*HP HDX18 Owners Lounge*

I'm struggling myself, I think I'm going to go with the T9600.

I've got a 2.4ghz quad core at work it and don't notice much of a difference between my 2.4ghz core 2 duo at home, except when encoding video.

I also don't like the extra heat the quad core will make.

I'm annoyed that they don't have a 7,200 RPM drive option. I think I'll grab the 320GB and add/swap another drive later.

Coupon Please!

 

I'm not really a comp whiz when it comes to hardware and I'd probably have difficulties replacing the hard drive...

So I'd rather wait for HP to put up the 7200 RPM option. Which I hope they do soon...

But if a coupon appears soon I'll just say **** it and get the 5400RPM. The bigger the GB though means that the performance will increase as well right?

Like a 500G 5400RPM vs a 320 7200 RPM. Are those about the same or no?

 

Yes, those would be about the same. See? You're more of a whiz than you think!

 

It's actually not difficult at all to change a hard drive, especially on these new systems where you remove the entire bottom panel and everything is right there for you to access. You just pop out 2 screws, remove the old hard drive, put in the new hard drive, and viola! And you can use some free software like EASEUS Disc Copy to make an exact clone of your hard drive before swapping it out.

 

Trust me, I understand all of this very clearly. You seem to think all I was talking about was my 2-year old system, but I was talking about the QX9300 vs the T9600. Hopefully you were the only one confused about my point.

90% of the time, "on a single core" means "performing a single task." Multitasking is great, but if you need to do anything requiring a single thread (I can think of many such things I do on a daily basis), the T9600 will come out ahead. The L2 cache compared to the T9600 isn't even worth discussing as far as single-task scenarios go.

And also, I said "almost as slow" as my old system for a reason. I wasn't trying to make a statement I intend to prove with benchmarks or numbers, so please don't make assumptions about "my logic". I never even said anything about clock speeds or number of cores. I just said "slow."

 

I just popped over to NewEgg to check out their 7200RPM/320GB hard drive options and they are looking much more affordable these days.

Does anyone know if the HP ProtectSmart accelerometers are *in* the hard drives? I assume they are so that it can lock up quickly, but I don't know for sure.

It's a feature that appeals to me, since I like to carry my notebook around at work when it's on and I've already noticed on the dv7t that it activated rather quickly to keep anything potentially bad from happening. FYI, the HDD activity LED turns orange when it is activated.

EDIT: Tom's Hardware has a good article about the newest drives, including info on free fall sensors.

 

I am new, but have been lurking here for over a month now. I bought 2 DV5t and return both. 1st DV5t did not boot up on it's 3rd night, return for refund. Bought the 2nd DV5t then heard about the HDX18, return it for refund. Now, I'm ordering the HDX18. Hopefully, I get it before the finish built day, which is Oct 14.

 

Okay so I'm now even more conflicted as to whether to get the T9600 or the QX9300...

Any word yet on a coupon for this notebook?

As for the hard drive if I really wanted a 7200 RPM should I just get the cheapest hard drive and then buy a 7200 RPM hard drive from Newegg?

Also I really wish they had put up an option for a better graphics card...

 

No coupons that work on the HDX series.

The best deal, by far, on a big, fast drive is at tigerdirect:

http://www.tigerdirect.com/applications/SearchTools/item-details.asp?EdpNo=4167702&CatId=2682

 

What's your take on what pdx said up above about the Quad processor?

 

No, I didn't think that at all. You compared your 2 year old system to the speed of the QX9300 and you compared the power and heat of the QX9300 to the T9600. I was clear on that. I did not comment on the heat issue because with 4 cores, the power requirements would be higher.

Sorry, in all my years of computing, I've not heard that said that way.

I'm sorry, but this is a technical forum. When you put out a vague comparison that is seemingly not possible, be prepared to defend it. If I was making any assumptions, it was because you didn't write what you meant.

To me (and maybe others), you were dismissing the QX9300, the fastest and newest multi-core mobile CPU as slower than your 2 year old desktop. Plain and simple. Not knowing your background, I simply responded with some logic and facts so others (not so savvy) would not be confused thinking the QX9300 was a dud.

Carry on...

 

My take on the QX9300 is that for $225 upcharge over the base model CPU, you get the highest-end mobile CPU available today. Other manufacturers are charging $900 or more for the same upgrade. Although it is not over-clockable now, it seems like a very good investment, and one worth taking.

The practical performance increase between a 2.53 and a 2.8 is not enough (for me) that I would notice it. General rule of thumb is one needs a MINIMUM of 10% increase in clock speed to begin to "feel" the difference. This one is about 10% exactly.

I'll take two more cores, thank you.

 

Agreed. It should almost be a no brainer. Plus, a faster CPU won't help with games since now the GPU is the bottleneck.

 

A couple questions.

Someone mentioned that Ultimate was a waste of money. I was thinking of getting this when I buy. The two features that attracted me were "protection against hardware failure" and "keep your information confidential" (those quotes coming from the MS booklet on Vista). Does anyone have firsthand experience to say it is, or is not, worth the extra $146?

I too want a 7200 rpm hard drive. If I wanted to swap out the hard drive, wouldn't I have to somehow re-install Vista plus all the other software that comes loaded on the original hard drive? Does the laptop come with disks to re-load all this?

 

Oh, I forgot to add that I priced Ultimate at $146 rather than $160 because that is the price on Costco's website. The whole system that I spec'd is only $39 cheaper on Costco, but they extend the warranty for an extra year at no cost.

 

i was really hoping for it to have higher end gpu...

 

So you agree that one should get the Quad?

 

Sorry for the double post? GPU is the hard drive right?

 

Graphics Processing unit.

And the Quad core isn't really that much faster, unless the program is coded for 4 cores. But most programs aren't and the only games that i know of that use 4 cores is Crysis and Warhead.

 

What will be the impact in terms of battery life and heating? I hope it won't severely decrease the life of my laptop or drastically increase the temp of the laptop while running it everyday...

 

Well the quad core runs cooler than the dual core, but its not a big noticable difference. The dual core should have longer battery life.

 

I live and breathe computers, use and talk about these things every single day, all day, and have done so for over half of my life. And before you ask, no, I'm not in IT Strictly science. Sorry if it didn't sound right to you.

I think you read too much into a quick and opinionated comment. I don't feel, as a self-conscious member of this forum, that I should be required to explain something if I don't state it as a fact. I didn't state it as a fact for what I consider obvious reasons... exaggeration, anyone?

Just because it's seemingly not possible to you or anyone else doesn't create the requirement that I explain qualitative comparisons off the top of my head in painstaking detail.

And I wouldn't/haven't dismissed the QX9300... as I originally stated, it's got benefits and drawbacks that have me conflicted about what to choose.

 

Wow, some of you need to review thread concurrence, etc., even in a single app (let alone across an OS with loads of parallel processes).

On the thread topic: Hmmm, HP snuck it in right after my return window, hehehe, I guess I'll config one up just to see the price delta.

OK, looks like ~$550 difference with matching configs (though the 18 would have a bigger display). That's cool - I was really committed to keeping this purchase to 1200-1300, so I'm good

 

Can you explain what thread concurrency is?

I was going to try to argue my point about the benefits of a quad core CPU by stating that I've found that one does not need multi-core aware applications to benefit from a multi-core (and the more, the better), as the OS seems to utilize all the cores for use my simultanous multiple single threaded apps! Plus, the OS, especially Vista, is always busy doing it's own thing!

Looking at task manager's performance charts with apps running, it seems all cores (2 or 4) are all in use. I would guess that if I only had one core, my overall performance would be slower.

As a matter of fact, I have observed a single app that doing a particular task on two cores uses a higher CPU utilization than doing the exact same task on a QUAD core CPU (where CPU utilization across all four cores was lower).

So, I don't think one needs an application written for 4 cores to see a performance advantage.

 

You might be seeing the single process and thread migrating between cores, which happens on a fairly regular basis. It's easier to see on a multi-core Mac what's happening, but that's the basic way to take advantage of multiple cores with a single thread.

 

Hahaha, I think everyone is starting to get on the same page now so let's all join hands and sing a rousing chorus of Kumbaya (This forum seems pretty friendly for the most part anyway, which is a nice break from some of the other "technical" MB's).

I think I'll lurk back over to/in the DV7T thread

 

Ah...a scientist. No wonder...I never have understood anything you guys say!

I'm not sure what all that means, but you made a simple statement inferring that the QX9300 is slower than a 2 year old system. I can't mind read or read what is unwritten, so I responded that I didn't think it was true. Obviously, there was much more going on in your head than you wrote, so lets just call it a misunderstanding and get on with it.

I will agree with you, though, that when running DOS 6.1, your 2 year old system will kick my quad cores' butt!

 

lol, I'm not going to test that hypothesis, I like pretty things such as windows and pictures these days hehe.

Anyway, yes, just a misunderstanding. I don't even want to begin to claim I know all the exact differences between NetBurst (P4), Core, and Core 2... I'll leave that to the engineers lol

 

Okay so the Quad WILL perform better than the Duo processor....

Also it could be "future proofing" the laptop right?

Now about the temperature how much hotter do you think it will get? Significantly higher?

 

1. It really depends on the programs that you are running. Some use multiple cores, but most don't at the moment. But FWIW, I've heard that Vista is able to utilize all 4 cores, so that means the OS itself will run processes more efficiently since it would have 4 cores to operate on instead of 2.

2. Yes. Most new programs will be written to take advantage of more than 2 cores. You have to remember that quad core CPU's have only been around for a short while, and all of the programs that have come out in that time most likely started being developed before quad cores were mainstream. Now that quad core CPU's are more prevelant, many of the programs that are being developed today for release in the next couple of years will most likely be written for 4 or more cores.

3. I can't speak for a laptop, but I know that in my desktop the 2.4Ghz Q6600 doesn't run any hotter than the 2.4Ghz E6500 which it replaced.

This discussion could go on for pages and pages, and there are already endless discussions all over the web about whether dual or quad core CPU's are better. Google is your friend on this one, because if we just keep going on and on about this, the next thing you know the thread will be 100 pages long with nothing but opinions from one side or the other. Try skimming through some of these discussions & reviews for more detailed info & opinions: Dual Core vs. Quad Core

My vote: Quad Core, no question about it. For how cheap the upgrade is, it's well worth it IMO. I do a lot of video encoding (shrinking movies down to fit on portable media players), and almost all of the audio/video encoding programs use 4+ cores. So for me it's a no-brainer. But for the person who only uses their laptop for things like watching movies or using simple programs like Outlook and the such, then it's probably not worth the extra money. But then again, that type of person shouldn't be buying an HDX18t anyways!

 

Thanks for that....I think I'm gonna take a gamble and get the Quad. I don't like the that it runs at 2.53Hx especially when seeing the T9600's 2.8Hz right above it but I'm willing to try it out and see if it runs super fast when I get it.

Now I'm struggling as to whether or not to get Vista ULTIMATE!

The price of this laptop (and I have it sorta maxed out) is around $2,000 which is pretty cheap IMO for all the excellent stuff I'm getting in it.

But I just don't know if I'll really take advantage of Vista Ultimate...

And I think if a coupon comes out soon for this laptop I'm just going to buy it with the nVidia 9600M GT. It's a decent card by all accounts and I have no desire to play Crysis on my laptop so I think it'll be just fine for me.

 

It's not guaranteed that the performance will be higher in all cases... it depends a lot on what you're doing.

Honestly though, for most of us who are using these systems as desktop machines, the quad core is the better bet because it's good for multitasking. Rarely does any single desktop application need to go full-bore on the CPU without doing any disk or network I/O or GPU operations, and those things take long enough that the program will not be running during that time (well, as far as the OS is concerned anyway). That's why when you watch a running program in the task manager do something important, it's often not using all of the available CPU %.

I mostly stress over the difference because I do stuff that can't be run on more than one core at a time, either that or it's generally CPU-bound. In those situations, I care more about raw speed, regardless of "parallelizability". But I also know that the quad core will make it a lot easier for me to have music playing, a web server running, my email reloading every five minutes, compiling multiple code projects, and WoW going all at the same time. That's an extreme case, but a good example of why multi-core is generally better for the kind of speed difference we're looking at.

We'll have to wait and see what people say about any extra heat from the quad-core... Intel chips are very good at power management these days, so I don't think the extra 10W power requirement will make much of a difference. Maybe a slight difference in battery life, but again, power management has come a long way.

The Ultra BrightView over the standard BrightView, however, will probably make a more noticeable difference in battery life. Sooo worth it IMO

I'll probably go with the quad core, especially because it's not as ridiculously overpriced anymore. If you decide not to, just know you won't be missing out on "twice the performance from twice the cores" or anything.

 

Haha jleonard, I see from your reply that I must type pretty slow

A quick comment about "programs utilizing more than 2 cores" - what it really takes for a program to utilize multiple cores is asking the OS how many processors are on the system and splitting up the work where possible based on that number. So chances are, if it "supports" two cores than it will work for four as well. If it's well-written

It only makes sense for certain programs as well, since certain things can't be done in parallel. But divide-and-conquer is becoming popular again, so I am hopeful!

EDIT: CassilineKnight, check this out and see if you'll use the extra features.

 

Thanks for that....looks useless to me. I don't know why I was thinking it offered anything significantly better than Home Premium....

Seriously $160 more for scanning and faxing...sure HP. Let me cut off my arm while I'm at it...

Anyways I'm gonna wait a few days see what happens on the coupon front. Maybe or maybe not they'll add another Quad processor up there or another graphcis card option.

Either way this laptop will be mine...so glad I returned the dv7t...Now I've just got to make sure that it will fit my Belkin sleeve. I know someone posted the dimensions but I forgot what page they're on....

I just need width and length....thanks.

 

HDX18t:

17.17 (W) x 11.26" (D) x 1.33 (min H)/1.72(max H) - with Dual Lamp

dv7t:

15.59" (W) x 11.22" (D) x 1.31" (min H)/1.66" (max H)


And yeah, Vista Ultimate isn't worth it if you are paying. I got it for free (LEGALLY thank you lol) and I can say first-hand it isn't really worth it.

I'm also awaiting a flurry of coupons... c'mon 30%!

Anyone know of a good backpack that will fit this monster? I took back my Swiss Gear Ibex because I knew it wouldn't fit. I love Swiss Gear bags, but I don't think they'll have one big enough for the HDX18

 

I'm guessing that's

width x lenght x height? Sorry about my ignorance....

I just don't want to assume anything...

 

Check my edit, those are the for-sure numbers and labeled

 

It could be too wide....

But we'll see I guess...

 

My guess is they will delay any price reductions as long as the initial sales surge lasts. Then almost certainly they will have to cut prices and/or offer incentives.

All the automakers reported double digit sales declines for September. This is another significant purchase that individuals and companies will defer.

 

IMHO, the only semi-useful thing in Ultimate is the "Complete PC Backup and Restore" feature. But you can just as easily buy a 3rd party program like Acronis True Image for $50, and you will get way more features than the integrated Windows backup anyways. Oh yeah, plus you get the "Dreamscape" feature where you can display videos as your wallpaper. Kinda cool, but the novelty wears off really quick (like 20 minutes) and you'll just end up going back to an image anyways.

So you can either pay $160 for Ultimate with complete PC backup, or $50 for Vista Premium + Acronis True Image if you really want the complete PC Backup (which can actually be really useful if your entire drive crashes).

 

I'm guessing that the Swiss Gear Synergy might be able to handle its massive girth and length, but it would be a tight & painful fit until it gets loosened up! The Synergy is a monster itself at 19" tall x 14" wide x 12" deep. Although you may be better off getting something like this to haul that beast around: http://www.suitcase.com/detail/Suit...ek+Centerline+Luggage+Hovercraft+22+20187.htm

Swiss Gear are hands-down the best laptop backpacks on the market. Targus makes some nice ones too, but not nearly as heavy-duty as Swiss Gear bags. I went through about 1 Targus bag a year (due to seams coming apart, stuck zippers, etc) before I switched to a Swiss Gear bag, and I've had that thing for about 3 years now and it still looks like new.

 

I agree, they are going to have to offer something soon. Even without the coupon around 2k this thing still seems like a steal.

 

Yes, absolutely. I already have it ready for when I order the HDX18. Anyways, get the Targus XL backpack. Don't read what the dimensions are for the laptop sleeve inside. It will EASILY fit the HDX18. I have a DV9700t now, and it fits with extra room to spare on all sides. I also had a DV7t for a week and it fit similarly to the 9700t, so I'm 100% positive the XL backpack will fit the HDX18 with no problems. Also, Targus makes a similar backpack but in a different color scheme, do not mistake the two. That second one (in yellow and black) possesses a smaller sleeve. Only get the Targus XL which comes in a dark blue. But again, it will fit and fit well, and that's all that matters. Sadly no current deals on the backpack. I got it on sale for $39.99, steal of the century for me, since most notebook cases are >$60

 

Yeah, I still use my swiss gear laptop backpack that's almost 4 years old now, and I still love it. I paid way too much for it, but that's better than replacing it every year It's taken me through 3 generations of HP laptops hehe. I refuse to buy Targus stuff, I use my backpack to take my baby from home to work and back every day and I don't want anything to fall apart or kill my back.

Thanks for pointing out the Synergy bag, but everywhere I look it says it's for 15" laptops... I think the Ibex might even be bigger :/

The Ibex perfectly fit the dv7 so I know it doesn't have room for the HDX18. Hrm.

 

FYI, eBags says the HDX will fit in these

 

The only one that I would even remotely consider out of that bunch is #1 (the Ogio). The rest are either briefcases or backpacks that look like you're going away for a weekend of camping. How would you like to haul your laptop around in this thing?

 

And that one right there looks like a life support unit for a lunar landing...

Edit:

LoL and look it even has the name of the Shuttle on it..

 

anyone with this case?

http://www.shopping.hp.com/webapp/shopping/product_detail.do?storeName=accessories&landing=notebook&category=notebook_hp&subcat1=carrying_cases&orderflow=1&a1=Price&v1=Over+%2475&product_code=KD853PA&catLevel=2

 

Yes. I got it for my HDX20 Dragon. It's big. More suitable for an overnighter bag. I'll have to wait until my HDX18 comes in to see if the bag is too big.

Personally, I'm not a fan of roller cases. I got an Alienware mALX backpack, new, off Ebay for $65 that fits my HDX20 perfectly, and I think will fit the HDX18 just fine. I love the backpack durability and design. Lots of pockets and places to put things. Not so hip on the Alienware Alien head logo, but beggars can't be choosers!

Update: Alienware sells an ORION bag that looks like it will easily fix the HDX18 (according to the device compatibility dimensions):
http://cgi.ebay.com/Alienware-Orion-17-Notebook-Laptop-Bag-Backpack-Case_W0QQitemZ180290911165QQihZ008QQcategoryZ31520QQssPageNameZWDVWQQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem

Lemme tell you...they build nice bags. Not cheap, but made to last.

 

Only problem being that they all look ugly...