Worth Reading?
+2 [6 votes]
You know how sometimes something gets hyped up so much, and then by the time it actually gets released/announced/goes on sale it kind of sucks? Well I still want one of these new HP UMPCs even though I now know the specs, starting with the VIA processors and graphics chipsets.
All the processors will be VIA C7-Ms running at either 1.2 or 1.66GHz. all the notebooks will come with at least one gig of RAM and will have at least 120GB of HDD storage space. The screens are 8.9” diagonal screens with a resolution of 1280×768.
All of the notebooks have 802.11 a/b/g, VIA Chrome 9 UMA graphics, a weight of 5.26 pounds, and dimensions of 13.27×8.546×5.281 inches. Operating system choices are SuSe Linux Enterprise Desktop 10, Windows Vista Business, or Vista Home Basic depending on which model you buy.
Lastly, prices range from $549 to $849 and there are 4 different models. So, basically, a notebook that started out as an Eee competitor has grown into something more, but less, that’s to say that its not quite a full fledged notebook by today’s standards, but its nowhere near and Eee either, I suppose it will be perfect for those looking for something just a bit more than an Eee, but I certainly wouldn’t call it a competitor. Oh, and its largish size and fat wieght of 5.26 pounds kind of knock it off the UMPC list don’t they?
[via Engadget]
I love that people keep posting these dimensions in their stories, but obviously aren’t even thinking about the numbers they’re posting.
Think about it people. Is there a notebook on the planet that’s even close to 5 inches thick?
Those are shipping dimensions and weight. Not the dimensions of the actual machine.
alright so clearly thats an error on my part, but i don’t see the packaging and power brick alone adding 2 and a quarter pounds to the weight of the actual laptop, so i think it still gets knocked out of the UMPC market
I’m not saying it’s a UMPC. I’d agree with you there. I guess we could call it a subnotebook.
This thing will, probably, have a standard power brick, as opposed to the Eee Pc’s cellphone like brick. The Eee Pc’s shipping weight is 4.4lbs. Throw in a heavier adapter, coupled with the larger screen and keyboard, plus the packaging, and the shipping weight sounds about right.
I’m with you. This thing is no UMPC. Frankly, I don’t know that I’m comfortable calling any of these mini notebooks UMPCs.
Also note that the majority of the chassis is made of aluminium (yup, UK spelling) which would contribute to the weight.
Do Want!
How did it get so heavy, didn’t it start out to be ~3lb?
HP could have really helped UMPC sales if they made a modern version of the Jornada 720 rather than this bulky laptop looking computer. What a dissappointment! We want a jacket pocket touch type keyboard computer, not another laptop. What is HP thinking? they really need to get some better insight into the consumer market, this is going to be a real looser.
UMPC my @SS! The macbook is 5 lbs, and feels heavy, so how can this (tiny) monster possibly be a umpc? utter nonsense!
Well it took me all of 30 seconds to find that the actual machine weighs in at 1.3Kg.
http://www.umpcportal.com/prod.....php?id=180
http://www.engadget.com/2008/0.....-revealed/
1.3 kilograms = 2.86lb
So I guess the power brick and packaging does actually weigh in at ~2lb and the weight is in line with that expected by Vic.
It’s hardly rocket science to have a quick google or to call the press office and ask for confirmation on details…
Even more amusing is that the credit for the article link goes to a sight that does list the correct details… 4th line down in the article.
Well Chris, neither of the articles you linked to have all of the details correct either as i instantly noticed the screen resolutions were wrong
also, the article i linked to giving credit for the info mentions nothing about the weight of the notebook other than whats in the table
so, how’s that for amusing?
James,
My apologies. It appears that there are two Engadget articles, the one you originally linked to and the one that I put in my reply. It is only the one linked in my reply that contains the info on the weight of the product, as you observe the one you linked to contained the table only. The umpcportal site also contains the weight information, although as you observe the screen resolution information does differ from every other site, however they all seem to be pointing back to Engadget so you never know. I can only guess that my pre-coffee head failed to notice I had two Engadget tabs open at the same time. Either way I was as wrong as you were and two wrongs do not make a right.
I think what prompted my reply was that despite spotting an error in your article you then seemed reluctant to check other facts such as the weight of the product. If this site is about providing a high level overview of all that is new and shinny then some basic checking of specifications might be in order to ensure people have the right info. I accept fully that things do slip through the net, but when people point out things that look wrong maybe it would be best to check before making assertions - as this exchange has shown on BOTH sides.
Chris..