You are browsing within the review sections of our forums. Content within these sections reflect consumer opinions of laptops. Our admins take the best and most objective laptop reviews and index them here to create a distinct selection of quality reviews with averaged overall ratings. Many of these reviews have benchmarks attached to them which allows for users to compare their laptop's performance with others, and ultimately enables us to provide a sortable list which at a glance show the fastest laptops amongst a variety of applications (gaming, video editing, web browsing, etc...). Help us build a better laptop database by submitting your laptop review.

Over winter break, I got to use my little sisters' computer, a Hewlett-Packard DV2000T in the typical "store special" package. For 6 weeks I sat around and used it, taught them to use it, and in the process learned a good chunk about Windows Vista and just HOW high its system requirements are to run the way it was designed to run. Here goes reporting back after optimizing and getting rid of the standard bloatware and trialware that comes with most "bestbuy / big box" computers.

From an empirical presence, the DV2000T is obviously going to be far smaller than the m1710 (we're comparing a 14" screened economy laptop to a 17" high-end gaming laptop). Surprisingly, in spite of its smaller screen, it isn't much thinner than the m1710 due to it's slight angling of the keyboard that lifts the rear approximately 1/4" above the centerline. I'm not sure what HP was attempting to get from this look, perhaps to give off the impression that it is a high performance laptop, or to make it more appealing to people before they realise what's under the keyboard, but for an "entry-level" laptop it just seems somewhat out of place. If HP uses the body for higher-level 14" laptops (I'm not entirely sure), then they are giving too much performance to the exterior and potentially setting up their clientele for disappointment when they see what's under the keyboard, and the faux carbon-fiber like palmrests.

Speaking of keyboard and palmrests (and the like), the DV2000t shows it was most certainly built to a pricepoint. Both my younger sisters (14, 12, and 11) and myself have noticed a great deal of flex in the palmrests, and the keys fail to give that assurance that they are not going to drop out from below you while being used. Now granted, any computer, including high-end computers will bend if you apply sufficient pressure to the handrests and keyboards, but to sit and leisurely be typing and be able to SEE a slight formation of a happyface in the handrests is not a good sign, especially considering that heavy traffic from 3 pre-adolescent females will be its daily usage. Upon contacting HP to the problem of an excessively flimsy user area, I was told that it is a somewhat common problem and that it partially comes down to inherent size, the way its being used, as well as HP having to satisfy a pricepoint for consumers, so I guess I cannot entirely hold this one against them.

Where I can hold HP accountable is for 2 areas: CPU choice and GPU choice. First let's focus on the CPU. Choosing a TL-56 at 1.8GHz with a mere 512kb of L2 cache is a throwback to the original celeron and dothan CPUs of intel from 2003, only except with dual-core. Although using very low-end CPUs are commonly used with inexpensive laptops to minimize the cost to consumers, there comes a point where the processor used is so slow that even the simplest of tasks take a great deal of time to be processed. In this case, it's not entirely the fault of the Hard Drive, which in this instance is a 160GB 5400rpm hard drive; and for the price range, perfectly acceptable at that. Back to the CPU, it's one thing if one were to try running ProTools LE on this computer, then it would be understandable to see consisten CPU slowdowns, however to see the task manager read 100% when performing tasks as simple as windows update for vista. Programs as typical as IE7 display "the computer is busy, would you like to wait" boxes, "this program is not responding" boxes, etc., all of which are signs of a CPU that's simply being pushed too hard by an omnipresent OS.

Speaking of pushed too hard, whoever decided that a GeForce Go 6150 would be enough to run a Vista-Premium Machine should be shot on the spot. Even after reducing the "Vista-ishness" of the computer to "Vista classic" and setting up the computer display properties for "best performance", it was not uncommon for many flash games on miniclip and even things as cocmmonplace as a clean DVD will skip. Now for the flash sites, I can say with the increasing complexity of flash games that the 6150 may be pushed too hard, but I cannot see how a clean DVD would be causing the screen to stutter out individual frames from time to time. Perhaps this is also something in Vista, but I'll wait till SP1 is installed before I make final judgment as to whether it's simply the immaturity of Vista, or whether the GPU is a legitimate stinker. In fact, it is here where Windows Vista's VEI (Vista Experience Index) scores lowest --- a 1.9. A 1.9 rated machine should NOT be forced to run Vista, let alone try to run the "Premium" elements of it. For this reason I'm considering putting XP into it in the hopes that the performance will pick up a bit and stuttering will be curtailed.

2GB of memory is supplied here, of which up to 256MB is allocated to the GPU. This is an integrated card, so it has no onboard memory. What this means is that with Vista on board, and with the GPU being a more than slight RAM parasite, the realistic amount of memory left to the user hangs at approximately 800MB after superfetch and other "Vista amenities" get their share at startup. Even after turning off un-necessary services using BlackViper's guide to tweaking and using various performance tweaks to provide a more classic view, I was only able to free up to 1.1GB, although CPU use did drop slightly. 2GB is most definitely not the sweet spot of true vista, and even with vista stripped to a more Windows 95 / 98 / 2000 appearance, it is still quite the memory hog, requiring a large (4GB in this case) paging file in order to be able to use the computer without having to resort to more drastic, hardware-based measures that could cause Vista to have a stroke.

If there is one thing though, that the DV2000T does do well, it's perform basic tasks. Granted with Vista running, starting up things takes a lot longer than necessary, but once a basic task is up and running (ie: MS works, AIM, Yahoo Messenger, Icy Towers), performance although leisurely is not as drastically hampered as during startup or under heavy load. This computer shines as a basic home computer, start up, type, surf basic sites, chat, use the onboard solitaire / chess / etc. games, and (don't laugh) a testing ground for perfomance tweaks since every little boost seems so much bigger on this machine. While this may seem minimally exceptional in light of what havoc I've written, it's not entirely the machine's fault. If XP was offered in place of vista, I'm sure this machine would be quite competent at slightly more complex tasks, and even handling older games. Perhaps that what this computer needs to give it the appropriate boost and fair chance it needs.

Parts to upgrade:
2GB to 4GB RAM
TL-56 to TL-58, preferably TL-60
Windows Vista to Windows XP

were there multiple options for cpus when you bought this?

how come the cnet review has this as a core duo cpu?

I'm not exactly sure how come. It was a hanukkah present for my little sisters from my parents and grandmother, and unless the dv2000t had multiple platforms, then I ened to take another look. It was a "store" package, and I can go and have my little sisters take a look on the "promo sticker" when they get home from school. Would be interesting if multiple cpu options DID exist.

you gonna upload pics?

I'm in binghamton, new york, my little sisters are on Long Island. I'd have to have them take pictures and email me them before I can post them. Also, how do you post pictures on here without needing a jumbovision screen to see them?

hi there in mew here, i have hp pavilion dv2000 with 4gb memory and 250gb hdd and i see that the video memory says that it has total avaliable video memory is 1071MB and only using 64MB com-on man thats some real big BS! sorry but i had to say it. it should atleast have 128mb but i prefer 256 or 512 best for me, well my question is, is it possible to use more video memory since it has 1071mb because this shit is kinda slow or atleast where can i buy new video card if possible , this one is nvidia?
Processor: AMD Turion(tm) 64 X2 TL-62 (2002 MHz)
Operating System: Microsoft Windows Vista x64 (Service Pack 1)
DirectX version: 10.0
GPU processor: GeForce 7150M / nForce 630M
ForceWare version: 156.71
Total available graphics memory: 1071 MB
Dedicated video memory: 64 MB
System video memory: 0 MB
Shared system memory: 1007 MB
Video BIOS version: 5.67.32.16.06
IRQ: 23

update:

(you're all gonna laugh), but after a year and a half I finally discovered you can't upgrade the RAM past 2GB, but I'm still going to give a shot to upgrading the HDD to a 320gb 7200rpm rig and the CPU to a TL-68, to give it a small shot in the arm of oomph. Maybe I'll also upgrade the RAM to a lower-latency as well if it's remotely cost-effective. My little sisters finally realized (after playing on my np8662) they need a small boost of speed, and fast.

Passmark Score uploaded: a 318.3..... sooo close to unseating q's toshiba from "last place"

Jason

You might be able to do that after all. We just played with some upgrades (ssd and cpu). Will post the updates as soon as it runs "stable". This ding is not made for oc-ers

cheers ...

noooo, i wanted to get the score so low that it did that itself! ie: i have the fastest 15" on record (1635.2), why not get the slowest 14" too?

Jason