POST A COMMENT

29 Comments

Back to Article

  • Zok - Wednesday, May 12, 2010 - link

    I expected this to be an actual review or, perhaps, a "This Just In:," but it was neither. Maybe add a "Just Announced:" or something to the title. I got halfway through the article before I realized that nothing was actually being reviewed. Reply
  • Zok - Wednesday, May 12, 2010 - link

    Thanks for changing it to "Announcing:"!

    Please make the check payable to Jack Bauer.
    Reply
  • Stokestack - Thursday, May 13, 2010 - link

    "Thin client"? Ha ha ha! Welcome to the buzzwords of 15 years ago. And with a Celeron, you pretty much have a the performance of a computer from that era too. Reply
  • Yawgm0th - Monday, May 17, 2010 - link

    A 1.8GHz Celeron would be about as powerful as a dodeca-processor server of 1995. Even in relative terms to today's software, it's probably way more powerful than thin clients and even most desktops of the day.

    Also, thin client environments aren't uncommon, and in fact can be a great way to cut administration and hardware costs down if the application doesn't call for a full desktop. If anything, this system will probably be too powerful and expensive for many businesses users. It's hardly a buzz word.
    Reply
  • ksherman - Wednesday, May 12, 2010 - link

    Hmm, in my book >1" thickness (even at the front) is not really what I'd call a "thin" client... Reply
  • ksherman - Wednesday, May 12, 2010 - link

    BUT, I do think it looks pretty nice, from a style stand point. Reply
  • Samus - Wednesday, May 12, 2010 - link

    2GB/4GB is totally ridiculous. You can't even cache the average exchange mailbox to that. And no, not everyone is expected to use OWA. This thing is totally useless for business. It's basically a fancy first generation eee 900, which still even had more storage capacity.

    My point is, with the cost of 8GB, 16GB or even 32GB NAND ($40/$60/$100 respectively) how much more would it really be for HP to NOT order bulk 2GB/4GB flash modules and just get 32GB modules instead. I'm sure they're spending at least $30 on the 4GB modules.
    Reply
  • Chloiber - Wednesday, May 12, 2010 - link

    I also think that 2/4GB of STORAGE is really ridiculous. I mean - the cheapest iPod has more... Reply
  • Justin Time - Wednesday, May 12, 2010 - link

    I think you are missing the point.

    The 't' models are intended as mobile terminals, not as functional stand-alone notebooks.

    Very specific niche market in the business sector.
    Reply
  • nao1120 - Wednesday, May 12, 2010 - link


    RE: RE: RE: "Thin" Client? by Justin Time on Wednesday, May 12, 2010
    I think you are missing the point.

    The 't' models are intended as mobile terminals, not as functional stand-alone notebooks.

    Very specific niche market in the business sector.

    I agree - 2 to 4 gb of flash storage memory on the unit is designed to hold the OS, and apps needed to connect to servers and nothing else....The entire point of thin clients, is to offer a device to connect to remote servers....

    And to comment on where you could store you OWA, and email and exchange issues. That is solved by other solutions, such as file servers, and citrix ....

    It does work well, and its currently used on our environments.

    It is like its designed for, a dummy terminal, with a sceren/ and keyboard, but in this case, mobile....which is lets face it....Nice.
    Reply
  • clarkn0va - Wednesday, May 12, 2010 - link

    Any storage on a thin client is wasted storage, in my view. I run a small fleet of 17 thin clients, soon to be expanded, and the onboard flash is designated as swap, and in a year I have yet to see it used. I can see why some folks in some situations might need a bit of storage on a thin client, but as far as I'm concerned it should be optional, while PXE is not.

    I like the idea of a mobile thin client, but this thing looks a little too heavy to be really attractive. Lose a pound of weight and the obsolete OS and we might have something. A decent NIC wouldn't hurt either; realtek might cut it on a standard desktop or laptop, but a thin client needs to be able to generate some throughput without knocking over the already lean CPU.

    db
    Reply
  • semo - Wednesday, May 12, 2010 - link

    Yep, thin clients are used to connect to server hosted sessions. The reason why this is totally useless for a business is that it doesn't come with a Q chipset so no AMT (not because it can't store someone's mailbox). Reply
  • Cullinaire - Wednesday, May 12, 2010 - link

    I really like the design and the Al construction. Here's hoping they make a normal laptop out of this someday. Reply
  • vanillaportal - Wednesday, May 12, 2010 - link

    The only thin about this notebook is its performance. Reply
  • semo - Wednesday, May 12, 2010 - link

    it's a "thin client". you use it to connect to a server hosted OS so performance will be entirely down to the server. the name doesn't describe it's physical appearance. you can have thin client desktops as well. this will not be used by home or small office users but by corps. which begs the question why not use a Q chipset? Reply
  • KaarlisK - Wednesday, May 12, 2010 - link

    I've been wondering.
    Basically, there is an organization with a total mess in IT (nothing is centrally managed at all) where I might replace the current IT admins in a year or two. It has around 100 PCs&laptops. I know what to do on the software side - active directory, domain, roaming profiles, etc.
    However, as a result of a few weird processes, I can influence around 50% of IT procurements in that organization now.

    My question is - is it worth spending the extra money for a laptop/desktop with a Q chipset? I.e. does it permit managing the workstations completely remotely, without ever touching them? And does it really pay back? Because I may anyway only require physical access so rarely it won't be a problem.
    Reply
  • techsoft - Wednesday, May 12, 2010 - link

    With Apple MacBook Pro Spring 2010 in the market, i think the consumers will be in great problem regarding which system to buy and which not to. I personally will go for Apple MacBook Pro Spring 2010. Reply
  • Shadowmaster625 - Wednesday, May 12, 2010 - link

    What the hell is a celeron P4500 and why am I finding out about it like this? If it is a Lynnfield then it must have 4 cores, right? And why does a thinclient netbook need anything more than an underclocked/undervolted Core 2 CULV? Reply
  • strikeback03 - Wednesday, May 12, 2010 - link

    looking at the linked page, it appears to be an Arrandale without any HT/Turbo. 2 cores/2 threads.

    Shouldn't this notebook include mobile broadband? Given that it pretty much has to be connected to a server to be useful?
    Reply
  • heulenwolf - Wednesday, May 12, 2010 - link

    I'm confused about the purpose of this little beast. I can't say I have much experience with thin clients but, isn't the whole point that the performance hardware gets centralized to the datacenter? If so, why would a thin client have an x86 processor and the option for up to 4 GB of DDR3 RAM? If you're running an embedded OS, why not cut out the x86 hardware cost? Its basically gotta run some management software, allow the user to connect to a network, and then run RDP, VMWare View, Terradicci, Citrix, or some other remote computing client as its sole app. It seems like it would be cheaper and simpler to go ARM. Look at how much capability Dell has in their tiny Latitude On module, for example, even though that's for a different purpose. I doubt anyone is buying quantities of 1-10 of these things, they're ordering in hundreds or thousands, so the resulting drop in hardware costs would go a long way towards making it doable for large businesses. As another poster pointed out, this needs a 3G option, as well, if its going to work for mobile users. Wouldn't using a smartphone-ish chipset make providing a 3G module option one step easier? Going ARM would also provide great benefit to users in terms of size, weight, boot time, battery life, and great benefit to their employers in terms of power draw and heat output. I guess such smart engineering requires too much investment from such a tiny and resource constrained company as HP, though. Reply
  • eBob - Wednesday, May 12, 2010 - link

    I understand the purpose for this product, but I don't think that the laptop form factor makes much sense. It is practically useless for a mobile professional. Once it is out of range of a network it won't be able to do anything. Even adding 3G won't make much difference because 3G is not as ubiquitous as some people imagine. Once the connection drops to EDGE or something similar the performance will degrade significantly. Also, it will be useless for people trying to get work done on a cross-country flight. I think this would be fine as a small desktop form factor machine and it would likely be even less expensive as such. The laptop does look good though and is probably fairly rugged. I would love to have one with a real processor (Core i5 or i7) and hard drive. Reply
  • nao1120 - Wednesday, May 12, 2010 - link


    RE: RE: RE: "Thin" Client? by Justin Time on Wednesday, May 12, 2010
    I think you are missing the point.

    The 't' models are intended as mobile terminals, not as functional stand-alone notebooks.

    Very specific niche market in the business sector.

    I agree - 2 to 4 gb of flash storage memory on the unit is designed to hold the OS, and apps needed to connect to servers and nothing else....The entire point of thin clients, is to offer a device to connect to remote servers....

    And to comment on where you could store you OWA, and email and exchange issues. That is solved by other solutions, such as file servers, and citrix ....

    It does work well, and its currently used on our environments.

    It is like its designed for, a dummy terminal, with a sceren/ and keyboard, but in this case, mobile....which is lets face it....Nice.
    Reply
  • T2k - Wednesday, May 12, 2010 - link

    Seriously, this is such a typical HP case: an very good idea - and a HORRIBLE execution so the end product is a lame duck. Reply
  • Johnmcl7 - Wednesday, May 12, 2010 - link

    "Meanwhile a 13.3” LED-backlit display featuring a relatively lowly resolution of 1366x768 will probably be adequate for the target user."

    This comment seems a bit odd given just about every 13.3in laptop has a similar resolution (normally 16:10). Sony's Z series are the only machines I'm aware that actually have a higher resolution at 1600x900 and 1920x1080. Are there any other companies out there with high resolution 13in laptops? Dell used to be good for high res panels but their XPS 13in machines are stuck with the 1280x800 panels.

    John
    Reply
  • strikeback03 - Thursday, May 13, 2010 - link

    Lenovo uses 1440x900 in the X301 Reply
  • RadnorHarkonnen - Thursday, May 13, 2010 - link

    Lets trim this one. It has too much things for a terminal.

    - you can take off the ODD. Isnt really necessary.
    - On the network side, something for cisco or a intel 5300 for example, fare do much better.
    - Media Card reader ? WTF ?
    - 1 USB/Sata port should be enough. VGA might be usefull and HDMI could be there too.
    - Sound card on a Dumb terminal ? For Citrix or terminal server ? sound card and speakers off.
    - 13.3" diagonal LED-backlit 16:9 HD (1366 x 768) ?? First that isnt HD. Second go at least 1440x900 and up it to 14" if necessary. there are a ton of panels LED backlit at 1440x900 at 14".
    - Intel Celeron ( 1.8GHz, 2MB L2 cache) ? Please use something leaner. Less cache and lower clock.
    - Add 3G please. This is a thin client, should have conectivity on all forms possible.

    With all that taken off , the weight should have been really cut down. The battery life should have been improved or even make the 9 cells version standard.

    And please make it thinner. Or you put a monster battery, or just make it thinner.
    Reply
  • sxr7171 - Saturday, May 15, 2010 - link

    I mean 4.39lbs? For what? A thin client should be less than 2lbs period. You can get a Dell E4200 full laptop that weighs 2.2lbs. Reply
  • jabber - Tuesday, May 18, 2010 - link

    I tried to push these whan another firm released thin client laptops.

    We were a large firm that liked to employ lots of external contractors. The contractors would come in, get given a company laptop due to the 'company IT on the network only rule', do the six months, publish the report then often clear off with the laptop and the company data!

    Due to an apathetic IT dept they never got chased after for either.

    So I reckoned these would have been handy to stop contractors walking off with all the data plus the laptops would have been pretty useless to take anywhere else.

    However, we still had an apathetic IT dept...........you can guess the rest.

    Yep we just kept heamorraging Dell lattitude Laptops for years. No wonder so many contractors liked working for us.
    Reply
  • Inteli - Saturday, October 20, 2012 - link

    Ok. Basically, This laptop is a Thin Client version of the ProBook 4320s. They look Identical (I'm typing on a 4320s right now, and I can't see a difference).

    I think some people just don't get it, while others do get it. A thin client is just a terminal to connect to a bigger server. Anyone who actually read the article would realize this. I think most people just looked at the product specs, then thought it was a overpriced underpowered laptop. It's not. It's meant to deploy quickly to a server back at HQ or wherever and do all your computing THERE. The reason it has all the extra stuff (Card reader, 4 USB ports, eSATA, etc. etc.) is because they basically took the HP 4320s and swapped out everything except the RAM. Honestly, I don't see why people want higher resolution screens on laptops, at least laptops smaller than 15 inches. My laptop has a 1366x768 res. screen, and it looks fine, and i think it is the right size. It matches the screen size great (with just a 117ppi density) and it also suits the power of the GPU well. Remember. This is only running OG Intel HD graphics. You CAN NOT play games decently on it, even at this "horrible" screen resolution. Honestly, I find more fault in 22" monitors having a 1680x1050 resolution than 13 inchers having a just-above-HD resolution (Yes...This IS HD. anything above 1280x720 is considered HD. it's not FHD, but it's HD.)

    /rant

    tl;dr The only real fault I can find in this laptop is that it's probably just a bit thick. However, this was Pre-Ultrabook. If HP were to remake this, it would probably match Ultrabook dimensions.
    Reply

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now