HP misleading and ripping off consumers - Page 3

Nesmira did a great job of finally giving us concrete info. If only HP support could do the same. Pastkev, can you also activate my username on zv6000forums (scottman). The activation email was blank, so I was never able to activate.

But I still don't see why some people are so overheated by this. I would compare it to a car that is designed to be capable of being equipped with side curtain airbags, ABS, stability control etc. The top model will advertise those features and cost more. The base model may have been designed to hold those features and probably even has some of the required equipment and wiring leads (but nonfunctional), but since that model does not have those features, the consumer pays less to not get them. Does Honda have to advertise explicitly that the base model accord does not have side airbags even though the higher model does. No! They advertise that the top-of-the-line model HAS side airbags.

In this case, HP could have enabled dual channel in the design because of the socket 939 chip they used, but for some unknown reason they didn't. They never advertised it (or socket 939 for that matter), so in my opinion, they are not responsible. Maybe I am just jaded by how other companies behave, but I don't see how they owe us anything else. The consumer can see the ADVERTISED specs themselves, read the reviews, decide if this is the notebook for them, and either buy it or buy something else. There are bigger problems to spend your time arguing about, especially when it is already a good deal for the features we DO get.

The fact is I love my laptop and would still purchase it with just one channel.

I think they are a great buy.

HP did not advertise, but because they do not disclaim, their own sales gives false information to this day.

Here is how it happens:

I call HP Shopping and ask if the unit has dual channel. The sales person, not understanding what dual channel is, looks and sure enough, there are two memory slots. Hence 2 channels. He replies with a resounding yes.

The mistake is innocent enough. But, I believe sales has confirmed the unit has dual channel and order the unit.

If they would simply put out a disclaimer, these mistakes would not occur.


I posted a request for the administrator to add you. Give him some time to get the message.

I would like to point something out. Actually HP did advertise the system as a 939 socket. Where you might ask. They offer the 4000+. You can't get the 4000+ in socket 754 because the same CPU on the 754 is the 3700+. They both are (2.4GHz 1MB L2) The reason the 939 version is rated at 4000+ is because of the extra speed gained by Dual Channel. Without Dual Channel they actually sell you a 3700+. Pay for a 4000+ get a 3700+. Lied to. Simple as that. No?

I know its coming so bring on the hate.

i just dont know how 64 traces could save them that much money. In fact, I can't figure out any reason why you would intentially cripple something that already exists and runs fine in its current form.

Oh wait, I forgot, Intel is greasing your palms so you dont make a laptop that outperforms their shitty chips.

Well... If that information is correct then there would be no chance of DC being enabled later... Non the less, Im not sure if the information is creatable I would love to get my hands on closer footage of the test. I will admit however the tests were done exactly how they should have been.


Who knows why they did it... It would have costed more yes, and maybe more than we think to have shipped the systems with DC... Personally i think it would have been smarter (though more costly) to use dedicated video memory and DC...

I also would like to point out that Intel doesnt grease HP hands... Its the other way around... ... lol... no jk... The reason they still favor intel is because of contracts that were signed YEARS ago retaining to HP servers/the cpus for those servers... HP's real servers like the RP8480's use HP designed, Intel manufactured CPU's... Remember back in the day HP designed and built their CPUs but got out of the business and handed that part over to Intel who was the biggest at the time.

HP has been greasing Intels hands for years now when it comes to HP designed CPU's... HP figured out the dual die/dual core method that Intels using (HP, Intel, AMD, all were dumping millions into the projects but HP figured it out about 4 years ago), HP told them that they could use the designs for anything they wanted after 3 years, which is why Intel now has dual core cpus for desktops... HP gave them a foot up...

Anyways, Thats one of the specal things HP has had for a couple years for their real servers...

Yes, that's how most of the enthusiasts here figured out what was in the system before we even had anything in our hands. I was also hoping for a dual channel system. But where does it specify that anyone who uses AMD's chips has to enable dual channel? If someone ordered a true dual channel capable 4000+ 939 system with only 1 stick of RAM with no intention to add another stick, should they not be able to sell it to you because the marketing rating should be changed to reflect this? They are still giving you the chip AMD calls 4000+. What should they call it? Since AMD does not make the motherboards, maybe they should not rate their chips without knowing what systems they will go into, or else they should take more control over how PC makers configure AMD systems if they want to rate their chips ASSUMING optimal dual channel configuration.

My guess for why HP didn't add the 64 traces is that they already had similar proven single channel designs they could easily modify to socket 939 and either didn't foresee a demand for dual channel in a notebook or met early design problems from the configuration that they didn't have time to iron out. Over at zv6000forums, someone also thought it would lower battery life, which I know is a HUGE design requirement for those designing laptop configs these days. They might win over a few enthusiasts by claiming dual channel, but MANY more consumers would rather have longer batterly life.

I agree 100%... & Couldnt have said it better myself...

Scottman I understand what you said and I agree with you somewhat. I think we should have been given the option to add the second stick for dual. As for battery life I don't think HP gives a S#$T. Most of the people that have bought the notebook so far have got the OLD Newcastle and Hammer core CPUs. The Venice and SanDiego consume 1/3 less power and generate less heat which means that the fans don't need to run as much. Thats 2 power savers in one. I know the argument about getting rid of old stock. If they want to do that use the old chips in desktops where battery is not an issue.

The desktops & laptop stocks are NEVER merged nor should they be... Also the better chips would have costed the End user more money.

Teckng778 they used desktop CPUs in the notebooks. Not mobiles. Some of the users have gotten the Venice. Not many but some have. Not fair when we both pay for the same thing.

So... I paid for a P4 when i got my laptop If i got the P4m I dont care. The Desktop CPU's were cheaper Im sure and I'll bet you they still didnt pull stock from the desktop side. They do use desktop CPU's in laptops you know. Also the Average user wont care what Core they got.

Now Im wondering... What core did they tell you they were going to be selling you? Did they even say? Now If they were using different cpus in the for example, zv6015, which wouldnt be a CTO then i would have a serous problem with that.

Teckng778 when I talk to HP they always say they have no control over which CPU is going to be used. The people we talk to don't have a connection to the people who build. It is simply buy the mystery box and see what you get.

"They do use desktop CPU's in laptops you know."
Yes I know and that is the reason many people bought this notebook and are disappointed because it doesn't use all the features built into it. Also if there is a far less power consuming core available they should use it. Battery is still important or is it. You seem to be a little unsure about that. First you say don't cry they disabled that feature because they wanted more battery life. Than you say don't cry when the desktop version (which consumes more power) is used over the mobile. Which is it?

"Also the Average user wont care what Core they got."
I am not the average user and I care. Just because I am not the majority I don't matter? Is that what you think?

Battery life is important to most users of that i am sure. I say don't cry when they disable a feature because they wanted more battery life. Thus they can use a desktop CPU. So you don't need to pay another $150+ would you have gotten the laptop if it were another $175+ just to have a CPU that uses less power & Have DC enabled? I'll bet thats how much more they would have priced the laptop... You may have paid the extra but would the average user had wanted to? Nope... That would have cut into their sales & they are running a business here.


I know your not an average user. And yes because your are not the majority what you think doesn't matter to a large corp like HP, Dell, Gateway, Acer, IBM, etc... The fact is they don't care about the little people until you are buying business class notebooks and are paying out of the @$$... That's not what i think, its what i know. Its too bad the system was under development and in R&D when Carly was in charge. At the time she knew she was doing a sh!t job and needed to save money. I give it 3:1 odds that's one of the reasons they went cheap on a system for home users.


Home users don't buy tons of laptops very year do they... If you expected everything you should have gone for a business class system...

Teckng778 you seem to have some inside knowledge of HP. I thought I was talking to a HP guy. You seem to see both the business and common sense sides but side with the business. I will always side with common because its more fair.

If they decide to disable a system feature for what ever reason they should admit to it when asked why. The people at HP that users get to talk to don't even have a way of finding the truth so they have to make stuff up.

To sell a product for less because you disable some features is not fair because it cost you the same. Example Nvidia has the GeForce and Quadro line of cards. They sell the high end Quadros for $1000 more over the GeForce and the GPU is the same and cost the same to make. The difference is the drivers. I know they put more into developing the GeForce and the Quadros are an after thought because the game cards sell more. Games are the biggest driving force on computer performance today. If they actually developed a real workstation GPU it would perform better in the High end apps than they do now. That would cost too much. So they slap on a different name tweak the drivers a little and BAM extra $1000. Nice trick until the end user finds out. They have gone to great lengths to lock out the GeForce user from using the quadro drivers but it has been done. So many times when both run the same drivers the performance is the same. This is true for the GeForce 2, 3, 5800, and 6800. ATI does the same thing. Also many times you could flash a standard Radeon into a PRO because the GPU is the same but some pipelines were turned off in the BIOS. Cost the same to make the GPU and the GPU has the same performance potential/yield but sold for vastly different prices. I could go on with more examples but that should be enough.

Who said Life is fair? Not me but I will do my best to help keep the other little guys like me from getting stepped on.

You also seem to have missed the point where some get the better core but not all. If we are buying the same product we should get the same product.

I cant comment now how i know what i do but i dont work for HP right now, but the sales reps, managers, tech's, and everyone for the notebooks designed for home users have NO access or any way to speak to an engineer until you get into QC, and sales & tech support cannot contact QC, R&D, etc, there is no number they are allowed to have. I don't care if they say they will elevate it to an engineer that designed it, All they do is get someone in the same department that's been around for along time ...

Chances are the engineers don't know anyone has EVER complained. Considering that their jobs are now over for the zv6000 you may never get the truth unless you have the correct numbers and even then you have to use those numbers from an HP system in the USA that has authorization to make calls to any department.

I agree that it would be great if the team (or someone from that team) that designed the system could give an answer but realistically we wont ever get one because chances are that team has been resigned to a new project, maybe even the zv7000 or an intel version of the zv6000 which i dont expect to see. So unless you meet one of these guys who may still work out of the HP Lincoln, CA site you wont get an answer and even then they may not be allowed to talk about it...


I under stand that people are getting different cores which i cannot explain if someone gets a Venice & another person gets a Newcastle in the same laptop, I.E., a zv6015us (Only thing i can say is if they ran out of the Newcastle's first and had more systems to ship they would have bitten the bullet and put a better core in the laptop). Now if someone got a Newcastle in a zv6015us and someone got a Venice in a zv6080 those are NOT the same products but they are from the same product line. The model numbers and very important...

I skipped over that part intentionally figuring you didnt care much about it... I was very busy this morning & was trying to answer you faster... Sorry.

Thanks for the info Teckng778.

You have been activated.

no problem...