HP 17.3" Intel i5 Quad-Core 256G Notebook

HP 17.3" Intel i5 Quad-Core 256G Notebook

HP strikes again. Fairly recent decent Intel Core i5-8265U processor, 256GB PCIe Solid State Drive, 8GB DDR4 workable- but then lets kill it by putting a 17.3" 1600 x 900 panel on there. Did they have to travel back in time to find that panel.

1 Like

What, specifically, will this so-called lower resolution influence? Gaming? Movies? Photo editing? Word processing?

Or perhaps, in what cases will it not matter?

“DVD drive - watch movies on your computer; read and write CDs and DVDs in multiple formats.”

When was this made? Will this play Blue Ray DVDs?

C’mon Radiojohn- on a 17.3 inch panel 1600x900 is clearly blocky. It’s not like 1920x1080 resolution is asking too much- I can’t imagine why anyone even still manufactures a 17.3" 1600x900 when the cost of making these panels has dropped tremendously. The only excuse I can see is that HP had an inventory of old panels, but it’s unfortunate they chose to pair it with a computer that has much more potential. You want to use up this panel, put it on a laptop that has a Celeron N4020 processor, 4GB of RAM, and a 120GB SSD and sell it for $250- that would make much more sense.

I have an older HP laptop with 1600x900 resolution and a Ryzen 3. I also have a creator’s laptop with a Core I9 and a 4k OLED display. I find myself using the HP a lot for video conferencing and browsing the web. It works fine for me as long as I’m not doing anything heavy and the display is fine for what I use it for.

1 Like

It matters just for looking at the screen.

I mean, the 16" MacBook Pro has a 3072×1920 display, in order to display 1536 x 960 at a reasonable level of clarity. Anything less than that these days hurts your eyes to look at for any length of time, and looks very blurry. I tend to not care as much on Windows, because it doesn’t look great even at high DPI, but this display is barely 100 PPI! Every display, even cheap ones, should aim for as close to 300 PPI as they can.

All fine and dandy, but not at $499.99.

Maybe because I remember using the original IBM CGA color monitor at 640x200 resolution with 4-bit color which displayed an amazing 16 colors, which I think really did screw up my eyes. We really didn’t have HD+ monitors at 1600x900 and above until PC’s were well established and actually fairly recently.

I wonder what the cost difference was between a 1600x900 vs 1920x1080 display?
on a17" screen it couldn’t have been that difficult to manufacture a 1920x1080.

I remember those times! For CGA, 640x200 was monochrome mode; 320x200 was 4 colors, and 160x200 was 16 colors.

EGA brought 16 colors at 640x350.

Then VGA came along at 640x480, 256 colors, and unlike CGA or EGA, it’s analog.

Along with the PS/2 keyboard port, the 15-pin D-sub still remains in some modern computers, 3+ decades later.