Did I make the right by chossing the HPzv5000

I have had my hp zv5000 for about 2-3 months. I am very happy with it. It is heavy, but I have no problem transporting it. I have no major problems with it, however, I did not know this was a old version for HP. I am not a laptop expert. Did I make a wrong decision to but this laptop? It meets my needs, but I do not want to have to buy a laptop next year. It works great as a DVD player, I am not a gamer. It is basically for school and internet. Maybe to start my own business one day.

 

I think you can relax about the zv5k feeling like it's been outdated anytime soon. XP and supporting apps should be here to stay for a good while. A good laptop, such as yours should have a decent lifespan of about 3 years - Atleast that is what I find before I am looking forward to the next laptop. Usually a new OS and full set of apps around it last approx. that timeframe.

 

I'm assuming it's a 'z' edition...You made an AWESOME decision by purchasing the zv5k...The only upgrades that the zv6k offers that its predecessor didn't are: better graphics card, higher clock speeds for the A64 processors (like 3800+, 4000+), I think I'm overlooking something like a port?

With that said, your model actually has better speakers, possibly higher screen resolution (if u opted for it), & possibly a mobile processor (ones that have fans not on continuously) if you got the 2800+ or 3000+ Xp-M.

 

Your zv5000 (I'm assuming with the Athlon 64) won't be outdated anytime soon. As things are being moved to 64 bit, you're well prepared to switch to that when the time comes.

Right now, the only notebook computers with 64 bit capability is the Athlon 64 line (Pentium M should have them next year, when the dual core Yonah comes out), so you should be able to squeeze at least 4-5 years out of your notebook assuming you aren't into serious gaming.

 

The zv5000 is a good buy, even if you bought it late in its life cycle. The advantages offered by the new versions arent too great, maybe except for the graphics card. Since you are not into gaming it really does not matter.

 

- GeForce does better in OpenGL apps.

- GeForce offers digital Vibrance option that makes LCD look very very nice. (I don't know whether later Radeons offer that. Previous Radeons incl. 9600 in my T42 didn't)

- Benchmarks:
x200
~6400 in 3DMark2001 (reportedly)
GeForce 4 440 Go
~5860 in 3DMark2001

I don't see how would somebody really see the difference between these two performances. We aren't talking about 500 3D marks2001 of S3 Twister or 1200-2000 of Intel "Extreme" GPUs.
We aren't also takling about 9980 3DMarks2001 on Radeon 9600 released way prior to X200

Overcklocking GeForce esily makes it do 6400 3DMarks2001. I however, did not see any realworld difference and stay with the default clock. With OMEGA drivers GeForce 4 went to 7450 3DMark2001 (and that was without any clock modification).

That being said, zv5000z offered WVA WSXGA+ display which zv6000 for some wery sick reason doesn't. The particular VWA SXGA+ display that HP shipped with zv5000z is the best I've ever seen. Unbelievable contrast,<<< W I D E >>> viewing angle, very saturated COLORS, and high crispness. I just got enhanced viewing angle SXGA screen from IBM for much more $$, and it looks nowhere as good as my zv5000'z screen, you see?

So, don't worry: zv5000z was and still is top of the line (there were rumors that the 4000+ CPU of zv6000 performs as 3700+ CPU in zv5000z, which makes my last statement even stronger, as I have exactly the 3700+ Athlon64 .

 

Alekkh,

Would you happen to know if GeForce 4 440 Go supports the digital vibrance option? If so, where can I turn this feature on if isn't turned on by default?

Thanks in advance.

 

Do Display Properties, GeForce4 tab, Color Correction, and there's a Digital Vibrance slider that appears to default to Off. What's it for anyhow? Colors look odd to me when it's cranked up.

 

Thank you to all that replied....You have all made feel better regarding my choice. Like I said, I am very happy with the system. It fits all my needs.

 

Thanks for the info Brianstretch.

I agree with you in that it doesn't really do anything. All it seems to do is make the panel have more contrast but that makes it look weird to me too.

 

Of course, if it DV is overdone, LCD looks very weird. The effect is quite different from contrast - you can spend your life tweaking the contrast setting and not reproduce the DV, even close. DV setting should be set at only ~1/4 of the maximum. Once you spend a day or two with it, try turning DV OFF. Most likely you'll notice how washed out standard LCD colors actually look. DV is not so useful with CRT, but with LCD - a must have.

 

I agree that the DV adds to the overall picture, but you have to be very sparing in applying it. A little goes a long way. I'm also not sure how it affects photo editing versus printing. I've printed a couple of bad pictures that I'm thinking is because of the DV. I'm planning to give my LCD a good calibration, but I haven't done so yet.

However, I agree that DV makes the screen look a little more....vibrant.

Russ