Back to Article

  • wsaenotsock - Thursday, May 10, 2012 - link

    I would even say the Spectre XT looks a lot like Hp's best attempt against the air too, it has the same price and similar physical profile. Reply
  • ananduser - Thursday, May 10, 2012 - link

    No it doesn't. The XT is a 13". The MBA at the same price point is an 11". Reply
  • gscindian - Thursday, May 10, 2012 - link

    Can you put a DVD or combo Blu ray on it??? Reply
  • LauRoman - Thursday, May 10, 2012 - link

    Of course you can put such a thing on it, you can't put that inside it, tho. Reply
  • continuum - Thursday, May 10, 2012 - link

    Any idea on screen resolutions, both standard and (if any) optional? Reply
  • Impulses - Thursday, May 10, 2012 - link

    This. Hoping someone besides ASUS starts using 1600x900 displays on ultrabooks and the like... We need more options and with SSD now being commonplace, the display is the most often and obviously ignored component. Even audio gets more love even if it's gimmicky Beats/B&O/HK branding. Reply
  • piroroadkill - Thursday, May 10, 2012 - link

    1366x768 default. Reply
  • T2k - Saturday, May 12, 2012 - link

    Jesus, say it ain't so, in 2012... absolutely RETARDED. Reply
  • gorash - Thursday, May 10, 2012 - link

    The only thing that I care about is, is the screen good? Reply
  • MrSpadge - Thursday, May 10, 2012 - link

    If it was, they probably would have told us. Reply
  • BSMonitor - Thursday, May 10, 2012 - link

    No, it is not. The AMD 15" is only 1366x768, same as the 14" ultrabook. As expected, AMD's claim of cheaper ultrabooks comes at the expensive of quality components.. Not the difference in APU price.

    No one wants an "ultrabook" with an HDD. Kinda kills the "instant on" theory.
  • ananduser - Thursday, May 10, 2012 - link

    The AMD 15" and 14" are ultrabook class notebooks. It has that resolution because it is a cheap device; cheap as in inexpensive and not necessarily low quality. You want 1600x900 for a 600$ ultrabook ? It isn't possible.
    I think there is an AMD model sporting a SSD HDD combo.
    And lastly that's why they are called sleekbooks; they aren't supposed to be ultrabooks to the letter so there is no instan-on requirement. Regardless W8 will make them pretty snappy even sans SSD.
  • kyuu - Friday, May 11, 2012 - link

    These aren't ultrabooks, and aren't beholden to ultrabook specifications like the "instant-on" thing, so I'm not sure where your "kills the 'instant on' theory" comment comes from. How in the hell do you expect to fit a decent-sized SSD into the budget of a $500 laptop, anyway?

    The problem with HP's lineup, as far as I'm concerned, is that they're only sticking AMD's APUs into the 15.6" models. If I want a 14" model but want an AMD APU, I'm out of luck. Why? What's the reasoning for this decision?

    Although, if there's no option to upgrade from the low resolution, glossy, poor-quality screens, I wouldn't touch these with a 10 foot pole anyway.
  • ananduser - Friday, May 11, 2012 - link

    Because they are ultrabook in chassis, aka light. That's their reasoning. Ultrabook-like notebooks at lower price points. That's Trinity's purpose. And between 13" x768 and 15" x768; 15" is a little bit better. Reply
  • kyuu - Friday, May 11, 2012 - link

    Right, ultrabook-like notebooks in terms of form factor at lower price points. I don't recall seeing AMD claim anywhere that you'd get SSDs in them, although I'm sure you will be able to get SSDs if you want to pay for it.

    While many here might not be willing to go for an ultrabook without an SSD in it, I can guarantee you that, among the general population, most still probably don't even know what an SSD is, let alone care about whether or not their ultrabook (or ultrathin) has one. Myself, I'd be fine if I could get one with a Momentus XT hybrid drive.

    I'm not sure how you come to the conclusion that x768 is better at 15" than 13" (or 14", which is what I was talking about). The larger the display, the worse that resolution will look. And resolution isn't the only issue -- x768 panels are invariably cheap junk all around. And I don't want a laptop of any form factor over 14", as I find that the best balance of portability vs. usability.
  • ComputerGuy2006 - Thursday, May 10, 2012 - link

    why did I get this spam in my RSS feed thats supposed to contain only reviews? Reply
  • andrebrait - Thursday, May 10, 2012 - link

    Then I'll pass...

    Sincerely, I've had three HP notebooks...

    A first-gen Core 2 Duo with a GeForce 7600GS
    A AMD A8 APU with a dedicated HD6770M
    A DM1-series AMD E-350 APU.

    The first one died and was replaced. The replacement died after the warranty was over. They both died for unknown causes, I'm very, VERY careful with my notebooks.

    The A8 started displaying video corruption. I returned it.
    The DM1 would get slow for no cause, the WLAN only connected with 65mbps (1 antenna, 20Mhz-only channels, no 40MHz channel support lke any other decent solution) and the Wired LAN would never get to its supposed to be supported 1Gbps. Max throughput was 550Mbps.

    I'm done with HP. Also, I have three friends whom HP notebooks died suddenly and before that the screen was displaying every sort of stuff. They were all clean and well cooled.

    My CCE (a Brazilian cheap electronics manufacturer) 2nd-gen i3 is still Alive. My Clevo barebone is alive and strong. My mother's Acer 1410-series is well and working very well for something that's threw in her bag every morning to go to work. God, my Idon'tknowhowmany years old Pentium M is alive. HP never again.
  • mikael.skytter - Thursday, May 10, 2012 - link

    Same for me.
    With 3 HP notebooks. The 3:d that I am on now have accually managed to last.

    The first one died from the famous Nvidia hardware problem.
    2:nd as well
  • Flunk - Thursday, May 10, 2012 - link

    I had a similar experience with an AMD based dv2000. It mysteriously died shortly after the extended warranty after being carefully looked after. I happen to have a working 486 ThinkPad that has to be about 20 years old. I don't necessarily expect that but 5 years would be nice. Reply
  • jabber - Thursday, May 10, 2012 - link

    .....simply refuse to review such kit when the corps ask you to?

    Simply say "Sorry but our readership wouldn't buy kit with such inferior screen specifications!"

    Maybe then they will get the message.

    It seems that bleating on about it in review after review of crappy screened kit isn't getting through.
  • bji - Thursday, May 10, 2012 - link

    I'm with you on this and have asked for exactly the same thing in the past. Reply
  • ananduser - Friday, May 11, 2012 - link

    No, to help improve screens people only have to buy 1300$(or more) ultrabooks. Bigger resolutions you can find from that price point upwards. Fortunately people aren't as stupid to pay top dollars for Intel's crappy ultrabook SKUs just because it is thin. Reply
  • Jeff Bellin - Sunday, May 13, 2012 - link

    I've had about 6 HPs in the past 3 years and two are still in service (dv4t, dv8t) and running like new and 2 of the others were sold in perfect working order after more than a year of use. I will say that the sixth, an Elitebook 2740p just never got right, after 4 tries. But HP refunded my money and gave me a $1,000 credit for the problem. Unless their policies have changed, the thing that makes HP's quality problems tolerable is that they do tend to stand by their products. Word to the wise: work with their Resolutions Dept or Tech Support; don't allow your problem to be assigned to Case Management; they are a band of arrogant [things you do to your finger with rose bush thorns] and they couldn't care less what's in the interest in customer satisfaction. I wouldn't depend on HP equipment for mission-critical work, but they have by far the best designs, lowest prices, most value for the $ and they do stand behind their products - if you ask nicely. ;) Reply

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now