*Help me decide :: HP HDX or not?*

Hey there. I cannot decide if I should purchase the massive, but very powerful HP HDX. I've read many reviews and seen many pictures of the new machine; it looks great!

I'm having a hard time deciding mainly because of two reasons...

1) The Hard Drive options only include 5400RPM speeds, when I'm looking for 7200RPM speeds. (Is this even something to worry about?)

2) ATI is the only graphics chip to choose from. Yes, the card is a 512MB DX10 beast, but I've always held nVidia in the better hand.

For all of you HP HDX owners out there, please discuss with me your reactions to your new laptop, and for those who have not purchased this laptop, please share with me your opinions and advise.

Thanks.

 

You can always put 7200 HDD. I don't think a lot of HDX owners are here yet, as machine just appeared.

 

Are you going to be traveling with this beast? That should be a major consideration with a machine of this size. If not, why are you choosing this over a desktop?

 

I just don't understand why people want these massive "laptops". They aren't very portable (the whole point of a laptop in my eyes), so they will mostly be sitting on a desk. Why not just get a desktop for half the price, with twice the power?

 

well you have to justify the price.... i mean you can get a big and better specced desktop for far less.. and a smaller laptop which may be as powerful

 

What should you do? WHatever you want . . .

I would buy the dv9500t at half the price . . . wait one year and you can get the HDX at nearly half the price it is being offered at now . . . then you will have two computers a year from now for the price of one HDX now . . . perhaps with a better graphic card option later too.

Luggable sewing machine sized machine now, or a 17" laptop now and add the luggable later? Good luck!

 

Well, it is most likely going to be for a dorm room.

So I don't see myself lugging it around too much. But I do need the portability to bring it home and what not.

Hmm...

 

If you're willing to spend that money it would work. But if its going to be mostly used in a dorm room I'd look for a 17" gaming laptop and simply buy an external moniter. That way you'd still have the portability (for bringing music to parties but you'd have a full size monitor when you're in your room. And the laptop would handle games a lot better!

Of course... that's an awesome machine - I just think the price is way too high for what you're getting. I"m sure it'll be an alright gaming machine - but nothing exceptional. Check out the reviews and comments posted in the other forums.

 

Thanks, yeah...I've been reading reviews, and all of them are extremely positive. I was going to wait for Dell's upcoming XPS M1730, but from the pictures released the other day, I dont know if that will be happening. If those pictures were actually fake, a new Dell 17 inch laptop might work for me.

I guess I'll have to wait and see...

 

I agree with rhetor. Go with a 9500 now, and wait for the options for the HDX to expand to what you want, with a price drop to boot.

 

I agree. Get a nice performing notebook (14.1" or 15.4") so you can carry it to class, and just buy a 22" widescreen LCD monitor, and connect your laptop to that for work and play. They are now under $250. A lot more economical and practical.

 

The latest issue of PC World Magazine just came out with a review of 6 laptops, including 3 "desktop replacements," and their TOP PICK in the "desktop replacement" category was the HDX -- even at the $3,000 price tag (they rated the Dell Inspiron 1720 third, but they didn't INCLUDE the HP dv9500t AT ALL, which kinda pissed me off, since the OTHER TWO "desktop replacements" in the review were both 17" -- the Dell and a Sony, I think)... I BELIEVE they did a rating on the dv9000 earlier in the year, and they consider the 9500 just a REVISION of that system (and they ALREADY gave the 9000 series their highest rating of the year for laptops -- it was No. 14 in their top 100 products of the year -- ONLY computer of ANY KIND to break the TOP 50!)

At TWICE the weight AND twice the price of the 9500 for only 3 more inches of diagonal screen size, I REALLY just DON'T see it unless money is just NO object and you have NO PROBLEM with carrying something that heavy around... I agree that otherwise you should pay half as much for twice the desktop system (HP just came out with a QUAD-CORE 6600 media center system with 640 GB of 7200 rpm hard drives for $1,079, as just ONE example)...

Or spend a little more than that and get a fully decked out 9500, like I just ordered and many folks already have and are thrilled with.

To ME, this is sort of like the question of whether to buy a 1080P TV... Do you own a Blu-Ray and/or HD-DVD player (and/or Playstation 3/XBox 360)? And if so, are you buying every single title that comes out in that/those formats and do you plan to spend enough time utilizing the benefits of 1080P for it to make a difference??? (There are STILL only a couple hundred titles available in high definition after 2 years on the market)... Why do I ask? Because regardless of how much HYPE you read or hear in the stores, we may be DECADES AWAY from WIDESPREAD BROADCASTING of 1080P signals, since the bandwidth is BARELY THERE for 720P, which is why new stations are rolling out so slowly.

Will the HDX impress friends who come in your dorm room? Probably... But then a dv9500 (or anything else that size or smaller) will ALSO be portable enough for you to take to class and use to take notes... the HDX will cover your WHOLE DESK and leave no room for your books.

My vote is NO, unless you have money for a second, more sensible laptop, as well.
Jeff

 

You have the same problem as me: I need nVIDIA instead of ATi, and for me only BD instead of HD DVD.
As for Harddisk, you can easily swap it.

BTW, I've heard from an article that HP spokesman said that nVIDIA-models (8700) are coming within this year. I hope it will be accompanied with BD

 

If you're just like me (want to avoid LCD monitor connected to your laptop, and want to carry (rarely) the huge 20 inch), then, YES, but wait for your nVIDIA model

 

They consume far less space than a desktop, consume less electricity than a desktop, have less cables than a desktop, and are easier to move than a desktop.

I have a dv9500t on my desk at home, for those same reasons, and I bought it with the intention that it will never leave the desk - ever. Even a 17" inch is too bulky to carry around on a daily basis, it's more designed for sitting on a desk with only occasional carrying.

If you move twice a year like a typical college student, a large desktop-replacement "laptop" is much easier to deal with than a desktop pc.

 

Fedex tried delivering my HDX today but I wasn't home. I will pick it up in the a.m. I will post impressions and pictures tomorrow night. My main intention is to use it around the house and take it to the occasional LAN party, assuming it games decently.

 

If I had lots of money to throw around I would have one of those in my room but I'm afraid to say that there are better options out there for now.

I'm looking forward to when the HDX is retooled with more options and a potential price cut. I still kind of think the monster laptop defeats the point of having a laptop to begin with...still I could see where there might be some advantages to having it.

 

Don't you also own a Toshiba x205? Did you return it or do you have both now?

Edit: Duh - Didn't connect the dots properly. If you're looking for an awesome display this is definitely the one.

BTW _ WHere'd you buy your x205 from? Did you get charged a restocking fee?

 

Thanks a lot for all the feedback!

So it seems like it will be a "no" for now as far as getting the HP HDX.
Although it is a powerhouse and it has many multimedia features, it does not seem so appropriate to lug such a massive beast of a laptop to and from school (even if it will be sitting in a dorm room for most of the time).

JeffAHayes: I did read that article in PC World, and their extremely postive review of the HDX might have gotten me a little too excited about considering it.

Now, for an alternative to the HDX, many of you have mentioned the HP Pavilion dv9000z. On HP's website, the HP Pavilion dv9500t seems like a better computer suited for me because I prefer Intel over AMD. Are there any major differences between the two? If so, please discuss.

And, if there are any other opinions regarding my original questions regarding the HDX, please continue to discuss. ( Flashram, that would be awesome if you could post any pictures and initial reactions to your new HDX.)


Thanks again.

 

The dv9500t is Stanta Rosa and rocks . . . I really just love my new 9500t!

 

Rhetor, that's awesome! What about it do you love so much? What kind of computing do you do on it (ex: gaming, basic word processing, photoshop etc.)

Question about customization online: Are the two 100GB HDs (included in the 200GB package) both 7200 RPM? And what exactly are the differences between the different screen options (is the most expensive option indeed the best one to choose?)?

 

There are two advantages to the AMD chips right now

1. Lower cost - AMD chips tend to cost less then the equivalent C2D and can be a good place to save money if you're just looking for a basic Office or multimedia notebook
2. Better IGPs - AMD chips come with ATI or Nvidia graphics chips which give better performance then Intel GMA chips (though the X3100 is supposedly better then past Intel entries) nice if you like to play some (older) games

If you were considering an HDX then I highly doubt opting for an AMD chip is going to be something you'll want to consider. I'd go for the dv9500t if you're sure you want to stick with an HP product. It's a very awesome notebook.

 

Yeah, I'm kind of between the fence with HP and Dell.

I would have gotten the Dell m1330 if it had a larger screen and a better nVidia graphics card.

I am waiting to see what Dell comes out with for their 17 inch replacement. I have already seen the hideous rumor that is the Dell XPS M1730. I for one do not beleive that is "real." Prototype, maybe, but not the final product. I will wait until the August 27th "rumored" release date and see what happens.

If it does indeed turn out to be a dud, I think I will definitely go with HP, whether it be the HDX or the 9500t.

Anyone here on the HP forums who has the 9500t or the HDX, please discuss! Thanks.

 

apersonally, although it's a couple hundred bucks cheaper, I think the dv9000z has a good REASON for being cheaper, and that AMD processor IS the reason...

Although I'm NOT any expert on this by a LONGSHOT, I'm guessing a big part of the reason all the computer experts in the magazines reviews keep saying if AMD doesn't find a REAL RESPONSE to the Intel Core 2 Duo they'll be HISTORY has to do with AMD's VIDEO processing capabilities, as while the 9500 comes with the 6150 card standard, with choices to upgrade to either a 7600 or an 8600, the 9000z comes with the 6150 with NO OTHER VIDEO CARD OPTION, period.

From what little I know of that video card, it's NOT up to doing any SERIOUS graphics performance, yet so far, EVERY SINGLE AMD system I've looked at has the 6150 video in it (not that I've looked at a great number of them).

Sooooo, if you're deciding between the 2 HP 17" models, I DEFINITELY THINK the dv9500t is the way to go unless you're on a REALLY TIGHT budget...

I also just looked at the latest multi-page ad for Asus in the September PC World last night, and the ONLY THING that kept me from giving Asus SERIOUS consideration on their 17" model was (like with the Macbook Pro) the lack of a numeric keypad (instead they just center the keyboard in the extra space...

At any rate, for about the same money or maybe a little more, based on the specs Asus quoted in that ad, they make a KILLER 17" laptop that, at least on paper, BLOWS the dv9500t out of the water... They also show on the back page of their ad section their laptops on an excursion to the TOP of Mt. Everest recently, and actually WORKING at the top, and in temps down to 30 below Zero! They said the "base camp" for their summit excursion was about the 5,000 meter mark, and they had laptops by one of the other "major manufacturers" there, as well (didn't say who), and they refused to even BOOT at that altitude (I know specs for the dv9500t and many other computers and hardware I've seen say their upper altitude functioning limit is about 10,000 feet).

So, yeah, for your purposes, DellFan24, I'd DEFINITELY get the 9500.
Jeff

 

I would love to game more, but just no time . . . I am heavy into multitasking and word processing.

The mistake I made when buying mine was to go with just the 160GB hard drive . . . if I had it to do over again, especially if I were a gamer, would have bought the 9500t with the 2x100 7200RPM hard drives . . . a little more speed. And, if you do not buy two drives, HP does not give you the hardware for the second hard drive bay! That is about $50 bucks and a big hassle to get the hardware from HP if you want to install a second hard drive later.

I went with the higher resolution screen (1680x) . . . better resolution and I preferred only one bulb . . . the ultra has two bulbs and will decrease battery life faster.

I recommend getting the t7500 processor . . . it's fast enough for gaming for sure . . fast enough to be the standard option in the HDX.

Bought my 4GB RAM aftermarket for $160 and saved about $365 from the $525 HP wanted.

I wish they offered the 8600GT card for the 9550t, but the 511 8600GS does just fine.

The dv9500t is an excellent desktop replacement but is still a true notebook.

And simply, this was the lightest 17" notebook on the market . . . literally!

Decked out like I describe above, the 9500t is around $1500 (plus, around another $200 to go to 4GB of RAM). Close to the same machine specs (processor etc) in the HDX customized version and the price jumps to around $3000 (plus $200 for for GB of RAM)! And, you only get 5400 RPM hard drives in the HDX (7200 RPM is not yet an option in the HDX), and your only choice is an ATI graphics card! I prefer

THe HDX . . . granted, 3.1 more inches of screen and two bulbs, but only as portable as a singer sewing machine . . . is simply twice the money at the $9500t.

That is why I bought my 9500t now and will get an HDX, oh, about 18 months or so from now . . . when the prices drop and the options grow (options like two 7200 PRM drives, higher resolution on the screen, graphic card options, etc).

But those who have bought the HDX now, regardless of price and options, sure seem happy with it! But I am thrilled with my dv9500t.

Good luck making up your mind!

Few people seem unhappy with either machine!

 

Two reasons, generally: space savings and no need to have a dedicated computer desk.

I stick with a notebook even though it rarely leaves the apartment because I can quickly and easily put it away in a drawer when I'm not using it, removing clutter from my too-small apartment and keeping it away from the curious, prying fingers of my 3 year old daughter. Stowing away a desktop in the same fashion would be annoying and cumbersome, and I would eventually get a little lazy and leave it out one day when I leave for work, and ... sticky little fingers do not provide much of a performance boost to a computer.

I can also move it around in the apartment and use it on the kitchen table, or the sitting-room table as I want - since desktops are essentially married to a non-mobile LCD/CRT, I could not do this with a desktop.

I would definitely move to a desktop style system if I could find a system that had all the internals in a case I could stow away safely, and a combination screen/keyboard/mouse that had the same form factor as a notebook, but that linked wirelessly to the case. Until then, it's a desktop replacement for me.

 

The "problems" with the AMD chips that people grouse about do not have anything to do with the graphics card HP has stupidly chosen to saddle the dv9000z with - that was purely a choice on the part of HP, and probably motivated by the belief that the people who wanted serious graphics-intensive systems would go with an Intel chipset in any event (since Intel currently has the most cutting-edge chips) and that the only people who would give the AMD offerings serious consideration were budget-minded folks who either have no clue about, or don't need, anything other than tepid graphics performance.

For example, the current dv6000z is offered with the option of an NVidia 7200 (again, another milque-toast GPU, but at least marginally better than the 6150). I believe that the dv9000z was also originally offered with a better graphics card. For example, Compusa currently has on offer a refurbished dv9225us with AMD and an NVidia 7600 GPU, see: http://www.compusa.com/products/pro...4965+4294966937&Ne=301257&product_code=346873

Again, the 7600 is not a gamer's GPU, but it is certainly a better GPU than the 6150 HP has currently saddled the dv9000z with - one almost suspects that HP is intentionally trying to damage AMD sales by offering only the 6150.

Finally, as evidence that AMD chipsets can, in fact, be set up with truly high-end GPUs, check out this 20" offering at xoticpc.com: http://www.xoticpc.com/product_info.php?products_id=1633

The Xoticpc/Sager NP5960 Elite has an AMD Turion 64x2 chipset and comes with either a single NVidia 7950GTX or dual 7950GTX set up in SLi mode. The NVidia 7950GTX is currently the best notebook GPU that can be had for love or money.

No, unfortunately, the reason the dv9000z only comes with the tepid 6150 is dim-witted decision-making on the part of HP, not a performance limitation inherent in the AMD chips.

 

Thanks for clarifying that, Shyster... as I said, I'm FAR from being an EXPERT on these matters...

So just WHY DO all the "experts" say AMD is so far behind Intel with THEIR dual-core 64X2 systems? They have the same processor speeds, and processor speed for processor speed they score the same or even higher Windows Experience Index scores in Vista (I've checked using the Performance Index settings in the Control Panels of SEVERAL AMD systems at Best Buy and other stores)...

Does it have to do with the miniscule 512 MB-per-core RAM cache, yathink?

I've not read ALL the articles, but read some of the earlier ones not long after Core 2 duo came out about this time last year, and for a few months thereafter, and ALL the reviewers basically said (and are still saying in brief comments I see) that AMD just has NO RESPONSE to Intel's new architecture, even though the 5000+ chip LOOKS, from specs (other than the cache) to be equal to the 7500.

Anybody know what the REAL ISSUE is?
Jeff

 

I don't know what is the whole issue is but, I have been following this for years. For some reason HP have always offered under powered AMD systems, and always gave the best components to the Intel equivalent systems. A good example of this was that when HP offered the AMD 64 and the Turions capable of using DDR2 memory but they never did, a few years later Intel release single core cpus DDR2 capable and they offered the DDR2 memory with Intel systems right away.

I have always think that there is no way an AMD system will do better than an Intel system if it is not given the same components. If you guys haven't notice, every review out there that I have read they compare 2Ghz C2D's or better to the lowest Turion 2X.

I know that every one is saying that C2D are better than Turion X2, I can't say that my self since I have not used a C2D system yet. I know for sure how good my Turion X2 1.6Ghz is, and I know it is not the best stuff out there, but it is not that far behind from its Intel equivalent.

Is it that HP is afraid that the AMD systems will be as good or better than the Intel equivalent systems if the offered the same options for both systems?
or
Could it be that Intel is paying more $$$ to hp so the Intel systems get the best stuff and the AMD systems don't?

I now that Intel was not happy when Dell started selling AMD systems.

 

Here's why my NEXT computer just MIGHT be a MAC again for the first time in 3 systems (I bought 3 PCs, then 3 Macs, and my 3rd {4th if you count one I took back} PC, the dv9500, is in the build stage right now).

http://www.macworld.com/news/2007/08/07/imac/index.php?lsrc=newsalert

It APPEARS Apple is FINALLY doing some things RIGHT again (and some for the FIRST TIME, like offering computers at REASONABLE prices)... The new iMacs mentioned in the link above are not only almost as portable as a laptop (although they don't come with a battery, so NO, they're not notebooks), the smaller of the two actually WEIGHS LESS than the HDX with the same size screen, lol, and for not much more than A THIRD the price!

And of course nowadays people can run Windows on Macs, too... I'm still dedicated to my dv9500t, BUT, I HAVE BEEN considering getting one of the less expensive Macs as my NEXT purchase, so I have some cross-platform compatibility... These folks who think one platform is SUPREME over the other are ALL WET... I've used BOTH, exclusively, and in combination, and BOTH have their strengths and weaknesses.

If you think this post is off-topic, I don't, because these there's been discussion in this thread about WHY you would get a laptop as big as the HDX rather than a desktop, if you're just going to use it as a desktop replacement, and folks said it's because how big they are and how hard to "put up." From what I see at the link above, you could put the new iMacs up ALMOST as easily as a notebook.

The article ALSO says Apple's PC sales are UP 33% to date THIS YEAR over LAST YEAR, so I really think HP and Dell and the others need to PAY ATTENTION... Apple's decision to "go Intel," making them useable by the Windows crowd with the simple addition of the Parallels program, is likely STEALING A LOT OF "FENCE-SITTERS" from the PC community... At this point, 2/3 of those sales are laptops, but I can't imagine that's mostly in the Macbook Pro series, which I find WAYYYY overpriced for what you get... GOTTA BE those ibooks.
Jeff

 

Sorry if I came off sounding like a stuffed-suit "expert," I most certainly am not much of an expert either; mainly what I have is several months' worth of painstaking internet reading trying to find the perfect replacement for my current notebook (a Sony VAIO PCA-Z1A - still working on the original gerbil), and a bit of a soft spot for the underdog AMD.

Based on what I've read, the 512k cache is not, per se, the reason why AMD is regarded as inferior to Intel. It actually doesn't do much good to simply compare the size of the L2 cache because they really are apples and oranges - AMD uses a separate L2 cache for each processor core while Intel uses a shared L2 cache to which both processor cores have access. Each type of L2 cache has its own strengths and weaknesses, and from what I've read the 512k per core L2 cache on the AMD is about optimal for a separate cache system.

Also, the Intel L2 cache actually has to be significantly larger than 1MB (i.e., twice the size of the single-core AMD cache) in order to make up for certain inefficiencies that crop up when the two cores begin competing with each other for access to the shared cache and use of memory bandwidth. In other words, the L2 cache on the Intel has to be so large (4MB on the T7300 and up processors) not because it's boosting performance to 4 times the performance of the AMD cache, but in part to overcome the deficiencies of a shared L2 cache design. This little topic got a good hashing out a few weeks back on the following thread: http://forum.notebookreview.com/showthread.php?t=147332

That being said, however, there are also certain benefits to having a large shared cache that the Intel chips enjoy and that the AMD chips do not have.

Another point against the AMD chips is that the basic technology AMD is using to manufacture its chips is one iteration behind the technology Intel is using, and that causes the AMD chips to not perform quite as well as the current Intel chips. This would, I believe (and here I really haven't done a whole lot of reading at all) be the so-called 45nm process versus the 90nm and 65nm (??) processes - the current Intel chips are fabricated using a 65nm process, while the AMD chips are still fabricated using a 90nm process. This refers to the average size of the individual feature size on the chip - thus, a 65nm processor has a smaller average feature size than a 90nm chip, and, correspondingly, more of them can be fit onto the same real estate. Wikipedia has an article on 65nm process here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/65_nanometer

All in all, while the AMD has certain features that are more optimized than the Intel chips (e.g., L2 cache size) an apt simile seems to be that the AMD is kind of like a 1960s porsche (lower-end model) and the Intel is kind of like a 1980s IROC Z camaro. The 1960s porsche is, in many respects, a better automobile, but the IROC will still, by and large, outperform that 1960s porsche in almost everything other than a couple of specialized tight cornering situations. Comparatively, the IROC is an overblown muscle car that gets its edge more from simply throwing as much raw power as possible at the problem and not from a nuanced (relatively speaking, CPU design is as a whole a very nuanced art, and the Intel engineers are no slouches) application of a more limited amount of power.

I think the other reason the AMDs tend to get poo-pooed is that Intel seems to have a much deeper pipeline for upgrades and developments, whereas AMD seems to have gotten itself into a bit of a sticky spot without a whole lot to get it out - if AMD's new Barcelona chip doesn't put up really stunning numbers, AMD may be in some serious trouble.

And, finally, the basic fact is that, in general, the Intel chips appear to give better performance on a number of different benchmarks, and you really cannot argue with results. That being said, most of the benchmarks are not indicative of real-world use, and you probably wouldn't see much of a difference between an AMD and an Intel with the same basic chip speed in terms of word-processing, internet surfing, and the like.

 

Now, if only that new iMac had a keyboard/mouse/lcd set up as a single unit in the same form factor as a notebook, instead of having to set up an im-mobile lcd, a separate keyboard, and a separate mouse, and if only the connection between the iMac and the keyboard/mouse/lcd were wireless without loss of video quality, then, just then, I might perhaps consider getting a desktop instead of a desktop replacement.

Unfortunately, that lil iMac is, well, it's just another iMac that requires a separate monitor that I can't carry around, and a separate keyboard and mouse.

 

No problem with your original reply to me, Shyster... I wasn't being offended at all when I thanked you for the clarification, even if you did come off a bit "stuff-suited" (your words, not mine).

My biggest problem on forums is that I OFTEN come off as some sort of "expert" only because I'm a very good writer and can put together educated guesses that sound like fact, and sometimes don't elaborate well enough that they ARE just educated guesses, or that maybe I'm not SURE I have all the facts, so I REALLY have no problem when someone with better information corrects me, even if they, like you, are just another "intermediate amateur" who has done a considerable amount of online research on a particular issue and has made himself or herself a "virtual expert" on a particular topic (and YES, I AM a "virtual expert" on some particular issues, as well, although I couldn't say exactly what at the moment... you'd have to ask, because it's a matter of when they come up, and it's generally things I've had to spend a great deal of time working on/with and researching -- I think MANY forum users may be "virtual experts" on SOMETHING and some may not even realize it -- that's the POWER of a forum).

I WAS aware of the 90nm vs. 65nm issue, although it hadn't crossed my mind in some time (and I know Intel is working feverishly to get 45nm chips into production)... I remember not too long ago when 130nm chips were the standard and the big hullabaloo was when WHO was going to come out with 90nm chips, lol.

I think your Porsche/Camaro analogy made GREAT sense (I PERSONALLY LOVE using analogies, and really liked that one)... I guess the Worldbench test results speak for themselves, and as I DON'T have the resources to buy similarly equipped AMD and Intel computers to test real-world applications, myself, I guess I just have to continue to trust what the reviewers say.

I think the fact that similarly outfitted AMD computers are SEVERAL HUNDRED DOLLARS LESS than their Intel counterparts, and available in larger numbers (or at least advertised more in flyers and more of them in stores), yet the DEMAND for Intel Core 2 Duo still seems to be quite high speaks for itself, as well, and if that continues, and AMD systems have to keep dropping in price to sell, well, THAT, combined with the fact that AMD is probably STARVED for cash after buying ATI a couple years ago AND struggling to get its new processors out, if they stumble JUST ONCE we may be back to JUST ONE PLAYER in the processor chip business again for the first time since the late 1980s.

I'm NOT sure that's a good thing. I've never owned an AMD machine... Have had ATI products, though, but even THEIR best quality video cards are not in favor vs. Nvidia, at present... And while I personally may still not buy an AMD system or ATI card again, just having them there as strong competitors keeps Intel and Nvidia "honest" and is incentive for them to keep their products priced competitively.

So I'm voting for AMD to survive, even if most of US don't buy their stuff.
Jeff

P.S. The new iMac has wireless keyboard and mouse option for $30 extra -- I don't understand how that could cause a loss in video quality, though, but of course it STILL doesn't make it a notebook or laptop -- it's a compact, easy to move DESKTOP which happens to weigh the same (or less, depending on which you get) than the HDX Notebook, for just $1,199 for the 20" 2 Ghz model.

 

Hey guys...very interesting conversation going on here...

But if we could please keep to my topic at hand (decisions about the HP HDX and HP Pavilion 9500t) that would be greatly appretiated.


Thanks.

 

Sorry, DellFan24, all this off-topic line of conversation is all my fault... I started it and I admit it.

HOWEVER, I WAS under the impression you had already decided (as you posted a ways back) that you're NOT going with the HDX for the variety of reasons I and a number of other people have posted you should, at the very least, wait...

As for the dv9500t, Mine's still scheduled to ship a week from today, so I can't speak from personal experience yet... but I did A TON of online research prior to making the decision and I couldn't find ANYTHING ELSE that suited my personal needs better and was priced competitively...

That said, there are TWO FACTORS about the dv9500t that swayed me to IT over perhaps some other systems that may be better built and/or come with better standard warranties: the expanded keyboard, which includes a numeric keypad -- something I'm used to using and rely upon; and the inclusion of a TV tuner for use with Windows Media Center so I can watch and record programs when I'm mobile just as I do at home (I use Media Center for A LOT of time-shifting during the primary season).

IF those two issues aren't of primary importance two you -- you may very well want to take a long hard look at the 17" Asus model in the several-page ad spread in the latest issue of PC World (which I KNOW you have, since you said their review of the HDX was what got you wanting one)... To be totally honest, I saw that a couple days after ordering my 9500, and ALMOST wished I'd seen it before, because I probably COULD live without the numeric keypad and I BELIEVE it did offer the TV tuner, although I'd have to look again to be sure... Two-year standard warranty with express shipping both ways and claims of supreme ruggedness that appeared to be just SHY of what Panasonic's Toughbook series can muster (well, probably WELL SHY of THAT, but still a lot tougher, probably, than anything by HP or Dell)...

My understanding is that Sager laptops are similarly tough, but their prices aren't as competitive as the Asus.

Once again, though, if it's JUST between the HDX or the 9500, I don't see ANY QUESTION at this point... HDX just isn't "quite ready for primetime," pricewise, component-wise or driverwise... Needs some time for HP to modify it and offer more options and better prices.
Jeff

 

Another hijacked thread . . .

 

Certainly. If the choice were limited to only the HDX or the dv9500t, I would suggest going with the dv9500t because I think that system gives you better value for the money. The HDX is interesting, but for the price HP's charging what you get is a little disappointing; at the very least, the HDX should have been offered with top of the line GPUs, e.g., NVidia 7950GTX, and preferably with the option to get two GPUs in SLi setup.

 

I am considering HDX and XPS 1730.

It was hard for me to believe it, but HDX does NOT have Gigabit LAN built in. Is it really true? If yes, that is huge disappointment and HP's mistake to offer high-end machine w/o Gigabit LAN (and launching Windows Home Server rigs in the same time).