drives, etc... .
From: Ron on 17 Mar 2010 10:52
From the tech specs:

XPS 8100:

Expansion Slots
PCI: 1 slot
PCIe x1: 2 slots
PCIe x16 (Graphics): 1 slot
Chassis and Case
Dimensions & Weight
Height: 16.1" (40.9 cm)
Width: 7.3" (18.5 cm)
Depth:17.9" (454.67mm)
Weight: about 22.4 lbs (10.18 kg)
Power
Power: 350 Watts
Security
Cable lock chassis security slot
Drive Bays
Three 3.5": (two internal, one external)
Two 5.25" bays
Memory DIMM slots: 4 available

XPS: 9000:

Expansion Slots
PCI: 1 slot
PCIe x1: 3 slots
PCIe x8: 1 slot
PCIe x16 (Graphics): 1 slot
Chassis and Case
Dimensions & Weight
Height: 19.4" (49.3 cm)
Width: 7.8" (19.8 cm)
Depth: 20.7" (52.8cm)
Weight: about 40 lbs (20.01 kg)
Power
Power: 475 Watts
Security
Cable lock chassis security slot
Drive Bays
Three 3.5": (two internal, one external)
Two 5.25" bays
Memory DIMM slots: 6 available

And that's comparing neighboring systems of the same generation. (My old
generation XPS 8250, is smaller yet than the 8100). Sure the larger PS and
couple extra slots will bulk it up a bit, but 20 lbs worth? I guess it's
what someone else said, the chassis itself is bulkier and maybe the mobo.
Hope it's worth lugging that thing around and tucking it in.... -Ron



"RnR" <rnrtexas(a)gmail.com> wrote in message
news:mml0q5dm791j8t0ujac9kavte0mfupbue6(a)4ax.com...
> On Tue, 16 Mar 2010 21:56:03 -0400, Ben Myers <ben_myers(a)charter.net>
> wrote:
>
>>On 3/16/2010 11:14 AM, Ron wrote:
>>> Thanks to all for the comments. I'm still not clear why "high end"
>>> components need to weigh more and require a significantly larger volume
>>> of space. (~170 more cubic inches than my XPS 8250, by my estimation.)
>>> Appreciate the "tank" image, but I don't want to put the thing in
>>> combat. Just want high performance in a box convenient (for an older guy
>>> :-) ) for opening and shifting around once in a while. Also, at that
>>> height, it's going to come near the clearance under my desk's pull-out
>>> keyboard tray.
>>>
>>> Minor issues, I know. The performance should be worth any inconvenience.
>>>
>>> Thx, -Ron
>>
>>A lot of the weight is in the chassis itself and the sturdy power
>>supply. The motherboard, drives, memory all weigh the same no matter
>>where installed. Dell designed it to be tall and hefty. Why? Ask
>>their marketing weenies... Ben Myers
>
>
> I'm not familiar with the latest dells but in the past, they made them
> bigger to accomodate more drives, etc... .

First  |  Prev  |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5
Prev: Blowing Away the Recovery Partition...Advice?
Next: How do you make a data-free image of C (system partition) ?