HP Refreshes dv7t Notebook

HP Refreshes dv7t Notebook

HP today silently updated its dv7t entertainment notebook with new options and a refreshed color scheme. The dv7t is now available in black or white and features a slightly larger 17.3-inch (yes, 17.3 and not 17.0 inches) screen with a measly 1600x900 resolution. Starting at $849.99, the dv7t can be customized with a Core 2 Quad Q9000 (2.0GHz) processor, though that will set you back $1,125. The standard graphics card is now theATI Mobility Radeon HD 4530 (512MB), with a 1GB HD 4650 available for an additional $150.

HP Pavilion dv7t Product Page

 

Interesting, especially the 17.3" display. I'm surprised they kept the dv7t name (or didn't somehow differentiate it from the original 17.0" dv7t). The old dv7t had a 1440x900 display standard and 1680x1050 optional. I guess the move is toward offering the high-res displays only on the HDX models?

The white color option is unusual looking, kind of interesting....beats the Bronze color they've been slapping on everything. IMO.

They've really shaken up their product lines in the last few months....long gone are the days when there was just the stepping stones (dv4t/z, dv5t/z, dv7t/z). And just for fun, Dell is messing around with their model lineup, too!

 

Saw this on Engadget - seems like it'll be a very nice and affordable 17" laptop option, especially with the price cut.

 

A Q9000 and ATI 4650 is a nice combo but they're overcharging for that quad-core.

 

they could at least let the "base" GPU be a 4570 not a 4530....Something aint right when you have a 4570 in a 13" and a 4530 in a 17.3................Well i guess its still great for internet browsing/movie watching.

 

I gotta give HP credit for being the first of the big PC companies to offer the new ATI 4000-series graphics cards. Dell, on the other hand, will very likely wait forever to upgrade the existing Studio models to them!

 

I don't see the point of a 17.3" screen. If 16" is the new 15.4" and 18.4" is the new 17", where does 17.3" fit?

 

Maybe HP just realizes that to some people 18,4" is just too big.

Around these parts, where the usual 1440x900 17" screen is the sole option from retail, the 17,3" 1600x900 would be appreciated.

 

The 17.3" display also shifts to 16:9 aspect ratio. The previous 17.0" was a 16:10. So, the dv6t, dv7t, both HDX models, the G60t and the Compaq CQ60z are all 16:9 aspect ratio now.

I was really surprised when HP dropped the dv5t a few months ago. I'm fairly certain that it was their best seller. That leaves the dv5z (and the dv5tse, for now) as the only 15.4" (16:10) model they have.

I'm starting to believe the rumors that 16:10 is headed the way of 4:3....

 

With the switch from 16:10 to 16:9, the screen grew phyiscally wider. So the additional pixels (1600 instead of 1440) won't actually result in higher resolution...just more screen area.

 

BOOO to the ATi video

And no LED lighting yet? Oh well, maybe next time.

 

I suspect you are incorrect. Let's see what Pythagoras has to say about that

h^2 + v^2 = 17.3^2 // compliments of Pythagoras
h^2 + (h 9/16)^2 = 17.3^2 // subst horizontal is 16/9's vertical
h^2 + h^2(81/256) = 299.29
h^2(256+81)/256 = 299.29
sqrt(h^2) = sqrt(299.29*256/337)
h = 15.094

horizontal dimension of 17.3" inch screen is 15.09" @ 16:9 ratio
pixel density of 1600/15.09" = 106.03 pixels per inch

doing the same for 16:10 gives us:

h^2 + v^2 = 17^2 // compliments of Pythagoras
h^2 + (h 10/16)^2 = 17^2 // subst horizontal is 16/9's vertical
h^2 + h^2(100/256) = 289
h^2(256+100)/256 = 289
sqrt(h^2) = sqrt(289*256/356)

horizontal dimension of 17" inch screen is 14.42" @ 16:10 ratio
pixel density of 1440/14.42" = 99.86 pixels per inch

assuming maths is correct, you are incorrect. the new model will encode almost 6 more pixels (or approx 6%) per inch horizontally. i'll leave the vertical density as a challenge to the reader.

 

While I like the refreshed looks of the dv7t and its new processor/graphics card options, the machine is yet another casualty of the 16:9 plague. 1600x900 is a rather serious downgrade from the 1680x1050 screen that was available before. If it wasn't for that, OR if they offered the notebook with a 1920x1080 resolution, then it would be a respectable upgrade from the previous.

 

Indeed, very very disappointing to see monitors moving to this trend. Most if not all movies are not even at 16:9 aspect ratio and so the vertical bars you see are only slightly smaller on 16:9 screens. And for the rest of the time you are not watching movies (98%) and doing things like word processing, web browsing, etc. you will miss the vertical space. Darn this stupid trend.

 

for web browsing you have the option of not missing the vertical space. you can move the taskbar to the side and/or remove that browser status bar and navigator bar. well designed websites eliminate the need of the navigator bar. many browsers support keyboard shortcuts and, sometimes, mouse gestures too.

regardless of application, i seriously doubt not having another one hundred pixels, along the vertical, will prove detrimental to productivity or functionality because for over a decade hundreds of millions of people went about their business perfectly fine at 1024 x 768 or less.

 

People only want what they know. It's difficult to go back to a lower resolution when you are used to working with a higher one - everything is more limited. It doesn't matter what people used in the past.

The extra hundred pixels does make a large difference to someone like me, who uses all available vertical resolution for work (I use every one of the 1200 vertical pixels of my desktop's monitor).

The 16:9 marketing campaign is scammy - it's being touted as better for movies, but as Rahul noted, there are still black bars. Unfortunately the majority of folks in Best Buy drink that kool aid. Consumers are not better off with the "extra widescreen". It's only extra widescreen in a sense that there are more horizontal pixels for every vertical one; the vertical resolution is seriously reduced over 16:10 screens (generally speaking).

The only reason we have 16:9 is because it's cheaper to produce - that is it. I didn't care much for the 4:3 --> 16:10 transition though it didn't bother me because I never lost any resolution, only gained it. In 16:9, we're losing resolution. That's bad. As I noted, it is difficult to go back because you know what better is.

 

It's a glass half empty or half full thing honestly.

1600x900 is a loss in screen resolution vs. 1680x1050 but it's a gain vs. 1440x900.

Consumers are going to keep feeling ripped off as long as manufactures step down the resolutions instead of stepping them up....and until a 2048x1152 res can be regularly offered on a laptop the people that used 1920x1200 are going to feel it the most.

As for games they will adapt to the 16:9 aspect ratio just like they adapted to 16:10 from 4:3.

 

I'm not at all bothered by the 16:9 ratio and lack of LED screen. For the former, I really don't care. I'm not a graphics artist, so loosing 150 vertical pixels isn't anything I'd complain about. For the latter, a LED backlight would be nice, but not a necessity for HP's dv7t average consumer line. 17"+ laptops aren't meant for portability anyway, and the battery power saved with LED wouldn't make that much of a difference.

One thing I don't get is the choice of the Radeon HD 4650. Isn't the GPU faster than the GeForce 9600GT found on their HDX line? Is this a sign HP would provide better graphics options for the HDX anytime soon?

 

the only 2 things that are missing now are the high res screen and more decent gpu!

 

If you look on the right side the two USB ports have been moved from the front to behind the DVD drive and the DVD drive has been moved all the way to the front of the right side. All i want is the motherboard ill keep my screen.

 

for me, however, i'm fine with the changes in pixel dimensions. what i'm able to see at one time does not hamper the quality of the content i produce and/or review. i have adjusted in the past and i'll just adapt as easily as before.

 

Does anyone know if they 'fixed' the brightness issue with this new release? I am looking to buy one, but I know there used (or still is) a problem with the brightness and viewing angle on HP screens. I looked at the DV7-1285DX at Best Buy and the screen is horrible. This is the only thing preventing me from buying this laptop. Also how does the Radeon HD 4650 compare to the Nvidia 9600, 9650, and 9800?

 

it sits between the 9650 and 9800 (much closer to the latter).

 

its definitely close to a 9700 in game performace on the 4650 also looks really solid.

 

That's good to hear! Now if they only work on that crappy washed out screen of theirs... Or have they?

 

Asus has some of the best screens now believe it or not the LED screen in the N80/N50 was really solid. Also there new notebooks like the Asus W90 also have great screens.

 

I think it's too glossy even the keyboard is glossy i would prefer a mate paint.