16
votes
CES 2025
CES 2025 kicked off with some big hardware announcements.
- AMD CPUS for desktop, mobile, and handhelds
- Nvidia 5000 GPUs (see separate discussion here)
But what else are people excited (or not excited) for that doesn't necessarily deserve its own thread?
I'll start: I actually like Dell's laptop rebrand as it simplifies the lineup in a easily understood way. I spent several years working for a university IT department where all of our machines were Dell but I couldn't tell you the different between the Inspiron, Latitude and Precision lines without looking it up. I like how someone in the tech space is trying to make their product lines easier to understand/intuit (looking and Intel's recent CPU rebrand and AMD's mobile naming scheme). I just didn't except it to be Dell of all people
I actually feel like the new naming scheme is just as unintuitive.
From PCmag:
I just feel like it's not clear what pro, plus, premium, and max each mean here. I don't think it's any more confusing than inspiron, latitude, precision, and XPS, but I don't know that it's any less confusing....
Well, looking at the chart it seems that there are 3 product lines: Dell, Dell Pro, and Dell Pro Max. Then each of those could be base, Plus or Premium, but I don't think I could tell just by looking at the lineup. Maybe that's somewhat due to looking at the entire laptop lineup though. I suppose most consumers would just be choosing between Dell, Dell Plus, and Dell Premium, which is ok.
One thing I do like is that "pro" actually means "for professionals."
Ok, after writing all that out, I changed my mind. I like the new naming better.
I couldn't tell you with certainty which one is better or worse than the other here, but with
I think I can
I'm not trying to be a dick here, but that's likely because you probably never bothered to look it up. Inspiron was the consumer-grade line, Latitude the business-class line, and Precision the pro/workstation line. Dell was pretty upfront with it. Their site had explainers for the naming conventions.
None of them mean "better" or "worse," just designed for different purposes. The closest thing to "better or worse" would've been the first digit in the marketing model number, as the thousands digit signified the build. Anything with a model number in the 3000s was usually made with thermo-molded plastics that disintegrated when exposed to air.
I feel like this demonstrates exactly what is confusing about the scheme. It suggests a progression, but it's just different lines of product. "Dell" is not exactly worse than "Dell Pro."
A Dell Premium would be higher end than a Dell Pro Plus laptop, equivalent to comparing an XPS to a Latitude 5000 series.
The words that denote better or worse within a product line are "plus" and "premium."
That's strange, because of all the biggest three laptop OEMs, I always felt that Dell's naming conventions were the most straightforward and easy to understand. Inspiron was the consumer line, Latitude the business-class line, and Precision the pro/workstation line.
Then the individual marketing model numbers told you more: 3000 was budget models (i.e. big flashing red sign saying "do not buy me if you value your sanity"), 5000 for mid-range specs with higher build quality, 7000 for "ultrabooks" (meaning higher specc'd procs and usually more memory) and lately, 9000 for essentially MacBook but without the baggage–or at least different baggage.
Then the other numbers tell you even more specifics. The second digit tells you the display size, rounded up to the nearest inch. A 74xx would be a 14"-class ultrabook, for example. Third digit tells you the hardware iteration, which usually mostly means Core i-series generation: a 742x would usually be a 14"-class ultrabook with an 11th-gen Core i7 (the iteration number is usually one number beyond the Intel generation, though that's changed from time to time). Then the final digit tells you a specific detail about the build, most often whether it has an AMD or Intel CPU (AMD models have a 5 in the final digit, Intel has 0). This is also where you'd see whether the unit is a 2-in-1 or whathaveyou.
Easy peasy. Contrast that to Lenovo, who offer T, X & P series, X1 series, "Idea"-branded garbage–there's no consistency or reason to it that I can tell. I was a Lenovo OEM warranty field tech for two years, and I still can't tell you what the model names signify, other than that Legion was designed specifically to look nice and be impossible to repair, and that "Idea" is apparently an obscure Cantonese word for "something designed on the back of a cocktail napkin after a three-day bender."
On the top of my head :
Ideapad : consumer
Legion : gamer
Thinkpad: business
Then for the Thinkpads
T: workhorse (the multipurpose ones)
P: workstation (the discrete GPU ones)
X: ultrabook (the thin ones)
There’s also ThinkBooks, which for I’m not sure who the intended audience is supposed to be.
There are at least three more lines than just those though, and the numbering schemes are different for all of them. At least, they were before they switched to class-screen size-generation for most of the Thinkpads. It's still a mess.
Under the new lineup branding, which one is better: Dell 14 Premium or plain Dell Pro Max 14 [base]?
And back to the full specs we go...
We really shouldn't have to. It shouldn't need a degree to work out models and variants to work out which is better.
Really? I work IT and used to do purchasing and I thought their old way was pretty clear. OK, they definitely messed up with things like "NEW 5400" Latitude vs (old) 5400 Latitude.
But I knew that the order is XPS/Precision > Latitude > Vostro/Inspiron. Vostro and Precision is for business while XPS and Inspiron is more general consumer.
Then if the number is 5400, then 4 means 14". A 5300 is a 13." If it's like a 5450...I don't know what the "50" means, but it's definitely a 14"!
The 3xxx, 5xxx, 7xxx, and 9xxx is a shorthand for saying that the 9xxx should be "better" than the 7xxx which should be better than the 5xxx, which is better than the 3xxx. The price usually followed that as well. The price for a 9xxx model should be significantly higher than a 3xxx model.
That said, I suppose that I had to explain it probably means it's not as clear as I think it is. It's definitely something I needed to look into over the years. But eventually learned how to use the model name and series as a guide for what people I needed to buy.
I think what all the comments in this thread kinda imply is that, if you work in IT, the naming conventions were pretty straightforward. But if you didn't, they were just random words that aren't immediately intuitive.
The point people are making about the new naming convention implying a progression from shit to excellent is a good one, but I don't know anything about Dell as a company. Are they trying to break out of enterprise and into the consumer market? If so, having easy names for 'base model', 'for mixed use', and 'for Serious Business' makes intuitive sense to me
But I do not work in IT. I get issued Dell laptops a lot, but apart from them constantly running out of battery, I couldn't meaningfully explain the differences between the different models I've used. Or even remember what models I've had.
I am in IT and I still find all this stuff stupid as hell. I get why they do it, but i'm not in it enough to internalize it, and every time i'm doing a new build or trying to pick something out it's absurdly annoying. That's before some friend asks me to help them and I have to go through the whole spiel.
The tens digit signified the iteration, (which usually told you what generation processor it had), similarly to Nvidia's thousands digit. When they started the Latitude line, the generation was just what generation of Intel Core processor it had, but then Intel screwed it up with Haswell and lagged a bit, so it then meant Intel gen plus one (usually). That's just a rule of thumb though. I don't think they really took their cues from Intel for naming.
Waiting for a good OLED 4K 120hz+ 27" display without compromising on text clarity due to weirdo subpixel layouts.
It feels like a lot of us in the market for nicer monitors not exclusively catering to gaming are waiting for our unicorns. In my case I don’t necessarily need the higher refresh rate (though that’s always nice), but rather pixel density high enough to run with 2x UI scaling and better contrast (MBP-style FALD with lots of zones is good enough for me, though high endurance OLED with RGB subpixel layout would be nice too). It’ll never happen in a million years, but an aspect ratio taller than 16:9 (even just 16:10) would also be great, because I don’t watch video content on my PC and vertical space runs short on 16:9.
I picked up an LG Ultra gear 32GS95UE-B.AUS over the holidays.
I was desperate for a gloss monitor. It's actually the perfect ratio of matte to gloss. I'm happy in that regard.
It's gorgeous on games.
It struggles a bit with my shades open.
I'm always stressed about its lifespan, and I always will be. Even though I own an OLED TV that I drive an Htpc off of. I've changed every aspect of my OS to reduce on screen static content.
It is gorgeous. The display is astounding. I am deeply concerned that it's bullshit consumer throw away nonsense in terms of lifespan.
Dark mode? Text is amazing. Light mode? Text varies from fucked up to weird to almost fine, depending how I play with the settings.
I would recommend this display in an instant. I would also suggest against it in an instant.
I'm fine enough owning it insofar as I can afford it. But I'm also waiting for the Goldilocks screen. I just needed to finally move into the 32" market. I think I moved in early.
One kind of wacky thing I saw reported on was a solar beach umbrella. The more I think about it, the more I like the idea. Kind of a niche product, but something like that would be great for temp events.
I guess a separate umbrella and battery would be generally more practical, but I still think it's interesting to combine the two.
It’s great that solar panels are getting cheap enough that gadgets like this are practical. If cost continues to drop and efficiency continues to rise, it’s easy to see a future in which the majority of portable electronics have built-in photovoltaics because the cost is negligible and they meaningfully decrease the frequency at which devices need to be charged.
Can’t wait til we bring back the solar powered calculator aesthetic for cell phones
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar-powered_calculator
I just looked it up and it looks like it’s going to be using perovskite cells, which is interesting. It’s good that they are becoming relatively cheap because they have a number of advantages over the current silica based cells that are popular, but I’m betting this umbrella will be quite expensive for the time being.
I am still trying to figure out what the RCA camouflage TV is supposed to be for.
The outdoor part I understand. The camouflage has me at an absolute loss.
Who on earth is making that TV? RCA went away a long time ago and the trademark is owned by a holdings company IIRC, which licenses it to a number of companies.
The camo is to communicate the outdoor part.