NotebookForums.com › Forums › Notebook Manufacturers › HP, Compaq and Voodoo Forums › HP, Compaq and Voodoo Notebooks › HP misleading and ripping off consumers
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

HP misleading and ripping off consumers - Page 2

post #21 of 58
Here is a quote from an article that is dated December 9th 2004, by Jem Matzen

Quote:
Finally we have the Athlon 64 Mobile, which is the same as the Athlon 64 except it's slightly watered down so that it consumes less power in notebook computers. The official specifications list "up to" 1024kb L2 cache, which implies that there may be different editions of this CPU in the coming months. The Athlon 64 Mobile processor does not have native DDR400 support and the maximum memory bandwidth is 2.7 GB/sec, using DDR333. To save power, the Athlon 64 Mobile also has PowerNow technology, which basically scales CPU performance to save power and cut down on fan noise so that the processor only works as hard as it has to, according to load.
As you can see they knew about the fact that the AMD mobiles would not have native DDr400 support. It still has a 2.7 gigabit per sec bandwidth.


The full article is here http://www.thejemreport.com/mambo/content/view/73/42
post #22 of 58
Quote:
Originally Posted by mwillman
HP never advertised Dual Channel.

You just, for who knows why, decided that since they could have dual channel they would and you are now mad that they dont. No one owes you extra technology just becuase you want it.

Anyway most of the people talking about these issues dont even know how the AMD memory manager works so how can they know if dual channel is even an issue.
dude, you seem to have completely misunderstood me. i am not mad that they do not have dual channel. and where did you get a perception that i feels as though someone owes me a technology because i want it? i am mad because they actively turned it off without notifying anyone, including their own tech support. and what i want is a straight answer. there is no gray area on the matter. it is either yes or no.

as for the the AMD memory manager, i am definitely not aware of the way that particular cpu's memory manager works. however, what i am aware of is the fact that it is a desktop cpu, not a mobile version. and it supports dual channel, as does the chipset. and they are both mounted in a board with a socket whose sole release purpose was to support dual channel with an athlon64 cpu. so the article that you referencing, while correct, has no bearing in our conversation, not to mention the fact that it refers to socket 754. if you want a straight answer on 939 desktop version of athlon64's support of dual channel, hit tomshardware site.
post #23 of 58
Its true that its a desktop chip but it has been modfied to run in a laptop and part of that modification incudes not running dual channel probably to keep energy costs down on the system.

I think you are being a little hysterical about something that is not a major issue.
post #24 of 58
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wisher
Whoa, I'm sorry, most of your points were obscured. I was much too distracted by that ENORMOUS chip on your shoulder.

"It's not about performance." Come on. Don't be ridiculous. Of course it's about performance. In fact, later on in your post you even said that it's about performance:



So which is it? Is it about performance or is it not about performance (let me say it again so it can sink in a bit - NOT ABOUT PERFORMANCE)?

I won't respond to the many unverified, unjustified and incongruous claims you made. Instead, I'll just respond to your comment to me. What I have read in THIS forum is that people made assumptions about a computer and now they are upset because their assumptions were incorrect. If someone called in and the person on the phone said it was dual channel, then they would have something to complain about. In fact, they would have every reason in the world to return the laptop if they wanted to. But short of that, people are just making a lot of unjustified noise. And as for what DomFel was saying, let's let him say what he meant, not you. Sounded to me like a comparison between a P4 with HT and an AMD with Dual Channel, which, as I said before, is like comparing apples to oranges. But since you do want to compare that, let's do. You could easily purchase a P4 without HT. If it doesn't have HT on the label or in the specs, then it would be unwise to assume it has HT. If you purchase the computer and find out it doesn't have HT and then complain b/c you *thought* it had HT, your complains will fall on deaf ears.
well, of course it is about performance. i was just trying to make a point, though you seemed to have been distracted by the capitals i used. i will concede that there are many people who are just making, as you stated, unjustified noise. many of them never lifted a finger to do any sort of research and just bought the machine simply because it is such a great bang for the buc, even without DC. yet now they feel as though someone has given them a free ticket to rant, so to speak. in such cases, a person should be asked whether they even knew what DC was at the time of the purchase. but piling all disgruntled owners into one pile of "unjustified noisemakers" is, well, unjustified.

as for DomFel's comments, don't hide behind "let's let him...". he said what he meant, and i believe that you know exactly what he said. though telling someone else to shut up was, on his part, rather sad. what i was comparing, once again, is the actual deceipt, and not the strength of the 2 technologies. it is true that HT is without question more of a performance boost than DC. but what does that mean? does it mean that it is acceptable to mislead the customers just because the technology in question has a wussy 10% boost? but, like you said lets compare them. except this time, lets put HT in the same situation that DC is in with r4000/zv6000. say a new socket was released with a number of new features, yet the biggest and most important one of all is HT. it just came out and you researched the specs. its the correct socket with a cpu that was just released, bearing HT feature, as does the chipset. you go to the store and see the typical intel sticker that you have seen for years now without the HT. you ask the salesperson (who, by the way, gets his info from the manufacturer), and he confirms the peresence of HT. judging from your posts, you are not a moron, so you decided to call the manufactorer, who subsequently confirms HT support on that very model. well, you know the rest. once again, the aforementioned noice that is being made is unwarranted in some instances, while not in others. the bottom line, however, is that the manufacturer is the culprit.

P.S. what were those unverified and unjustified claims that i made? an example would be nice.
post #25 of 58
I used to own a Compaq Presario X1015. It was the highest-end model of the X1000 you could buy. I liked that it came with a Radeon 9200 video chip, since at the time that was actually pretty good.

But then there was the [now infamous] revelation that the chip was actually a Radeon 9000. HP/Compaq actually *changed* all of their marketing materials after several hundred people complained. Granted, the jump from a 9000 to a 9200 is not much in terms of performance, but the fact that they outright *lied* about what video chipset was in the laptop disgusted me. This was a case where they tried to get away with something but got caught.

I like HP (I still have a HP48GX calculator from like 12 years ago!). But I do think they should probably be more diligent in the information they disclose to customers. In the case of DDR, they aren't actually advertising dual-channel but only supporting single-channel. I do have to agree, however, that when Dell, Gateway, Acer, etc. all support dual channel, there is a certain "de facto" expectation based on the processor and chipset used.

It would be nice if HP at least provided some way to change it. I used a utility named "Centrino Hardware Control" to change my hard drive controller from "max quiet" to "max performance". It did actually make my drive a little noisier, but it was noticably faster too. If someone buys a laptop and is willing to sacrifice a very small drop in battery life to enable DDR2, HP should be willing to let them.
post #26 of 58
You both have very good points, I am not an apologist for HP or any company.

I think I am just a little more jaded and I am not suprised when companies have screwups like the 9000/9200 incident of HPs. I will say that I have seen all the major brands do something stupid at one time or another.

Becuase I'm jaded I figure that I am responsible for the information thats purtains to my purchases. If the manufacturer lies then I feel I have a right to complain but if they keep everything out in the open then they are allowed to do things like shut off dual channel.

It just seems like alot of trouble for a 5% increase in memory effieciency.
post #27 of 58
All of the posts I read in this thread talk about people being misled because there wasn't information about the laptop not having dual channel memory. I said in one of my previous posts that if someone was told by the company that it had dual channel and it didn't, then they DO have every right to complain. Perhaps you missed that. I stand by that, so in that sense we agree. But in my first post, I was going on what was in THIS thread, not some other thread on some other website.
post #28 of 58
Quote:
Originally Posted by LCountach
Hello Kram. I feel your pain. I saw your post on www.zv6000forums.com saying that www.notebookforums.com did not have posts about the zv6000/r4000 issues. Actually there are some threads. Here is mine http://www.notebookforums.com/portal...ad.php?t=89307

Here is some intresting info. I returned my first R4000 because of Rebate issues with CompUSA. I have sent my second R4000 back to HP for service 3 times because of an overheating LCD and BOOT order issues. It is at HP right now. The Compaq logo below the LCD gets so hot I could fry an egg. My first R4000 did not get hot. The second time I got it back it had BIOS F.16 Thats 2 releases beyond HPs websight. What is new? I dont know.

Each time I called HP I got a friendly Rep that seemed to be trying to help. However not one Rep had any detailed knowledge about our zv6000/r4000 notebooks. They also dont seem to have good communication between their CustomerService, Repair, and Engineering departments. If I sak a question they type away searching their network for info. Most of them dont understand the inner workings of a computer. They just seem to know the basics. If I have a question that is beyond my own knowledge about a HP computer who else am I supposed to call other than HP TechSupport?

I have tried to register on www.zv6000forums.com to share my experiences. Perhaps you can help by posting the www.zv6000forums.com Administrators email. Thanks

What happens when you try to register?

There is no reason I know of that you would be restricted.

Might be better to start a new thread so this one stays on topic.
post #29 of 58
The problem was that you did not respond to the email sent to you from the group.

You have been activated anyway and can sign on now.

Pastkev
Moderator, ZV6000forums.com
post #30 of 58
Hp has disabled dual channel to increase battery life on the laptop. The dual channel with the desktop cpu neeeds lotsa power.

the performance increase is going to be very slight to say 4-5% at the max but the battery life falls by more than 10%

Hp has not cheated any1. Its has just done what is logical to do.
post #31 of 58
i have a better idea, offer 12 cell standard. Obviously they dont cost a lot, since most of us snatched up 12 cells from Best Buy for $25
post #32 of 58
As an R4000 user and someone who did my homework before I purchased back in May, I feel rather insulted by people who say that we don't even know what dual channel is. I built my desktop with the AMD 64 Athlon and specifically wanted a laptop with the same processor capabilities. AMD did NOT build s939 cores specifically for HP with dual channel crippled. AMD powernow technology handles the power consumption issues when operating on battery. Those who purchased expecting a DTR with full fledged S939 AMD 64's did not get what they ordered. If you're happy with your Turon, then fine - I probably would have gone that route myself if I had known about the dual channel issue but you have no right to cut down people who expected more.
post #33 of 58
Quote:
Originally Posted by PiratePast40
As an R4000 user and someone who did my homework before I purchased back in May, I feel rather insulted by people who say that we don't even know what dual channel is. I built my desktop with the AMD 64 Athlon and specifically wanted a laptop with the same processor capabilities. AMD did NOT build s939 cores specifically for HP with dual channel crippled. AMD powernow technology handles the power consumption issues when operating on battery. Those who purchased expecting a DTR with full fledged S939 AMD 64's did not get what they ordered. If you're happy with your Turon, then fine - I probably would have gone that route myself if I had known about the dual channel issue but you have no right to cut down people who expected more.
Sorry but this is widely known. Even before it was released we knew there would be no dual channel. You didn't do your homework very well. I find it pathetic that you all are now complaining...
post #34 of 58
Quote:
Originally Posted by PiratePast40
Those who purchased expecting a DTR with full fledged S939 AMD 64's did not get what they ordered.
First of all, all the specs on the notebook say is that is has an AMD Athlon 64 processor...it doesn't specify what socket. Granted...the 4000 doesn't come in socket 754...but most people wouldn't know that...or care. The specs also don't state it has dual channel DDR...and any desktop or notebook that DOES have it, it is listed in the specs.

If you purchased the R4000 or ZV6000 line expecting a socket 939 processor with dual channel ddr...that's your fault for assuming you were getting something that wasn't in the specs.

If it's not listed in the specs...then it doesn't have it...simple as that. HP has done nothing wrong.
post #35 of 58
Quote:
Originally Posted by jasonamd
First of all, all the specs on the notebook say is that is has an AMD Athlon 64 processor...it doesn't specify what socket. Granted...the 4000 doesn't come in socket 754...but most people wouldn't know that...or care. The specs also don't state it has dual channel DDR...and any desktop or notebook that DOES have it, it is listed in the specs.

If you purchased the R4000 or ZV6000 line expecting a socket 939 processor with dual channel ddr...that's your fault for assuming you were getting something that wasn't in the specs.

If it's not listed in the specs...then it doesn't have it...simple as that. HP has done nothing wrong.
Thank you very much... Im sick of people complaining about it and we knew it would NOT have it over a month before you could buy it...
post #36 of 58
Quote:
Originally Posted by Teckng778
Thank you very much... Im sick of people complaining about it and we knew it would NOT have it over a month before you could buy it...
The name of this thread kind of invites those that are not happy about dual channel here.

So why come to this thread and get mad that those who are not happy are sounding off here?

Both sides have a valid point.

HP did not advertise it, neither did they disclaim it and yes, many were told they would have dual channel by HP shopping. I was told it had dual channel from them myself.

If the subject bugs you, go to other threads and post. Don't jump on folks who do have a legitimate point.
post #37 of 58
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pastkev
The name of this thread kind of invites those that are not happy about dual channel here.

So why come to this thread and get mad that those who are not happy are sounding off here?

Both sides have a valid point.

HP did not advertise it, neither did they disclaim it and yes, many were told they would have dual channel by HP shopping. I was told it had dual channel from them myself.

If the subject bugs you, go to other threads and post. Don't jump on folks who do have a legitimate point.
1) I haven't gotten mad yet but i am annoyed. I posted in this thread to simply say that you all didn't do the correct research.

2) Your correct HP did not advertise it. If it had dual channel they would have because the systems would have been worth more. They didn't disclaim it because it would have made them look great. I think its sad that people were told it had dual channel by HP Reps. If it was someone from like compusa that lied to you or just didn't know and said it had it then you should have seen that coming. They work off commission.

You all shouldn't be jumping on HP about something that was known at the time it was released. Like i said, you all trusted people (And that goes for all company's), who were simply trying to make a quick sale which is unlikely (Because HP Reps are taught to make the customer happy so they will come back) or just assumed. You would have looked at the spec sheets before buying and talked to informed people like the ones on these forums. People seam to find these forums after they buy and are pissed.

My comments however were intended for those who didn't talk to anyone, didn't look at the spec sheets, and just assumed that because the AMD64 had the memory controller that HP used it and the system would have dual channel.

You all should pay attention to BIOS updates in case HP releases an update to make the system run in dual channel mode. In the past HP has released updates that enable new features in their laptops. Some updates have taken a year or more but they may do it.
post #38 of 58
No bios fix ever!

No traces on mothrboard pcb for second channel, now confirmed.
post #39 of 58
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pastkev
No bios fix ever!

No traces on mothrboard pcb for second channel, now confirmed.
Do you have any sources/links?
post #40 of 58
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: HP, Compaq and Voodoo Notebooks
NotebookForums.com › Forums › Notebook Manufacturers › HP, Compaq and Voodoo Forums › HP, Compaq and Voodoo Notebooks › HP misleading and ripping off consumers