HP Folio 13 Review: Deviating From the Norm
by Dustin Sklavos on April 17, 2012 12:30 AM EST- Posted in
- Laptops
- Intel
- HP
- Sandy Bridge
- Ultrabook
Conclusion: A Mixed Bag
Of the ultrabooks I've tested so far, the ones I've personally liked the best have been the Dell XPS 13 and this one, the HP Folio 13. Both have fairly good keyboards and both deviate from the norm a little bit, displaying some ingenuity and thought in their designs. I particularly appreciate the Folio 13's more boxy design; it seems silly, but the lack of a wedge shape is refreshing and more than that, helps to both distinguish HP's entrant visually and gives their engineers some elbow room.
What we're still looking at, fundamentally, is the first generation of ultrabooks. The first generation of netbooks wasn't so hot, either, and most of us remember the first generation iPad being derided as a giant iPhone. All of the vendors seem to be working out kinks, and it doesn't help that Sandy Bridge isn't quite as ready for this form factor as Ivy Bridge will be (and Haswell especially, further down the line). Intel's spec is forward-looking in a way that's good for the future, but leads to compromises in the here and now. Hence, working kinks out so that the second generation should be a lot more impressive.
To that end, I think the form factor, design, and the aesthetic of the HP Folio 13 are fundamentally the strong points. It has one of the best keyboards available in an ultrabook, and it runs nice and frosty. What HP needs to work on for the next revision is eschewing the clickpad and going back to a traditional touchpad with dedicated buttons, increasing the customization available (including running the system's memory in dual-channel instead of single-channel mode), bumping the mSATA speed up to 6Gbps for future-proofing's sake, and further optimizing power consumption. That the screen needs to be replaced with something better goes without saying, but I'm optimistic that the days of lousy, low-resolution TN displays in notebooks are numbered.
None of the ultrabooks available right now is perfect. With Ivy Bridge en route, hopefully we'll be seeing refreshes soon that work out many of the weaknesses of this generation while building on their strengths. In the meantime, if you need a system right now it's going to come down to which one feels the best for you. Performance is generally comparable (excepting the Toshiba Portege Z830 and its turbo-free Core i3) between the systems as such that you don't really give up anything tangible going with a slower processor, and battery life is essentially the same way. As such, it's a matter of preference.
Personally, I like the HP Folio 13 more than most, and pricing is decent at around $1000 for our review unit. However, like the competition the Folio 13 just doesn't seem quite ready for prime time yet. It's also important to remember that Ivy Bridge refreshes within the next month could substantially alter the ultrabook landscape.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
88 Comments
View All Comments
Zingam - Wednesday, April 18, 2012 - link
Dude, you surely have microscope eyes, do you? I have a 13.3" 768p display and I cannot see the dots on it! I doubt there will be any real advantage if it was higher res.Higher resolution might make sense at 15" but it doesn't make any at 13!
I bet your are just trolling and clueless!
snuuggles - Wednesday, April 18, 2012 - link
I'm hoping it's not just a waste of time to reply to you, but here goes:The point is not "I can't see the pixels". The *point* is that a higher vertical resolution allows more work to be shown at once on a page *especially* in windows where the UI can take up a not-insignificant portion of the vertical pixels.
When I work, I want to have as many lines of code on the screen as possible, 768p is simply limiting.
Try to think about it before you call someone a troll or clueless. Thank you.
retrospooty - Wednesday, April 18, 2012 - link
"When I work, I want to have as many lines of code on the screen as possible, 768p is simply limiting."Exactly. This 1366x768 madness has to end. There are so many great laptops out there that would be perfect if they only had higher res options. Even 1440 or 1600x900 is a huge improvement. I cant stand when I cant see the button I need to click becasue its below the screen on a lousy 768 line LCD. Never ever ever again.
french toast - Wednesday, April 18, 2012 - link
I agree, we are not in 2004 anymore are we?? how is the new IPAD getting 2560x1440 and they have the cheek to release this? dont forget the ipad is a fully enavled multiouch display, with gorrilla glass and olephobic coating??We are getting ripped off people, 1080p multitouch should be the standard IMO, with or without a keyboard.
JarredWalton - Wednesday, April 18, 2012 - link
Well, the new iPad is 2048x1536, but close enough. :pLordConrad - Wednesday, April 18, 2012 - link
I agree completely. My HP 15 inch laptop has a 768p screen and it is perfect for me. I had the option of getting a higher resolution screen, but I'm glad I didn't. If the native resolution was any smaller, I would have difficulties reading it. More info on the screen is nice, but it's all useless if you can't read the screen.erple2 - Thursday, April 19, 2012 - link
If you can't tell the difference between the clarity of a printed page and your laptop screen, then please stop reading now. You're right, 768p screens in this form factor is enough.If, however, you can actually tell the difference between reading a (quality) printed page and reading the same thing on your laptop, then please continue reading.
I shudder to say it, but "You're reading it wrong"...
In the modern day age of 3D based desktops, "infinitely" scalable fonts, and scalable vector graphics as icons, low resolution displays simply cannot be justified by "I would have a hard time reading it". That's just flat false.
The beauty of the higher pixel density displays is that, even at the same physical size of a button on screen (say 1/2 inch by 1/2 inch), word of text, icon, etc, there are more pixels to represent that object, and thus the object is clearer to the human perception. The dpi of printed material borders on 300-600 dpi, and IMO is much easier to read than anything on a monitor/display.
I posit that the people that complain about not being able to see/read text on a high-resolution screen are either ignorant of font scaling, or are willfully stupid of it.
Higher Resolution is ALWAYS better than lower resolution, simply because you can always increase the pixel size of the fonts to match the physical size of the fonts.
nexox - Wednesday, April 18, 2012 - link
"""Dude, you surely have microscope eyes, do you? I have a 13.3" 768p display and I cannot see the dots on it! I doubt there will be any real advantage if it was higher res.Higher resolution might make sense at 15" but it doesn't make any at 13!
I bet your are just trolling and clueless!"""
You may actually want glasses. Back in 2004 I had a laptop with 1280x800 in 10.6" (140 DPI,) and I still believe that's about the largest screen size appropriate for that resolution. I currently have a (rather crappy, due to cpu/gpu) netbook with 1280x768 in 8.9" (170 DPI,) and that's got a rather nice DPI, though it's still a bit cramped.
On my desktop I run 120 DPI monitors, and I sit a regular distance away from them. For reference, 1920x1200 in 24" is about 100 DPI, and 2560x1440 in 27" is about 110 DPI. People do regularly tell me that it's impossible to read things on my desktop, so I guess I may have decent vision (with glasses.)
In any case, I use a laptop screen much closer to me than my desktop, and so 120 DPI (1366x768 in 13.3") seems rather crappy. Plus, 768 vertical pixels just isn't enough. For my use, 1600x900 is about the minimum for 13.3" (140 DPI,) and 1080p in 13.3" (165 DPI) would be amazing.
Doesn't look like anyone wants to sell that configuration to me for a reasonable price in the near future.
HanzNFranzen - Thursday, April 19, 2012 - link
It's more about visible area on the screen than pixel density. I too, stopped reading at 768p.snuuggles - Thursday, April 19, 2012 - link
+1. -- just exactly right