Posted on April 17th, 2009 by Mike Jennings
First look: Dell Mini 10
The Dell Mini 10 hasn’t had the smoothest of births thanks to grocery juggernaut Tesco, which accidentally revealed its existence before the machine could be officially launched. We haven’t yet been able to get our hands on Dell’s latest netbook until this morning, though, when one arrived in the Labs.
First impressions are good, with the Mini 10 oozing class: the screen sits flush with the wide bezel, the red lid looks inviting and classy rather than garish, and the lack of chrome around the rest of the case, aside from the small power button, leaves the Dell looking more mature than most netbooks.
Handling the Mini 10 assuaged any fears that the good looks would be let down by poor build quality. The screen hardly flexes at all and rocks solidly on its hinges, and the wrist-rest offers none of the weakness that’s often seen on cheaper netbooks and budget laptops.
The screen provides good image quality, too, and doesn’t suffer from the uncomfortable graining that afflicts plenty of the Dell’s netbook rivals. The native resolution of 1,024 x 576 is a departure from the 1,024 x 600 that seems standard across most netbooks, including the A Listed Samsung NC10, and leaves the panel feeling a tad cramped compared to rivals – the lookalike HP Compaq Mini-Note, for instance, has a resolution of 1,280 x 768.
The keyboard stretches across the entire width of the chassis and the keys themselves are almost full-size, resulting in one of the most comfortable keyboards we’ve used on a netbook. There’s plenty of travel, a positive action and no odd layout decisions, and we found ourselves touch-typing within seconds.
We’re less keen on the trackpad, though. Netbooks have, so far, opted for buttons either below or either side of the pad, but Dell’s Mini 10 is one of the first that has its pair of buttons built in to the surface itself. The result is awkward: it’s easy to zip the cursor around the screen, but the raised nubbins used to click are too small, meaning that clicking is too precise to be comfortable. It’s a shame that such a good keyboard has been paired with a mediocre trackpad.
Inside the accomplished chassis is a mix of standard netbook parts and quirkier fare. Most netbooks may use Intel’s single-core Atom N270 processor, but the Mini 10 employs a 1.33GHz Atom Z520. It’s also a single core part, but one designed primarily for MID devices – we saw a similar CPU, the 1.6GHz Z530, in the Sony VAIO P Series, which struggled to run Vista. The Dell Mini 10 sensibly sticks with XP, which feels zippy in use, but we’ll let our benchmarks do the talking when it comes to the definitive verdict on performance, and how the Dell compares to its netbook rivals.
Elsewhere, the Dell is a mixture of capable and confusing. The 1GB of RAM is more than enough to handle some XP multi-tasking and the 160GB hard disk is at the upper limits of what we’ve seen in netbooks. However, there’s no draft-n wireless unless you pay for an upgrade on Dell’s website, and if you’d like a higher screen resolution then a 1,366 x 768 panel will cost an extra £15.
Intel’s GMA 500 graphics are par for the course, too, but the inclusion of an HDMI port seems pointless: while standard definition video runs smoothly whether in Windows Media Player or streaming on YouTube, high-definition footage proved too much, with 720p and 1080p clips proving juddery and unwatchable.
Another worry could be battery life: a 3-cell lithium-ion unit is included with the Mini 10, with a power rating of 2,200mAh, and Dell offers no chance to upgrade to a 6-cell unit on its website. With other netbooks, such as the Samsung and Asus Eee PC 1000HE, lasting well over seven hours, it’s looking difficult for Dell to compete on that particular front.
Our first impressions, then, suggest that the Mini 10 is an intriguing mix of familiar and unusual: the excellent keyboard, decent screen and superb build quality seems coupled with an unusual choice of CPU and a divisive trackpad. Keep checking the site for a full review next week.
Tags: Atom, Dell, intel, mini 10, Mini Note, nc10, netbook, samsung
Follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
7 Responses to “ First look: Dell Mini 10 ”
Leave a Reply
Categories
- About the bloggers
- Green
- Hardware
- How To
- Just in
- Microsoft Office 2010
- Newsdesk
- Online business
- Random
- Rant
- Real World Computing
- Software
- View from the Labs
- Windows 7
Authors
Archives
- November 2009
- October 2009
- September 2009
- August 2009
- July 2009
- June 2009
- May 2009
- April 2009
- March 2009
- February 2009
- January 2009
- December 2008
- November 2008
- October 2008
- September 2008
- August 2008
- July 2008
- June 2008
- May 2008
- April 2008
advertisement
Printed from www.pcpro.co.uk































April 17th, 2009 at 4:06 pm
The Z520 and Z530 processors used in Dell Mini 10’s are not dual-core. They do Hyper Threading. (http://ark.intel.com/cpu.aspx?groupId=35463)
April 17th, 2009 at 4:57 pm
Thanks for clarification, Stuart – I’ve corrected the article to reflect this.
April 17th, 2009 at 8:30 pm
I still can’t find the spec that I want in a netbook, and I had high hopes this might be it. Sadly it seems that Dell has badly veered off track. The downgraded processor and graphics leaves me scratching my head, I mean WHY. The standard screen resolution is pointless, (and PC Pro adversely commented on the Lenovo for having that screen resolution), still the upgrade is cheap enough but if it can’t play HD video what’s the point?, I would rather have a 1280 x 800 screen as an option.
The trackpad and buttons are just simply plain stupid as is the omission of wireless N and that silly 3 cell battery. Oh dear I feel like I’m having another Vista moment.
Apart from that it’s perfect although I would like the option of XP Pro rather than Home. Shame really as I would purchase the “Right” Netbook right now, oh well lets hope the new Samsungs will be closer to the spec that I want. This netbook seems carp (rearrange). I’m really surprised at Dell missing the mark so badly.
April 17th, 2009 at 8:57 pm
it seems to me like utter idiocy for them to send out a netbook with that screen resolution. It will give the netbook a bad name, where for £15 more they could just have fitted it, and put it in the price. should be an optional downgrade, perhaps?
April 17th, 2009 at 10:45 pm
Well we are pretty much in agreement there, but if it’s not able to play HD video, then as a Netbook the primary purpose is surely the web, and 1280 is enough for a browser to show a full width web page and say bookmarks in the sidebar. What would you need the 1366 width for other than HD video? same for the HDMI.
As a reasonably well informed consumer (well I think so) I am bemused at how such large corporations like Dell and MS (with Vista ) can get things so badly wrong. Why ship a product that is obviously flawed, then spend millions on PR to regain credibility. Just building the right product in the first place must be cheaper surely.
I may be pre-empting the review though, perhaps it has some redeeming features, looks nice anyway.
April 19th, 2009 at 12:37 am
I got a netbook around 6 months ago, the Acer Aspire One. I’ve got to say, its pretty neat, I love the design, and the keyboard is easy to get used to . The battery life is terrible, as it only lasts for 2hrs. I think everyone is now waiting for that netbook with a CD/DVD drive!
April 20th, 2009 at 2:18 am
It’s just another example of companies deliberately avoiding making the perfect machine, because each product cannot step on the toes of another in its range.
Dell knows what their best trackpad design is – so fit that on all their machines. They know people will want a long battery life – so make that possible. They know people will want a good screen. And the latest draft-n wireless capabilities. So put them all on the machine – every manufacturer should – it’s called progress. Indeed I would add an extra gig of ram to the 1gig standard too.
It’s the same with MACs. Unless you pay an absolute fortune, you will not get a great all-round machine in comparison to a PC. Their graphics, for instance, are always lacking, without any good reason. And their RAM is usually low. Yet MACs are supposed to be great reliable machines. So why don’t they just up the RAM and graphics capability so they properly compete – are indeed truly top of the range?