I think they could have done a lot better. They must be making massive profit off each unit sold because I don't see anything spec wise that warrants a $1,000 for this. Toss in another 4GB of 1600DDR3 and a 1080p IPS screen and THEN we'll talk about $1,000.
It's a shame that HP and DELL are still milking the market with these lowly 768p screens on majority of their machines. I'd let this one pass since its a 13 incher but why on earth are they still making 99% of their 15.6" laptoptops 768p is beyond me.
My main laptop is an HP with a c2d 15.6" and I am not upgrading untill i can get at least a 1080p screen on my next laptop (no, i can't afford an apple)
GUessing the ipad3 screen res bump will get things in motion for higher res consumer screens on laptops from HP and dell or better yet, i'd like that hp and dell vaporise like NOKIA's way if they dont want to innovate.
I have to agree. My 6 year old c2d laptop has a 1280x800 screen. Why would I "upgrade" to a worse screen? The cpu is still fine for my everyday tasks and I have upgraded the 60G HD and memory that came with it.
Every review I skip down to the screen resolution and when I see 768 I quite reading and skip to the comments to b1tch about it.
First thing I did too, saw 768 and said "not interested". 1080p minimum at 13" for me to bite, until then I'll wait. I would even prefer better than 1080p but I know that for most consumers, even most power consumers, that's enough.
Dude, you surely have microscope eyes, do you? I have a 13.3" 768p display and I cannot see the dots on it! I doubt there will be any real advantage if it was higher res. Higher resolution might make sense at 15" but it doesn't make any at 13!
I'm hoping it's not just a waste of time to reply to you, but here goes:
The point is not "I can't see the pixels". The *point* is that a higher vertical resolution allows more work to be shown at once on a page *especially* in windows where the UI can take up a not-insignificant portion of the vertical pixels.
When I work, I want to have as many lines of code on the screen as possible, 768p is simply limiting.
Try to think about it before you call someone a troll or clueless. Thank you.
"When I work, I want to have as many lines of code on the screen as possible, 768p is simply limiting."
Exactly. This 1366x768 madness has to end. There are so many great laptops out there that would be perfect if they only had higher res options. Even 1440 or 1600x900 is a huge improvement. I cant stand when I cant see the button I need to click becasue its below the screen on a lousy 768 line LCD. Never ever ever again.
I agree, we are not in 2004 anymore are we?? how is the new IPAD getting 2560x1440 and they have the cheek to release this? dont forget the ipad is a fully enavled multiouch display, with gorrilla glass and olephobic coating??
We are getting ripped off people, 1080p multitouch should be the standard IMO, with or without a keyboard.
I agree completely. My HP 15 inch laptop has a 768p screen and it is perfect for me. I had the option of getting a higher resolution screen, but I'm glad I didn't. If the native resolution was any smaller, I would have difficulties reading it. More info on the screen is nice, but it's all useless if you can't read the screen.
If you can't tell the difference between the clarity of a printed page and your laptop screen, then please stop reading now. You're right, 768p screens in this form factor is enough.
If, however, you can actually tell the difference between reading a (quality) printed page and reading the same thing on your laptop, then please continue reading.
I shudder to say it, but "You're reading it wrong"...
In the modern day age of 3D based desktops, "infinitely" scalable fonts, and scalable vector graphics as icons, low resolution displays simply cannot be justified by "I would have a hard time reading it". That's just flat false.
The beauty of the higher pixel density displays is that, even at the same physical size of a button on screen (say 1/2 inch by 1/2 inch), word of text, icon, etc, there are more pixels to represent that object, and thus the object is clearer to the human perception. The dpi of printed material borders on 300-600 dpi, and IMO is much easier to read than anything on a monitor/display.
I posit that the people that complain about not being able to see/read text on a high-resolution screen are either ignorant of font scaling, or are willfully stupid of it.
Higher Resolution is ALWAYS better than lower resolution, simply because you can always increase the pixel size of the fonts to match the physical size of the fonts.
"""Dude, you surely have microscope eyes, do you? I have a 13.3" 768p display and I cannot see the dots on it! I doubt there will be any real advantage if it was higher res. Higher resolution might make sense at 15" but it doesn't make any at 13!
I bet your are just trolling and clueless!"""
You may actually want glasses. Back in 2004 I had a laptop with 1280x800 in 10.6" (140 DPI,) and I still believe that's about the largest screen size appropriate for that resolution. I currently have a (rather crappy, due to cpu/gpu) netbook with 1280x768 in 8.9" (170 DPI,) and that's got a rather nice DPI, though it's still a bit cramped.
On my desktop I run 120 DPI monitors, and I sit a regular distance away from them. For reference, 1920x1200 in 24" is about 100 DPI, and 2560x1440 in 27" is about 110 DPI. People do regularly tell me that it's impossible to read things on my desktop, so I guess I may have decent vision (with glasses.)
In any case, I use a laptop screen much closer to me than my desktop, and so 120 DPI (1366x768 in 13.3") seems rather crappy. Plus, 768 vertical pixels just isn't enough. For my use, 1600x900 is about the minimum for 13.3" (140 DPI,) and 1080p in 13.3" (165 DPI) would be amazing.
Doesn't look like anyone wants to sell that configuration to me for a reasonable price in the near future.
If laptop makers decide to include higher resolution screens by default, I hope there is an option to downgrade. If the native resolution on my 15 inch laptop was any smaller than 768p, I would have trouble reading it.
Way to just pull a random number out of your hat. Where do you get $550 from? The lowest sale price of a Core i3 laptop, perhaps? Let me give you a rundown of estimated costs (give or take):
Bill of Materials alone, then, I'd estimate at $650 give or take, which is $200 higher than what you're estimating. Now, add in additional R&D costs of $200 to design and mass produce a higher quality (e.g. not injection molded plastic) laptop, and then the profit is looking more like $150. If they sell a ton of these, then the R&D costs are covered and they could conceivably get the price down as low as $700 (on sale), but I wouldn't expect anything lower than that.
How do you know that? I don't mean to question your BoM, I know it's a rough estimate. I'm just curious as to where one could find that sort of information.
I thought it was neat when Mr. Sklavos mentioned the cost of LCD panels (http://www.anandtech.com/show/5717/toshiba-portege... It felt like a natural addition to the article that strengthened his point. And it made those LCD rants easier to read, but that's another story...
Anyway, I know you guys are super busy, but it would be pretty sweet if reviews and stuff referenced material costs if it didn't make the review read poorly.
Actually, I'm the editor of Dustin's articles -- I started adding the LCD pricing comments. :-) Which just makes the issue of low quality panels far more frustrating to me. I'm still working on an article on the topic, but ran into a few snags....
The real difficulty with the above pricing is that without actually knowing how much OEMs get charged for some parts, I'm left to go off other sources. I can find some components on the open market, so I can quote those prices (e.g. LCDs, SSDs, CPUs), but what you or I would pay to buy the part is almost certainly quite a bit more than what a large OEM would pay for buying in volume. If you were to buy the equivalent components on your own, prices would be up probably $100 at least from my estimates. Mostly it was a list to point out a reasonable BoM for this laptop.
If only they played by those rules as far as BoM costs. I'd love to pay an extra ~$50 for a 900p 13" screen. But instead they nail us with a 'premium' upgrade option (if they even give you the option)
Even on my 15" HP Probook a 1080p screen upgrade, with a new video cable, is around $100-110 to purchase myself. I'd have gladly paid $500 instead of $380 for it with its 768p screen. Ah well, I'm counting down the months until I decide to void my warranty and 'fix' it myself.
2nd Gen i5, 4GB, 128 SSD, keyboard backlight, USB 3.0, 1GB NIC and 802.11b/g/n. If they had an i7 or an LED panel, it wouldn't be $1000 anymore. It's also very cool to the touch even under duress so there's a good amount of R&D involved.
I just wish it had a better panel, otherwise it's great.
I agree with pretty much everything said, but what about comparing the scores to the MacBook Air? That's probably the most popular ultrabook available, and frankly all of these tests were done on it. I hate to have to go back and forth to see the comparisons, especially since I own a MBA and am thinking of trading it in, potentially for a different ultrabook, or maybe just for the next model.
Just keep your MBA for now. With the exception of exception of sonys $2000 overpriced ultra book, you have the best screen, keyboard, and trackpad currently. It's funny how everybody claims apple is overpricing their stuff and claiming they're making 50% profit, but how come no pc manufacturer has released a sub $600 ultra book with a hi res screen, decent trackpad, and blacklit keyboard?
I'd rather get a refurbed MacBook Air for $1099 than this. Much better screen, and thinner and lighter. I've never owned a Mac in my life, but I have to give them credit for making a product that still sets the standard.
"HP also inexplicably uses only one memory channel on the i5's controller...."
HP is being cheap, just like most laptop makers. These days a 1 x 4GB DDR3 DIMM configuration is cheaper than a 2 x 2GB module configuration, and the "upgrade" option to 2 x 4GB comes with a very premium price. In fact, you are seeing the 1 DIMM configuration in TONS of the laptops on sale today. The prevalence of the single DIMM/single memory channel configuration is just another example of why, in many ways, PC laptops today are not as good as they used to be a few years ago (just like the dearth of true 8-bit color LCP panels, or 16:10 ratio screens, and decent keyboards, etc.). Yes, PC laptops are cheap, but there seems to be less and less differentiation in the market with each year. While I do acknowledged that there are some exceptions at the high end of the price range, I think that this is also partly why Apple has cleaned up in the high end of the laptop market (bless them, they still ship 16:10 monitors in the MB Pro line).
HP/Compaq have a history of doing this. Even back as far as 2004/5 they were producing AMD and Intel based laptops only using single channel ram setups when dual channel was available.
I know, I had a couple of them over the years. Bizarre.
It's annoying when you know that your prized laptop is missing it's last 5% of performance due to HP not spending 5c to allow it.
What's really impressed me lately about HP's notebooks, compared to others, is their keyboard. Starting with the HP DM1Z (AMD E-350 "Brazos" debut) they've had surprisingly large and capable keyboards in their smaller laptops. The fact that this ultrabook includes a backlit version is also somewhat impressive as, last I checked, that HP only made that option available on their ENVY product line.
And, while I don't have any physical experience with this particular computer, the lack of SATA 6Gbps and dual channel memory don't seem like they're hurting its overall usability.
You're right Dustin. There are no perfect ultrabooks on the market right now. They're all creatively finding some way of shooting themselves in the foot. But, if I had to choose one, it would probably be this one, simply for the keyboard and cool ('n quiet) operation. That is, I would choose this one if it didn't have that hilariously awful LCD panel. As it stands now, this ultrabook and those that include panels like it can go die in a fire.
I agree that the folio is the best of the PC ultra-book lot at this point in time.
Every ultrabook keyboard has been a non-starter for me. Sounds like this one actually has a bit of travel and is decent enough. I also need an ethernet port so I'm glad they included that here. I've currently got an x301 with a ULV 1.4ghz chip and since it's performance is enough for my needs I'm sure this machine would be more than sufficient.
The screen (16:9 and too low-res) and the clickpad are the only knocks I have with this machine.
So it has a low end CPU, only one memory slot, a 1366x768 screen, HPs bloody AWFUL touchpad, Intel 3000 graphics.
That sounds like par for the course for HP. Although the one memory slot thing is especially odd. Nothing else is significant. I would never buy an HP laptop with their all-in-one touchpad.
It's so bad that even if somehow the rest of the laptop was great (it isn't) I wouldn't consider it.
"HP's engineers took a look at Intel's ultrabook spec and, rather than see how small they could get their design, opted to see just how much they could pack into the spec."
and then
"HP has strangely opted to be much more conservative with speccing their ultrabook than other vendors have"
and also
"Ultimately, though, the Folio 13 is rather tame for an ultrabook, all the more perplexing since other vendors were able to cram more power into smaller designs."
It seems to me like your first line is not based in reality, but that they rather opted to see just how much profit margin the can get away with.
Yeah, this machine really is a puzzling design choice.
I've long lusted for the "RAZR Maxx" of Ultrabooks. Take a thin machine and fill it up with battery until it is about the thickness of a "non-thin" machine.
But HP managed to tank efficiency enough that it doesn't matter. Quite disappointing.
I concur, there's a lot of contradictory (and therefore confusing) statements in this review Dustin. Your main positives seem to be the keyboard and a 'boxy' design that isn't leveraged for other benefits. You then say it's your favourite ultrabook to date along with the Dell whilst complaining about all the shortcomings. The reasons for it being favoured seem thin on the ground and at odds with the rest of your tone.
The reasons to favor one laptop over another almost always come down to the feel of the system in actual use -- and I'm not talking about speed and performance. I too think the boxier design with deeper key presses is a good thing -- the ultra-thin wedges on other ultrabooks leave the typing experience severely compromised. The rest of the stuff HP did is certainly "deviating from the norm", but unfortunately much of it is in a not-so-good way.
Single-channel RAM probably only costs 5-10% performance at best (e.g. in graphics tests where IGP and CPU are being pegged), but when a smaller laptop can have two SO-DIMM slots there's no good reason for the change. Locking down the CPU is okay, as the i5 ULV works well enough, but was that necessary? The larger battery on paper should be great, but it fails to deliver (likely from lack of careful power tuning optimizations).
Despite the above, the pricing is still reasonable compared to the competition. I'd love a better display (as always), but the Folio runs cooler and quieter than other ultrabooks and the keyboard is more comfortable to type on, with most other areas being more or less "equal". So yes, that makes it a "favorite", but as noted in the conclusion it's still flawed.
Can i make a request? I have noticed from other sites that both batterylife AND performance fluctuates wildely when notebooks/ultrabooks are run off battery instead of mains....
From what i can tell most of your tests come from the mains to test absolute best case scenario performance..where as in most cases that form factor is going to be used on the move, so the most relevant benchmark/gaming scores are going to come off battery power, not mains.
I have noticed that Intel 17w chips perform SIGNIFICANTLY worse when running off battery compared to Mains...likely AMD also, would it then be possible to include in the same graphs the benchmarks/gaming score from running off the deviced battery so readers can see the REAL performance whilst out and about...i just don't think the performance measurements are representative for the scenario it would be used.
The point im getting at, and somewhat backed up by what you have said, is that intel iGP is terrible when running off a battery in comparison to AMD.
What people think they are getting and what they actually get in real world are not the same things, you don't but a laptop to have it plugged into the mains, they are designed to be carried around..i just think it would be more approapriate to test with and with out battery in the same chart...its more accurate...other websites do it. http://techreport.com/articles.x/21902/7
I will wait a while if i don't get noticed down in the comments section i will email in with a request, would be really great if Anandtech could do this IMO.
We'll have a full update to this when we test Ivy Bridge and Trinity -- HD 3000 "gaming" is really a stretch regardless, so hopefully IVB does better. Will it be as power efficient as Llano/Trinity? I have no idea, but it could be -- 22nm Tri-gate transistors might be just what Intel needs (along with better graphics drivers).
Thanks Jarred, be great to see which chips are better in actual notebook scenarios, that tests the capabilities of the chip, especially graphics.
Intel have been very poor, but they have improved immensely in the last 2 years, drivers are the real problem..i also hear 22nm is a very 'hot' process..and not in a good way..
Chips generally perform worse on battery because the operating system is set to reduce performance to save battery life. Once you override this you can get full performance, though if you're playing something like a game that runs at 100% then be prepared to get 1/3rd the battery life.
Yes, but some chips perform better off battery than otherss, and seeing as you have likely bought a laptop to be carrying around (as oppose to a comparitivly cheaper tower to plug in) then a more realistic way to measure performance is off the battery..this could be in the same chart as the mains test, i have linked an example above.
I like the step function that differentiates panel contrast ratio between vendors; if it's Sony or Apple, then contrast is ~800, otherwise contrast is ~200.
HP have appeared to create a chassis that can fit so much, yet all they do is chuck in a big battery that is, well, quite frankly useless. If they have loads of room for cooling, why not put an i7 in it? Only one stick-o-ram :( And a pretty aweful screen, oh dear oh dear, why they hell would anyone buy this? And yet you seem to recommend it? One of your recommendations is based on the battery, but the battery performance is poor when compared to other ultrabooks with less powerful batteries. Is the keyboard worth the $1000 cost?
From one side of their mouth they say they want to compete with the macbook air
From the other side they say how much they need to get the price point down to $600
When all is said and done we'll have the same bottom of the barrel $499 lowest common denominator HP/Acer in Best Buy and the only difference is that it will be painted silver.
I've spent years dogging apple for overpricing everything... I could always build a way better machine for the same price.
Then laptops came along and you can't build them yourself anymore... surely somebody can build a DECENT laptop for less than apple?
It's ridiculous. I have a friend who wanted an all in one, we looked at all the options and he ended getting an imac because it has hands down the best screen and graphics card (and more than double the price). He runs windows 7 on it.
And if the best ultrabooks still have crap screens by my next laptop refresh, I'm going to end up running windows 7/8 or whatever on an overpriced mac too because we are seriously hurting for options.
I understand having an entry level model, mid range (what I consider the folio), but they seem to get lost in the high end. There's high end that you'd use for gaming or 3d content creation, and then there's high end that you'd use for writing, publishing, software development, etc which is where I see an ultrabook with a great screen and great keyboard really being an asset. That's what I want. I can play games on my desktop. But a computer with a lousy screen and/or keyboard really isn't good for anything in my books. Might as well just use an ipad if you're that casual.
I got a cheap HP for $379. It has a 1600x900 (granted, it kind of has to, being 17.3"). Mine's an A4, but there is one at BestBuy with an A6 for $429.99...with a 1600 x 900 screen. Again, granted, these aren't the best in terms of quality of picture or tint. I bought a PNY 8GB set of 10666 RAM and installed. It now has the same or greater power than an i3, and very close to an I5 in terms of overall performance (also upgraded with a spare copy of W7Ult).
How could HP actually ask me to go with a system that has less power, a worse screen, no dual channel memory support, and a middle of the road battery life for $600+ more dollars? So my laptop is a little less portable (3 pounds Folio vs about 5.5 pounds G7). So I don't have the admittedly awesome SSD drive (i get by with a little help from my 500GB mechanical drive). So I don't have a backlit keyboard. Are those three things worth $600+ dollars?
Very accurate review other than some spelling errors :). I bought 2 for work to test them out and I was happy with what you got considering they were $1000. My only gripe was the glossy 768p panel and the track pad. The track pad isn't a huge issue as we use good mice. I mean, who doesn't?
Seems to be a lot of haters in this thread. Are people expecting a $600 laptop that's as good as a MBA? Let's be realistic. This isn't for gaming, CAD or a desktop replacement. This for people who need a quick laptop without spending too much money (MBA) and still deliver enough performance to showcase websites, cloud technology etc.
I have an HP 8460w and that thing moves. Then again, it's about 2.5X more expensive.
If Apple can ship a tablet with a 2048x1536 resolution with an insanely thin profile for $499, why would I accept anything less in a full laptop costing way more? You mightsay that the average consumer wouldn't know the difference, but if they simply do a side by side comparison with a product which has been in the retail channel as of the end of February the difference speaks for itself. No sale HP, the MBA is vastly superior in nearly every department and holds its value in the second hand market way better.
Keep in mind that one of the differences with iPad and Ultrabooks is that Apple is in full control of the OS, hardware, and software on iPad. They released the original as a 1024x768 device, and quadrupling that resolution with the new iPad is a simple matter. Any apps that don't know how to support other resolutions just see the display as a 1024x768 device and the graphics drivers handle the scaling -- which, incidentally, can make lower resolution apps and images look like crap.
The GUI on iOS for iPad also runs at a set aspect ratio and they basically have two PPI settings that they need to target -- the original 132 PPI, and the new 264 PPI. If you look at the home screen on an iPad 2 vs. iPad "3", the only real difference is the iPad 3 looks a lot sharper. Now move over to Windows (or OS X), and suddenly you have DPI settings that don't actually scale across all applications -- there are many, many situations in which an app will look anywhere from slightly off to downright horrible if you use something other than the Windows default 96 DPI.
Another major issue: if you're using the 96 DPI setting on a 13" 1080p display, all the text and images become smaller, to the point where people in their 40s and later could become very frustrated by eye strain. (I had a client at one point where I helped them get set up with new PCs and 24" 1920x1200 LCDs; the receptionists and secretaries threw a fit and I finally ended up running all the displays at 1280x800 -- they were all happy, even though everything was slightly blurry and they had to do a lot more scrolling!)
In other words, I fully understand why not every laptop should have an ultra high resolution LCD; until Windows can handle DPI scaling across all apps without any funny business, legibility for a majority of users at the 96 DPI setting is what most companies will target. That said, you can still do a lot better than 1366x768, low contrast, crappy viewing angles LCDs. Samsung's PLS and the other IPS offerings are needed (hopefully with better color accuracy and gamut), and I continue to bemoan the loss of 16:10 laptops (Mac being one of the few holdouts).
Ideally, I'd like to see 1280x800 at 11.6", 1280x800 or 1440x900 at 13.3", 1440x900 or 1680x1050 at 14", 1680x1050 or 1920x1200 at 15.6", and 1920x1200 at 17.3". Since that's not likely to happen any time soon, at least we could get 1600x900 as common offerings on 13 and 14" laptops, and 1080p on 15.6" and above. The lack of vertical screen real estate on 768p is irritating, but at the same time 1600x900 can be a bit much for a lot of people at 13.3", and certainly it would be difficult to read on an 11.6" panel. Just my two cents.
waited a while as the first ultrabooks on the market didn't have a backlit keyboard and full size ethernet port for a business environment, for the first generation of ultrabook I like it for what it does, Win 7 with virtual instant on when you open the lid from standby mode is awesome, the SSD hard drive really helps. For next version, i would like them to offer an IPS screen as an optional upgrade as well as 2 DIMM slots
i bought dell 6 months ago and it beats this junk in every way. in same price. however mine is 17inch. on that scale mine would be even better. mine opinion is that this is an april joke. hp has delivered 2years old junk.
And I have just one thing to say: it has the worst screen I've seen in the past 10 years in a notebook. Period. The lack of contrast, brightness and you name it... is astonishing. The cheapest Acer netbook has a better screen by far, far...
I am used to see poor screens in HP since this is what I use at work. With one notable exception (my EliteBook 8760w) every screen was low quality (and of course all ProBooks have 1366x768). But the Folio 13 display has set a standard for low quality even for HP.
So, in my opinion, if you're buying this for yourself, just get the Asus Zenbook. Not the greatest display, but 1600x900, thinner, lighter and great battery life for its size.
how many of the detractors have actually used one? the battery life (I get 8 hrs) and the super fast resume when i open the lid (2 seconds on average) makes it worthwhile in a very slim and light weight package. For lugging around such a lightweight laptop with a backlit keyboard running Windows 7, full size ethernet port for regular business environment, it is worth the $999 price.
I used one and I disagree. There are ultrabooks much better than this one. I mentioned the Asus because I've seen it and it's thinner, lighter, the design is much better IMHO and the screen is in another class, with 1600x900 resolution. Same price here as this Folio, but with a faster processor.
And FYI, all ultrabooks (with the exception of Acer probably) have 2-3 seconds resume from suspend.
I looked at the Asus x31/x21 but they lacked 2 items i needed for my business/travel needs, 10 backlit keyboard for typing in dark and full size ethernet without a dongle for port testing, dongles are too easy to lose
I only read one line of this review...the spec on the screen. I threw up a little in my mouth, decided to post this comment, then am moving on. I hope consumers start selecting based on what they see rather than just price or the specs on the box. It's sad that Apple has remained the only one that values screen quality. I held out hope for IBM/Lenovo for the longest but they caved.
Although the Folio didn't last the claimed 9.5 hours during our battery life test, performance was still adequate. Battery Eater Pro's Reader test went for a full 206 minutes before draining the battery. http://www.techiecop.com/
GF bought one of these recently. It was the i3 version for about $740 AUD which is an excellent price. Admittedly the laptop does have its shortcomings, such as the trackpad and resolution. And it only has 2.4GHz Wireless N (which is un-upgradeable due to HP's whitelist). It also doesn't have a tapered design.
But on the plus side, its a very sleek piece of kit. It looks much better in person than a lot of the other ultrabooks. The brushed aluminium and rubberised black plastic work well together giving it a professional guise. None of this silver painted plastic crap and HP have shown restraint with that awful glossy plastic. The backlit keyboard is great. The build quality of the machine is excellent. There are very few gaps and there is almost no screen flex. Much less so than my rickety VAIO S series. Honestly it feels about as firm as a Macbook Air. HP hasn't made many concessions on the connectivity front either, challenging the competition with USB 3, Ethernet, HDMI and an SD card reader (in addition to the usual suspects). The ethernet port takes up pretty much the entire width of the machine. And the SSD is lightening fast compared to those old 5200rpm drives.
Due to the good build quality and strong port complement I'd recommend this machine to the power user, especially someone who travels.
We’ve updated our terms. By continuing to use the site and/or by logging into your account, you agree to the Site’s updated Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
88 Comments
Back to Article
RaistlinZ - Tuesday, April 17, 2012 - link
I think they could have done a lot better. They must be making massive profit off each unit sold because I don't see anything spec wise that warrants a $1,000 for this. Toss in another 4GB of 1600DDR3 and a 1080p IPS screen and THEN we'll talk about $1,000.milkywayer - Tuesday, April 17, 2012 - link
It's a shame that HP and DELL are still milking the market with these lowly 768p screens on majority of their machines. I'd let this one pass since its a 13 incher but why on earth are they still making 99% of their 15.6" laptoptops 768p is beyond me.My main laptop is an HP with a c2d 15.6" and I am not upgrading untill i can get at least a 1080p screen on my next laptop (no, i can't afford an apple)
GUessing the ipad3 screen res bump will get things in motion for higher res consumer screens on laptops from HP and dell or better yet, i'd like that hp and dell vaporise like NOKIA's way if they dont want to innovate.
Meaker10 - Tuesday, April 17, 2012 - link
Would not be so terrible if they were user upgradable but they save 0.001p per machine by not including the second LVDS channel.ImSpartacus - Tuesday, April 17, 2012 - link
It will probably be a while before OEMs catch up. Apple will have to release its "Retina" MBPs before anything really starts to move forward.Cullinaire - Tuesday, April 17, 2012 - link
Preciselyfic2 - Tuesday, April 17, 2012 - link
I have to agree. My 6 year old c2d laptop has a 1280x800 screen. Why would I "upgrade" to a worse screen? The cpu is still fine for my everyday tasks and I have upgraded the 60G HD and memory that came with it.Every review I skip down to the screen resolution and when I see 768 I quite reading and skip to the comments to b1tch about it.
fic2 - Tuesday, April 17, 2012 - link
Also, I spent ~$600 for my laptop why anyone would spend $1000 on this I have no idea.GuinnessKMF - Tuesday, April 17, 2012 - link
First thing I did too, saw 768 and said "not interested". 1080p minimum at 13" for me to bite, until then I'll wait. I would even prefer better than 1080p but I know that for most consumers, even most power consumers, that's enough.slagar - Tuesday, April 17, 2012 - link
Exactly!Drewdog343 - Thursday, April 19, 2012 - link
You geeks must have the vision of a hawk, 1080p on a 13" screen is 168ish DPI.I would imagine in Windows everything would be pretty tiny.
Zingam - Wednesday, April 18, 2012 - link
Dude, you surely have microscope eyes, do you? I have a 13.3" 768p display and I cannot see the dots on it! I doubt there will be any real advantage if it was higher res.Higher resolution might make sense at 15" but it doesn't make any at 13!
I bet your are just trolling and clueless!
snuuggles - Wednesday, April 18, 2012 - link
I'm hoping it's not just a waste of time to reply to you, but here goes:The point is not "I can't see the pixels". The *point* is that a higher vertical resolution allows more work to be shown at once on a page *especially* in windows where the UI can take up a not-insignificant portion of the vertical pixels.
When I work, I want to have as many lines of code on the screen as possible, 768p is simply limiting.
Try to think about it before you call someone a troll or clueless. Thank you.
retrospooty - Wednesday, April 18, 2012 - link
"When I work, I want to have as many lines of code on the screen as possible, 768p is simply limiting."Exactly. This 1366x768 madness has to end. There are so many great laptops out there that would be perfect if they only had higher res options. Even 1440 or 1600x900 is a huge improvement. I cant stand when I cant see the button I need to click becasue its below the screen on a lousy 768 line LCD. Never ever ever again.
french toast - Wednesday, April 18, 2012 - link
I agree, we are not in 2004 anymore are we?? how is the new IPAD getting 2560x1440 and they have the cheek to release this? dont forget the ipad is a fully enavled multiouch display, with gorrilla glass and olephobic coating??We are getting ripped off people, 1080p multitouch should be the standard IMO, with or without a keyboard.
JarredWalton - Wednesday, April 18, 2012 - link
Well, the new iPad is 2048x1536, but close enough. :pLordConrad - Wednesday, April 18, 2012 - link
I agree completely. My HP 15 inch laptop has a 768p screen and it is perfect for me. I had the option of getting a higher resolution screen, but I'm glad I didn't. If the native resolution was any smaller, I would have difficulties reading it. More info on the screen is nice, but it's all useless if you can't read the screen.erple2 - Thursday, April 19, 2012 - link
If you can't tell the difference between the clarity of a printed page and your laptop screen, then please stop reading now. You're right, 768p screens in this form factor is enough.If, however, you can actually tell the difference between reading a (quality) printed page and reading the same thing on your laptop, then please continue reading.
I shudder to say it, but "You're reading it wrong"...
In the modern day age of 3D based desktops, "infinitely" scalable fonts, and scalable vector graphics as icons, low resolution displays simply cannot be justified by "I would have a hard time reading it". That's just flat false.
The beauty of the higher pixel density displays is that, even at the same physical size of a button on screen (say 1/2 inch by 1/2 inch), word of text, icon, etc, there are more pixels to represent that object, and thus the object is clearer to the human perception. The dpi of printed material borders on 300-600 dpi, and IMO is much easier to read than anything on a monitor/display.
I posit that the people that complain about not being able to see/read text on a high-resolution screen are either ignorant of font scaling, or are willfully stupid of it.
Higher Resolution is ALWAYS better than lower resolution, simply because you can always increase the pixel size of the fonts to match the physical size of the fonts.
nexox - Wednesday, April 18, 2012 - link
"""Dude, you surely have microscope eyes, do you? I have a 13.3" 768p display and I cannot see the dots on it! I doubt there will be any real advantage if it was higher res.Higher resolution might make sense at 15" but it doesn't make any at 13!
I bet your are just trolling and clueless!"""
You may actually want glasses. Back in 2004 I had a laptop with 1280x800 in 10.6" (140 DPI,) and I still believe that's about the largest screen size appropriate for that resolution. I currently have a (rather crappy, due to cpu/gpu) netbook with 1280x768 in 8.9" (170 DPI,) and that's got a rather nice DPI, though it's still a bit cramped.
On my desktop I run 120 DPI monitors, and I sit a regular distance away from them. For reference, 1920x1200 in 24" is about 100 DPI, and 2560x1440 in 27" is about 110 DPI. People do regularly tell me that it's impossible to read things on my desktop, so I guess I may have decent vision (with glasses.)
In any case, I use a laptop screen much closer to me than my desktop, and so 120 DPI (1366x768 in 13.3") seems rather crappy. Plus, 768 vertical pixels just isn't enough. For my use, 1600x900 is about the minimum for 13.3" (140 DPI,) and 1080p in 13.3" (165 DPI) would be amazing.
Doesn't look like anyone wants to sell that configuration to me for a reasonable price in the near future.
HanzNFranzen - Thursday, April 19, 2012 - link
It's more about visible area on the screen than pixel density. I too, stopped reading at 768p.snuuggles - Thursday, April 19, 2012 - link
+1. -- just exactly rightLordConrad - Wednesday, April 18, 2012 - link
If laptop makers decide to include higher resolution screens by default, I hope there is an option to downgrade. If the native resolution on my 15 inch laptop was any smaller than 768p, I would have trouble reading it.cbf - Wednesday, April 18, 2012 - link
Go the Windows control panel and increase the point size of your text.A5 - Tuesday, April 17, 2012 - link
Thin & light always has and always will cost more. It requires more R&D effort to fit all this stuff in a small enclosure.sigmatau - Tuesday, April 17, 2012 - link
The R&D to creating this case was so high that manufacturers need to charge a $550 premium over a regular laptop?Really? $550 for a thinner case with the same hardware?
JarredWalton - Tuesday, April 17, 2012 - link
Way to just pull a random number out of your hat. Where do you get $550 from? The lowest sale price of a Core i3 laptop, perhaps? Let me give you a rundown of estimated costs (give or take):i5 ULV CPU: $125 (for an OEM?)
RAM: $25
Custom motherboard: $100
128GB SSD: $100 (for an OEM)
LCD: $65
OS: $50 (OEM price?)
Chassis: $150
Keyboard: $25
Touchpad: $10
Bill of Materials alone, then, I'd estimate at $650 give or take, which is $200 higher than what you're estimating. Now, add in additional R&D costs of $200 to design and mass produce a higher quality (e.g. not injection molded plastic) laptop, and then the profit is looking more like $150. If they sell a ton of these, then the R&D costs are covered and they could conceivably get the price down as low as $700 (on sale), but I wouldn't expect anything lower than that.
ImSpartacus - Tuesday, April 17, 2012 - link
How do you know that? I don't mean to question your BoM, I know it's a rough estimate. I'm just curious as to where one could find that sort of information.I thought it was neat when Mr. Sklavos mentioned the cost of LCD panels (http://www.anandtech.com/show/5717/toshiba-portege... It felt like a natural addition to the article that strengthened his point. And it made those LCD rants easier to read, but that's another story...
Anyway, I know you guys are super busy, but it would be pretty sweet if reviews and stuff referenced material costs if it didn't make the review read poorly.
JarredWalton - Wednesday, April 18, 2012 - link
Actually, I'm the editor of Dustin's articles -- I started adding the LCD pricing comments. :-) Which just makes the issue of low quality panels far more frustrating to me. I'm still working on an article on the topic, but ran into a few snags....The real difficulty with the above pricing is that without actually knowing how much OEMs get charged for some parts, I'm left to go off other sources. I can find some components on the open market, so I can quote those prices (e.g. LCDs, SSDs, CPUs), but what you or I would pay to buy the part is almost certainly quite a bit more than what a large OEM would pay for buying in volume. If you were to buy the equivalent components on your own, prices would be up probably $100 at least from my estimates. Mostly it was a list to point out a reasonable BoM for this laptop.
Super56K - Wednesday, April 18, 2012 - link
If only they played by those rules as far as BoM costs. I'd love to pay an extra ~$50 for a 900p 13" screen. But instead they nail us with a 'premium' upgrade option (if they even give you the option)Even on my 15" HP Probook a 1080p screen upgrade, with a new video cable, is around $100-110 to purchase myself. I'd have gladly paid $500 instead of $380 for it with its 768p screen. Ah well, I'm counting down the months until I decide to void my warranty and 'fix' it myself.
kmmatney - Tuesday, April 17, 2012 - link
I was hoping this meant a 16:10 screen...Oderdigg - Tuesday, April 17, 2012 - link
Really?2nd Gen i5, 4GB, 128 SSD, keyboard backlight, USB 3.0, 1GB NIC and 802.11b/g/n. If they had an i7 or an LED panel, it wouldn't be $1000 anymore. It's also very cool to the touch even under duress so there's a good amount of R&D involved.
I just wish it had a better panel, otherwise it's great.
Jamezrp - Tuesday, April 17, 2012 - link
I agree with pretty much everything said, but what about comparing the scores to the MacBook Air? That's probably the most popular ultrabook available, and frankly all of these tests were done on it. I hate to have to go back and forth to see the comparisons, especially since I own a MBA and am thinking of trading it in, potentially for a different ultrabook, or maybe just for the next model.Pneumothorax - Tuesday, April 17, 2012 - link
Just keep your MBA for now. With the exception of exception of sonys $2000 overpriced ultra book, you have the best screen, keyboard, and trackpad currently. It's funny how everybody claims apple is overpricing their stuff and claiming they're making 50% profit, but how come no pc manufacturer has released a sub $600 ultra book with a hi res screen, decent trackpad, and blacklit keyboard?snuuggles - Thursday, April 19, 2012 - link
Agreed. I personally despise OSX, but the hardware is quite clearly superior to anything I've seen. It's not even a close call.ImSpartacus - Tuesday, April 17, 2012 - link
Unless you have the $2000 original MBA, you should keep your machine.Wait another year, then Win8 Ultra-Mega-Tablet-Books will be reasonably mature.
You have a solid machine, don't waste it.
kmmatney - Tuesday, April 17, 2012 - link
I'd rather get a refurbed MacBook Air for $1099 than this. Much better screen, and thinner and lighter. I've never owned a Mac in my life, but I have to give them credit for making a product that still sets the standard.jabro - Tuesday, April 17, 2012 - link
This is really not a mystery:"HP also inexplicably uses only one memory channel on the i5's controller...."
HP is being cheap, just like most laptop makers. These days a 1 x 4GB DDR3 DIMM configuration is cheaper than a 2 x 2GB module configuration, and the "upgrade" option to 2 x 4GB comes with a very premium price. In fact, you are seeing the 1 DIMM configuration in TONS of the laptops on sale today. The prevalence of the single DIMM/single memory channel configuration is just another example of why, in many ways, PC laptops today are not as good as they used to be a few years ago (just like the dearth of true 8-bit color LCP panels, or 16:10 ratio screens, and decent keyboards, etc.). Yes, PC laptops are cheap, but there seems to be less and less differentiation in the market with each year. While I do acknowledged that there are some exceptions at the high end of the price range, I think that this is also partly why Apple has cleaned up in the high end of the laptop market (bless them, they still ship 16:10 monitors in the MB Pro line).
Dustin Sklavos - Tuesday, April 17, 2012 - link
The difference is there isn't any way to configure the Folio 13 in dual channel, and that's what I'm getting at.jabber - Tuesday, April 17, 2012 - link
HP/Compaq have a history of doing this. Even back as far as 2004/5 they were producing AMD and Intel based laptops only using single channel ram setups when dual channel was available.I know, I had a couple of them over the years. Bizarre.
It's annoying when you know that your prized laptop is missing it's last 5% of performance due to HP not spending 5c to allow it.
arthur449 - Tuesday, April 17, 2012 - link
What's really impressed me lately about HP's notebooks, compared to others, is their keyboard. Starting with the HP DM1Z (AMD E-350 "Brazos" debut) they've had surprisingly large and capable keyboards in their smaller laptops. The fact that this ultrabook includes a backlit version is also somewhat impressive as, last I checked, that HP only made that option available on their ENVY product line.And, while I don't have any physical experience with this particular computer, the lack of SATA 6Gbps and dual channel memory don't seem like they're hurting its overall usability.
You're right Dustin. There are no perfect ultrabooks on the market right now. They're all creatively finding some way of shooting themselves in the foot. But, if I had to choose one, it would probably be this one, simply for the keyboard and cool ('n quiet) operation. That is, I would choose this one if it didn't have that hilariously awful LCD panel. As it stands now, this ultrabook and those that include panels like it can go die in a fire.
apinkel - Tuesday, April 17, 2012 - link
I agree that the folio is the best of the PC ultra-book lot at this point in time.Every ultrabook keyboard has been a non-starter for me. Sounds like this one actually has a bit of travel and is decent enough. I also need an ethernet port so I'm glad they included that here. I've currently got an x301 with a ULV 1.4ghz chip and since it's performance is enough for my needs I'm sure this machine would be more than sufficient.
The screen (16:9 and too low-res) and the clickpad are the only knocks I have with this machine.
piroroadkill - Tuesday, April 17, 2012 - link
So it has a low end CPU, only one memory slot, a 1366x768 screen, HPs bloody AWFUL touchpad, Intel 3000 graphics.That sounds like par for the course for HP. Although the one memory slot thing is especially odd. Nothing else is significant. I would never buy an HP laptop with their all-in-one touchpad.
It's so bad that even if somehow the rest of the laptop was great (it isn't) I wouldn't consider it.
ShieTar - Tuesday, April 17, 2012 - link
You write"HP's engineers took a look at Intel's ultrabook spec and, rather than see how small they could get their design, opted to see just how much they could pack into the spec."
and then
"HP has strangely opted to be much more conservative with speccing their ultrabook than other vendors have"
and also
"Ultimately, though, the Folio 13 is rather tame for an ultrabook, all the more perplexing since other vendors were able to cram more power into smaller designs."
It seems to me like your first line is not based in reality, but that they rather opted to see just how much profit margin the can get away with.
Dustin Sklavos - Tuesday, April 17, 2012 - link
Look at the size of the integrated battery, ports available, and the quality of the keyboard compared to other ultrabooks.ImSpartacus - Tuesday, April 17, 2012 - link
Yeah, this machine really is a puzzling design choice.I've long lusted for the "RAZR Maxx" of Ultrabooks. Take a thin machine and fill it up with battery until it is about the thickness of a "non-thin" machine.
But HP managed to tank efficiency enough that it doesn't matter. Quite disappointing.
rkhpedersen - Wednesday, April 18, 2012 - link
Why do you keep mentioning the battery? According to yourself it does not deliver.JNo - Tuesday, April 17, 2012 - link
I concur, there's a lot of contradictory (and therefore confusing) statements in this review Dustin. Your main positives seem to be the keyboard and a 'boxy' design that isn't leveraged for other benefits. You then say it's your favourite ultrabook to date along with the Dell whilst complaining about all the shortcomings. The reasons for it being favoured seem thin on the ground and at odds with the rest of your tone.JarredWalton - Wednesday, April 18, 2012 - link
The reasons to favor one laptop over another almost always come down to the feel of the system in actual use -- and I'm not talking about speed and performance. I too think the boxier design with deeper key presses is a good thing -- the ultra-thin wedges on other ultrabooks leave the typing experience severely compromised. The rest of the stuff HP did is certainly "deviating from the norm", but unfortunately much of it is in a not-so-good way.Single-channel RAM probably only costs 5-10% performance at best (e.g. in graphics tests where IGP and CPU are being pegged), but when a smaller laptop can have two SO-DIMM slots there's no good reason for the change. Locking down the CPU is okay, as the i5 ULV works well enough, but was that necessary? The larger battery on paper should be great, but it fails to deliver (likely from lack of careful power tuning optimizations).
Despite the above, the pricing is still reasonable compared to the competition. I'd love a better display (as always), but the Folio runs cooler and quieter than other ultrabooks and the keyboard is more comfortable to type on, with most other areas being more or less "equal". So yes, that makes it a "favorite", but as noted in the conclusion it's still flawed.
french toast - Tuesday, April 17, 2012 - link
Can i make a request? I have noticed from other sites that both batterylife AND performance fluctuates wildely when notebooks/ultrabooks are run off battery instead of mains....From what i can tell most of your tests come from the mains to test absolute best case scenario performance..where as in most cases that form factor is going to be used on the move, so the most relevant benchmark/gaming scores are going to come off battery power, not mains.
I have noticed that Intel 17w chips perform SIGNIFICANTLY worse when running off battery compared to Mains...likely AMD also, would it then be possible to include in the same graphs the benchmarks/gaming score from running off the deviced battery so readers can see the REAL performance whilst out and about...i just don't think the performance measurements are representative for the scenario it would be used.
I enjoy your reviews by the way ;) Thanks.
jamawass - Tuesday, April 17, 2012 - link
Jarred Walton recently tested an AMD based notebook which showed gaming performance does not deteriorate on battery power compared to intel.french toast - Wednesday, April 18, 2012 - link
The point im getting at, and somewhat backed up by what you have said, is that intel iGP is terrible when running off a battery in comparison to AMD.What people think they are getting and what they actually get in real world are not the same things, you don't but a laptop to have it plugged into the mains, they are designed to be carried around..i just think it would be more approapriate to test with and with out battery in the same chart...its more accurate...other websites do it.
http://techreport.com/articles.x/21902/7
I will wait a while if i don't get noticed down in the comments section i will email in with a request, would be really great if Anandtech could do this IMO.
JarredWalton - Wednesday, April 18, 2012 - link
We'll have a full update to this when we test Ivy Bridge and Trinity -- HD 3000 "gaming" is really a stretch regardless, so hopefully IVB does better. Will it be as power efficient as Llano/Trinity? I have no idea, but it could be -- 22nm Tri-gate transistors might be just what Intel needs (along with better graphics drivers).french toast - Wednesday, April 18, 2012 - link
Thanks Jarred, be great to see which chips are better in actual notebook scenarios, that tests the capabilities of the chip, especially graphics.Intel have been very poor, but they have improved immensely in the last 2 years, drivers are the real problem..i also hear 22nm is a very 'hot' process..and not in a good way..
seapeople - Tuesday, April 17, 2012 - link
Chips generally perform worse on battery because the operating system is set to reduce performance to save battery life. Once you override this you can get full performance, though if you're playing something like a game that runs at 100% then be prepared to get 1/3rd the battery life.french toast - Wednesday, April 18, 2012 - link
Yes, but some chips perform better off battery than otherss, and seeing as you have likely bought a laptop to be carrying around (as oppose to a comparitivly cheaper tower to plug in) then a more realistic way to measure performance is off the battery..this could be in the same chart as the mains test, i have linked an example above.jbh129 - Tuesday, April 17, 2012 - link
Please include a MacBook Air in these comparisons. It is still the premier ultra book and the standard by which others can be judged.Mitch89 - Tuesday, April 17, 2012 - link
Especially since, in my experience, the Air runs Windows 7 very well, should you want to.My dad has had both the previous gen and now the top-spec i7 Air running exclusively on Windows 7, and he loves it.
From the sounds of it, these "Ultrabooks" are anything but.
DigitalFreak - Tuesday, April 17, 2012 - link
Whomever decided to design this with a single memory channel should be taken out back and shot. It's inexcusable, especially with integrated graphics.Gunbuster - Tuesday, April 17, 2012 - link
saw 768p, clicked back to home page.rscoot - Tuesday, April 17, 2012 - link
Yeah, pretty much. My 7 year old powerbook G4 had a better screen than 99% of notebooks being released today and its totally inexplicable.seapeople - Tuesday, April 17, 2012 - link
I like the step function that differentiates panel contrast ratio between vendors; if it's Sony or Apple, then contrast is ~800, otherwise contrast is ~200.Makes things simple.
nitram_tpr - Tuesday, April 17, 2012 - link
HP have appeared to create a chassis that can fit so much, yet all they do is chuck in a big battery that is, well, quite frankly useless.If they have loads of room for cooling, why not put an i7 in it?
Only one stick-o-ram :(
And a pretty aweful screen, oh dear oh dear, why they hell would anyone buy this?
And yet you seem to recommend it?
One of your recommendations is based on the battery, but the battery performance is poor when compared to other ultrabooks with less powerful batteries.
Is the keyboard worth the $1000 cost?
Gunbuster - Tuesday, April 17, 2012 - link
From one side of their mouth they say they want to compete with the macbook airFrom the other side they say how much they need to get the price point down to $600
When all is said and done we'll have the same bottom of the barrel $499 lowest common denominator HP/Acer in Best Buy and the only difference is that it will be painted silver.
ExodusC - Tuesday, April 17, 2012 - link
I stopped reading at 1366x768 display.Are you even trying, manufacturers?
quitesufficient - Tuesday, April 17, 2012 - link
stopped readingDustin Sklavos - Tuesday, April 17, 2012 - link
Comments like these help no one.french toast - Wednesday, April 18, 2012 - link
I agree, its a fantastic article most tech sites dont even bother to engage with the readers.Can you have a look at my request comment please?
andrewaggb - Tuesday, April 17, 2012 - link
I've spent years dogging apple for overpricing everything... I could always build a way better machine for the same price.Then laptops came along and you can't build them yourself anymore... surely somebody can build a DECENT laptop for less than apple?
It's ridiculous. I have a friend who wanted an all in one, we looked at all the options and he ended getting an imac because it has hands down the best screen and graphics card (and more than double the price). He runs windows 7 on it.
And if the best ultrabooks still have crap screens by my next laptop refresh, I'm going to end up running windows 7/8 or whatever on an overpriced mac too because we are seriously hurting for options.
I understand having an entry level model, mid range (what I consider the folio), but they seem to get lost in the high end. There's high end that you'd use for gaming or 3d content creation, and then there's high end that you'd use for writing, publishing, software development, etc which is where I see an ultrabook with a great screen and great keyboard really being an asset. That's what I want. I can play games on my desktop. But a computer with a lousy screen and/or keyboard really isn't good for anything in my books. Might as well just use an ipad if you're that casual.
ReverendDC - Tuesday, April 17, 2012 - link
I got a cheap HP for $379. It has a 1600x900 (granted, it kind of has to, being 17.3"). Mine's an A4, but there is one at BestBuy with an A6 for $429.99...with a 1600 x 900 screen. Again, granted, these aren't the best in terms of quality of picture or tint. I bought a PNY 8GB set of 10666 RAM and installed. It now has the same or greater power than an i3, and very close to an I5 in terms of overall performance (also upgraded with a spare copy of W7Ult).How could HP actually ask me to go with a system that has less power, a worse screen, no dual channel memory support, and a middle of the road battery life for $600+ more dollars? So my laptop is a little less portable (3 pounds Folio vs about 5.5 pounds G7). So I don't have the admittedly awesome SSD drive (i get by with a little help from my 500GB mechanical drive). So I don't have a backlit keyboard. Are those three things worth $600+ dollars?
Why, HP, WHY?!?!?!
Beenthere - Tuesday, April 17, 2012 - link
An Intel CPU with HD3000 graphics? You MUST be kidding.Pirks - Tuesday, April 17, 2012 - link
FUUUUUUUU!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!vignyan - Tuesday, April 17, 2012 - link
I am sorry - but I think the industry should not provide 768 displays for screens larger than 7" anymore. =)Oderdigg - Tuesday, April 17, 2012 - link
Very accurate review other than some spelling errors :). I bought 2 for work to test them out and I was happy with what you got considering they were $1000. My only gripe was the glossy 768p panel and the track pad. The track pad isn't a huge issue as we use good mice. I mean, who doesn't?Seems to be a lot of haters in this thread. Are people expecting a $600 laptop that's as good as a MBA? Let's be realistic. This isn't for gaming, CAD or a desktop replacement. This for people who need a quick laptop without spending too much money (MBA) and still deliver enough performance to showcase websites, cloud technology etc.
I have an HP 8460w and that thing moves. Then again, it's about 2.5X more expensive.
fruityloon - Tuesday, April 17, 2012 - link
Can the spec for the screen resolution be written as 1366x768 instead of 16:9 768p ? It makes glancing thru a tad easier.robinthakur - Wednesday, April 18, 2012 - link
If Apple can ship a tablet with a 2048x1536 resolution with an insanely thin profile for $499, why would I accept anything less in a full laptop costing way more? You mightsay that the average consumer wouldn't know the difference, but if they simply do a side by side comparison with a product which has been in the retail channel as of the end of February the difference speaks for itself. No sale HP, the MBA is vastly superior in nearly every department and holds its value in the second hand market way better.JarredWalton - Wednesday, April 18, 2012 - link
Keep in mind that one of the differences with iPad and Ultrabooks is that Apple is in full control of the OS, hardware, and software on iPad. They released the original as a 1024x768 device, and quadrupling that resolution with the new iPad is a simple matter. Any apps that don't know how to support other resolutions just see the display as a 1024x768 device and the graphics drivers handle the scaling -- which, incidentally, can make lower resolution apps and images look like crap.The GUI on iOS for iPad also runs at a set aspect ratio and they basically have two PPI settings that they need to target -- the original 132 PPI, and the new 264 PPI. If you look at the home screen on an iPad 2 vs. iPad "3", the only real difference is the iPad 3 looks a lot sharper. Now move over to Windows (or OS X), and suddenly you have DPI settings that don't actually scale across all applications -- there are many, many situations in which an app will look anywhere from slightly off to downright horrible if you use something other than the Windows default 96 DPI.
Another major issue: if you're using the 96 DPI setting on a 13" 1080p display, all the text and images become smaller, to the point where people in their 40s and later could become very frustrated by eye strain. (I had a client at one point where I helped them get set up with new PCs and 24" 1920x1200 LCDs; the receptionists and secretaries threw a fit and I finally ended up running all the displays at 1280x800 -- they were all happy, even though everything was slightly blurry and they had to do a lot more scrolling!)
In other words, I fully understand why not every laptop should have an ultra high resolution LCD; until Windows can handle DPI scaling across all apps without any funny business, legibility for a majority of users at the 96 DPI setting is what most companies will target. That said, you can still do a lot better than 1366x768, low contrast, crappy viewing angles LCDs. Samsung's PLS and the other IPS offerings are needed (hopefully with better color accuracy and gamut), and I continue to bemoan the loss of 16:10 laptops (Mac being one of the few holdouts).
Ideally, I'd like to see 1280x800 at 11.6", 1280x800 or 1440x900 at 13.3", 1440x900 or 1680x1050 at 14", 1680x1050 or 1920x1200 at 15.6", and 1920x1200 at 17.3". Since that's not likely to happen any time soon, at least we could get 1600x900 as common offerings on 13 and 14" laptops, and 1080p on 15.6" and above. The lack of vertical screen real estate on 768p is irritating, but at the same time 1600x900 can be a bit much for a lot of people at 13.3", and certainly it would be difficult to read on an 11.6" panel. Just my two cents.
Mumrik - Wednesday, April 18, 2012 - link
Following the norm.thxdts - Wednesday, April 18, 2012 - link
waited a while as the first ultrabooks on the market didn't have a backlit keyboard and full size ethernet port for a business environment, for the first generation of ultrabook I like it for what it does, Win 7 with virtual instant on when you open the lid from standby mode is awesome, the SSD hard drive really helps. For next version, i would like them to offer an IPS screen as an optional upgrade as well as 2 DIMM slotsezelitis - Wednesday, April 18, 2012 - link
i bought dell 6 months ago and it beats this junk in every way. in same price. however mine is 17inch.on that scale mine would be even better.
mine opinion is that this is an april joke.
hp has delivered 2years old junk.
ezelitis - Wednesday, April 18, 2012 - link
after a few years hp will have a new challengers like smart phones.Mugur - Thursday, April 19, 2012 - link
And I have just one thing to say: it has the worst screen I've seen in the past 10 years in a notebook. Period. The lack of contrast, brightness and you name it... is astonishing. The cheapest Acer netbook has a better screen by far, far...I am used to see poor screens in HP since this is what I use at work. With one notable exception (my EliteBook 8760w) every screen was low quality (and of course all ProBooks have 1366x768). But the Folio 13 display has set a standard for low quality even for HP.
So, in my opinion, if you're buying this for yourself, just get the Asus Zenbook. Not the greatest display, but 1600x900, thinner, lighter and great battery life for its size.
thxdts - Thursday, April 19, 2012 - link
how many of the detractors have actually used one? the battery life (I get 8 hrs) and the super fast resume when i open the lid (2 seconds on average) makes it worthwhile in a very slim and light weight package. For lugging around such a lightweight laptop with a backlit keyboard running Windows 7, full size ethernet port for regular business environment, it is worth the $999 price.Mugur - Friday, April 20, 2012 - link
I used one and I disagree. There are ultrabooks much better than this one. I mentioned the Asus because I've seen it and it's thinner, lighter, the design is much better IMHO and the screen is in another class, with 1600x900 resolution. Same price here as this Folio, but with a faster processor.And FYI, all ultrabooks (with the exception of Acer probably) have 2-3 seconds resume from suspend.
thxdts - Friday, April 20, 2012 - link
I looked at the Asus x31/x21 but they lacked 2 items i needed for my business/travel needs, 10 backlit keyboard for typing in dark and full size ethernet without a dongle for port testing, dongles are too easy to losecliffa3 - Thursday, April 19, 2012 - link
I only read one line of this review...the spec on the screen. I threw up a little in my mouth, decided to post this comment, then am moving on. I hope consumers start selecting based on what they see rather than just price or the specs on the box. It's sad that Apple has remained the only one that values screen quality. I held out hope for IBM/Lenovo for the longest but they caved.linuxhead64 - Saturday, April 21, 2012 - link
Even an HP Exec wouldn't use one, just look at the picture of HP Chairman Ray Lane using his MacBook Air at home.omaudio - Monday, April 23, 2012 - link
.3MP, 1.3MP, 2.0MP? So many reviews skip this detail but I think it is worth adding. Thx.Jehnavi24 - Saturday, April 28, 2012 - link
Although the Folio didn't last the claimed 9.5 hours during our battery life test, performance was still adequate. Battery Eater Pro's Reader test went for a full 206 minutes before draining the battery.http://www.techiecop.com/
megaphat - Saturday, May 5, 2012 - link
GF bought one of these recently. It was the i3 version for about $740 AUD which is an excellent price. Admittedly the laptop does have its shortcomings, such as the trackpad and resolution. And it only has 2.4GHz Wireless N (which is un-upgradeable due to HP's whitelist). It also doesn't have a tapered design.But on the plus side, its a very sleek piece of kit. It looks much better in person than a lot of the other ultrabooks. The brushed aluminium and rubberised black plastic work well together giving it a professional guise. None of this silver painted plastic crap and HP have shown restraint with that awful glossy plastic. The backlit keyboard is great. The build quality of the machine is excellent. There are very few gaps and there is almost no screen flex. Much less so than my rickety VAIO S series. Honestly it feels about as firm as a Macbook Air. HP hasn't made many concessions on the connectivity front either, challenging the competition with USB 3, Ethernet, HDMI and an SD card reader (in addition to the usual suspects). The ethernet port takes up pretty much the entire width of the machine. And the SSD is lightening fast compared to those old 5200rpm drives.
Due to the good build quality and strong port complement I'd recommend this machine to the power user, especially someone who travels.