Slashdot Mirror
Should a '9200' Brand Mean a 9200 GPU?
newsdee asks: "An enormous controversy is going on at the X1000 forums over laptop parts. Some Centrino-based laptops bear a label advertising the Mobility Radeon 9200 brand, but users have found out that the laptop actually contains the 9000 chip. The list of affected machines is as follows: Compaq Presario X1000, HP Pavilion ZT3000 and the HP Compaq NX7000. ATI's and HP's response have been that the label is promising performance and not a specific chip. Yet users seem to not like this at all, apparently because most of them define 'brand' as equating to product. According to reviews, there are no differences (same scores, same clock speed) between the chips other than AGP 8x support, which the Centrino chipset does not provide. I seem to remember that this is not the first time that this kind of thing has happened in PC hardware. Can anybody share insights of whether this is right or wrong? Should I complain about my 9000 chip that delivers what the 9200 brand promises, knowing it has not been overclocked?"
Its the 9200th FP!
beef, chicken, fish, ... and now this??
Even if it performs like a 9200, if it does not have a 9200, it's False and Misleading advertising- and that is quite illegal. Even if it's a mistake, the companies guilty of this typically end up on the end of a class-action suit and pay out some small rebate or similar.
I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a Citizen of the State of Texas
SCO does the same thing, advertising operating systems that are barely UNIX93-compliant as cutting edge.
You can't judge a book by the way it wears its hair.
This makes no sense. The only difference between what these
fools thought they were getting, and what they got, is something
their mobo doesn't support anyway. They are delivering
exactly what they promised - a 9200 in the same machine would
be indistinguishable from a 9000.
Nothing to see here folks.
If there's no difference in performance or realisable features, then what's the problem ? If there was any measurable difference, that would be a different issue.
Sounds to me like a bunch of people wanting to "upgrade" their machines at someone else's expense. I think it's shady marketing practices (marketing should reflect reality. Sigh.) but I don't see there's been any harm done....
Simon.
Physicists get Hadrons!
Can anybody share insights of whether this is right or wrong? Should I complain about my 9000 chip that delivers what the 9200 brand promises, knowing it has not been overclocked?"
That depends... Do you consider it "misleading" to label an Athlon running at 1.8GHz as a 2200?
And do you consider it misleading to label a chip "MP" vs "XP" simply based on a level of testing, rather than a different physical product?
Model numbers often reflect the underlying hardware, but we've never had that to count on. If you want to know the technical specs, look them up, don't extrapolate from the marketing BS.
According to reviews, there are no differences (same scores, same clock speed)
If this is the case, then functionally they're the same in the way they work. To me, that's acceptable. In the auto world for example, it's often been the case that components are switched somewhere in the middle of a model run, with a functionally equivalent part. Years down the track one or the other may prove to be the better lasting part, but as sold and for the purpose they're advertised for - if they work they same they are the same
(unless I'm missing something)
nude macgirls webcam
Why is it that truth in advertising doesn't seem to matter in computer hardware and software?
Companies seem to be allowed to say whatever they want and don't seem to be taken to task very often by the Federal Trade Commission. It seems that regulation of corporate activities is a thing of the past.
Intolerance for ambiguity is the mark of the authoritarian personality.
My 15" Titanium PowerBook, the last round of the series before they became the 15" AlPB, was advertised to contain a Radeon 9000. Nevertheless, bus scanning output from in shows I actually have an 8500. What's the difference? I really don't know. Nevertheless, seems a bit deceptive to me.
Join Tor today!
...would someone explain me why one wants a laptop with a highest performance 3D accelerated card that makes sense only in newest games - where you miss half or more the experience without a 5+1 sound system all around you, a decent quality, at least 17" monitor, a good heavyweight manipulator or at least a normal keyboard plus mouse... definitely not a laptop hardware...
45 5F E1 04 22 CA 29 C4 93 3F 95 05 2B 79 2A B2
Maybe they're just 9000's with 9200 drivers? :) Re: This
If I took the Linux 2.4.23 kernel, and changed the source code to make it report 2.6.2. Its the same old kernel, but with the new version number. Should a 2.6 brand mean a 2.6 kernel?
Come on, AMD got this idea years ago when they dropped the actual speed from their CPU model names and replaced it with a higher number.
Martin
...You Missed...
(With apologies to "Ti Kwan Leap"...)
I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a Citizen of the State of Texas
My company owns a bunch of X1000s and frankly what HP/Compaq puts inside doesn't matter at all. The 9000/9200 are equivalent (AGP speed being the only difference). They're both Directx 8.1 level chipsets. Big Whoop.
It's not as if HP/Compaq are not delivering on what's being promised.
I prefer that my vendors not try to deceive me, even if the deception is harmless.
If a laptop box says it is "powered by 1000 midget hamsters" in big red letters you can be sure that it is. Or you could read the specifications. Now if the specifications say it is powered by a 1000 midget hamsters, make sure you pick up plenty of hamster food before you leave the store.
I Am My Own Worst Enemy
They must have learned their branding scheme from AMD, just as the AMD Athlon XP (example) 2400+ chip performs like a 2.4G but clocks in at 2.0G.
It's "marketeering"
What? ATI using deceptive marketing practises? I never would have guessed! You know what they say, if it QUACKS like a duck, it's ATI! QUACK QUACK ATI!
I believe that TomsHardware ran a review recently of barebones laptops that are coming more and more into the mainstream. Like and self respecting geek, I would actually go after one of those as my choice; partially for the geek factor and partially because I know exactly what it is that's going into the system.
/. about many of them coming with spyware pre-installed.
Outside of a workplace environment (where the brand of system is monitored by the big-wigs), I don't think I'd ever really go after a PC or Laptop that was manufactured by the big name manufacturers. Especially after the previous discussions we've had here on
Besides, even big name Manufacturers like AMD have taken alot of flak for their numbering scheme with respect to their processors, so it could just be a case of other companies seeing that they can safely follow suit.
Just my uninformed 2 cents...
"Operating systems suck: you're better off using only the BIOS" --trainsaw.com
A few years back I bought a Dell and selected the Voodoo3 3000 video card because I wanted TV Out. I was annoyed to find that although the clock speed of the Voodoo3 chip was right, it had no video out. The question is what made the Voodoo3 3000 a 3000 instead of a 2000, the higher clock or the TV Out. Anyway, I think this is a normal problem with OEM dealers. OEM parts means bulk sales which means they really don't need to have all the advertised features of the retail. Sucks but that's how it is, check the specs before you buy.
...using the same amount of $20 bills as you would use $100 bills instead, and explain them the $20 bills you give them are of the $100 brand quality.
Customers who complain should be refunded 200 tiny little violins.
I have an 9000 card already. And my sole reason to buy that computer were to open it up and look on the circuits for fun. Then you would be mad.
I think it does not matter how it is doing in some benchmark. If they said they had that card, then I expect to get it. My reason are mine.
----
How about if I go to the Hyundai dealership, and they have this nice little car that has a 300hp V6! So I buy it, only to find that the engine inside is a dinky little 100hp. I complain, and get the answer, "well the 300hp doesn't fit in there".
Just because the Centrino doesn't support the extra feature (AGP8x, which is not just some random arbitrary feature), doesn't mean you can try and advertise having it! And using the 9200 name is doing exactly that.
(Forgive any flaws in my car analogy - I'm not really a car guy, and I'm sure it shows).
If the company advertised that it's a 9200, then there had better BE a 9200 in the machine in question, even if it wouldn't be any better on the laptop than the 9000. Anything else is False and Misleading advertising and is illegal. Companies ending up doing this, even by accident, have been on the end of class-action suits in the past (and legitimately so- it IS against the law...) and have ended up either upgrading people, handing out rebates, etc. as a result.
I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a Citizen of the State of Texas
It's definitely misleading, and probably wouldn't stand up in court. They can't say that a lesser product, since it has no disadvantage in the current configuration, is the same as a superior product. They sold you a 9200, and what you got was a 9000. It doesn't matter if they function the same, what matters is you didn't get what you ordered. End of story.
Slashdot: Playing Favorites Since 1997
The case with AMD is different. It was used to compete with a different company. (Apparently not enough people know what's going on in processors to realize that clock speed does not necessitate higher performance). AMD didn't sell you a 1.4ghz chip it said was 1.6ghz, it sold you a 1.4ghz chip that it said was equivalent to the performance of a 1.6ghz chip from Intel. (Who's megahertz rating has become the performance rating due to dominant market share). Whether or not the performance rating is calculated properly is an entirely different issue. However, if ATi IS selling you something it says is a Radeon 9200, it should BE a Radeon 9200, not a Radeon 9000 (despite the fact that there should be no performance differences). It's the principle of the matter, give them an inch and they'll take a mile. Soon they'll be selling you Radeon 8billions that are actually Radeon 7200's. (Not to pick on ATi but the post is about them - I'm sure nVidia isn't any better)
Just for you information:
Radeon 9000 = AGP 4X
Radeon 9200 = Radeon 9000 + AGP 8X
Centrino = AGP 4X
So, HP thought they might as well stick in some Radeon 9000 and no one would tell the difference.
I am not disagreeing with you by the way.
...these same laptop owners report their hard drives format at less than the advertised size for some inexplicable reason.
Companies should properly and accurately represent what is in a device (it is required by law, you know...) and nothing less. Representing that there is a 9200 in the laptop, when in fact, there is a 9000 in the device is illegal as it's a misrepresentation of what is in the machine. It's called False and Misleading advertising and NO company should be allowed ANY slack on this one.
I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a Citizen of the State of Texas
In my experience, ATI rehashes and re-uses elements of their video card names frequently. Even the names of old, obsoleted chips will get reused years later on something new and completely different.
If it makes anyone feel any better, i recently tried hunting down a video driver for a customer's machine... Win2K identified the driver as a RAGE 128 PRO, the part number on one side of the card identified it as an Xpert 2000, and the part number on the other side of the card identified it as a 3rd party clone using licensed ATI parts/design. Also, it would not accept any of the drivers on ATI's site- We ended up replacing the card with something we knew we had the correct driver for.
Also, my test box at home is a K6-II with an old ATI card in it. Solaris identifies it as a RAGE PRO TURBO. Various implementations of XFree86 and/or lspci have identified it as such:
Xpert 98
Xpert 99
Xpert @ Play
Xpert @ Work
Rage Pro II
Rage Pro Turbo
Rage Pro Turbo II
Rage Plus
Rage Ultra
Maybe I am just a retard and can't identify a piece of hardware correctly, but maybe the model of card that is being reported on some of these laptops is incorrect vs. the actual set of chips?
Fwiw, i think ATI is teh h4rd suX.
ymmv.
hth.
do() || do_not();
If your purchased product comes with a different feature, and it is better than what it should have been, then you are lucky. If it is the opposite, then this is a simple violation of truth in advertising laws. You are owed either a refund or an exchange so you can have the actual product for which you paid for.
There is no middle ground here, if the difference in the product does not make it better (like for example, if by mistake they give you a computer with a faster CPU or GPU than what you intended on purchasing) then it is *their* problem. They can sugar coat it all they want, but it is only a matter of hours until the first class action happens.
If they are smart they will try to exchange these products ASAP and hope the consumers will be happy with the replacement.
Pedro
----
The Insomniac Coder
"Even if it performs like a 9200, if it does not have a 9200, it's False and Misleading advertising- and that is quite illegal."
And how fast does a 1700+ processor run?
Maybe somebody redefined 1GHz as 940MHz, after nobody noticed when they redefined the 1GB as 1000MB
The chips perform the same, so i don't see if that's a huge problem.
Besides, Chevy now sells a car it calls "Impala" that's Front wheel drive, V-6, 4-door sedan. In 1964 it was a v-8 rear drive 2-door coupe, sedan or convertible. Does that mean the new Impala really isn't an impala at all?
You like your new Mac more than you like me, don't you, Dave? Dave? I asked...She said Yes.
Get your ruler out and measure the viewable size of your monitor(s). I can tell you with utmost certainty that it's about 1" less than you were expecting. This is a deceptive marketing tactic which has been in use for computer displays for a very long time. Marketing measures the size of the tube (which is partially obscured by the plastic casing), not how much of it actually displays stuff.
Join Tor today!
It's EXACTLY what's going on, expressed in something that most everyone else would understand.
I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a Citizen of the State of Texas
They killed my beloved Compaq
They dumped Perens
See what's coming
"Starting this year, we'll strive to build every one of our consumer devices to respect digital rights."
"This may sound personal," Iovine said. "It is personal."
They want it to be personal, let us make it so.
There are places where the networks are not touching,and there are places where they are-Boeing's Lori Gunter
Just for you information:
Radeon 9000 = AGP 4X
Radeon 9200 = Radeon 9000 + AGP 8X
Centrino = AGP 4X
So, HP thought they might as well stick in some Radeon 9000 and no one would tell the difference.
That actually makes it worse; HP is not only lying about the GPU, HP is passing of their laptop as a AGP 8X machine since sticking a 9200 in an AGP 4X machine is a dumb-ass configuration (it may work, but not up to spec). Since the comparative cost of a GPU is much lower than that of the rest of the laptop, that's the bigger lie.
You can't legally pass off a motor-bike as a 4 Wheel Drive last time I checked.
SCO employee? Check out the bounty
I don't know how significant not have 8x AGP is, but if it's not there, it's not there.
Sometimes I wonder who comes up with these strategies. I mean, we've seen this type of thing time and again. If companies are willing to go through so much negative publicity to do them, they must be fooling quite a large number of people for it to pay off!
That is why it is a 1700+ and not a 1700GHz. Because it does not run at 1700GHz they will not claim it does, they will claim it runs at a similar throughput on the GHz scaling of the previous line of processors. Now ATI/HP could have called this a 9200+ and defined what this meant, but they didn't, they said it was something different (not that it makes much difference short of cannibilising the system).
--
FreeNET user? Comfortable with the adverse selection?
It has come to the attention of HP that there is some confusion regarding the graphics solution in certain HP notebooks that are sold with ATI MOBILITY(tm) RADEON(tm) 9200 graphics. The effected notebooks, when advertised and sold with MOBILITY RADEON 9200 graphics do correctly include the graphics solution specified. The particular brand applied to a graphics solution is based on several elements, including the silicon, video memory, electrical implementation on the system board including clock frequencies, the drivers, and the video graphics BIOS. The brand is determined by a number of factors and is not solely limited to the silicon or ASIC used. In the case of the notebooks in question, HP and ATI designed a solution inclusive of all of the above elements that are branded and sold as MOBILITY RADEON 9200 graphics in the selected notebooks. This solution was created for supply flexibility, and it has been fully tested by HP and certified by ATI to ensure that performance consistency and parity of the MOBILITY RADEON 9200 brand are achieved with these models. The ATI chip itself contains the MOBILITY RADEON 9000 family designator, which is only one factor in determining the graphics controller brand in a notebook computer. We apologize for any inconvenience this confusion may have caused. Q&A (for response to specific inquiries only) * Q: Doesn't the MOBILITY RADEON 9200 graphics solution include AGP8X? Why isn't this enabled on the Presario X1000? A: HP never advertised or made any claims the notebook or graphics controller supports AGP 8X. In the case of the Presario X1000, 8X AGP operating mode is not supported due to the feature not being present on the Intel(r) 855pm chipset which is used on the Compaq Presario X1000 notebook PC. Also, AGP 8X mode operation is not a requirement for the MOBILITY RADEON 9200 brand. More information on the Intel 855 Chipset family can be found at: http://intel.com/design/chipsets/mobile/855_fam.ht m?iid=ipp_browse+chpst
s_fe
* Q: How does the graphics performance of HP's MOBILITY RADEON 9200
graphics solution compare with other ATI 9200-based graphics solutions?
A: The MOBILITY RADEON 9200 graphics solution provided on the Compaq
Presario X1000 provides equivalent features and performance to other
notebooks with MOBILITY RADEON 9200 graphics solutions.
* Q: Is the practice of using a graphics ASIC physically marked or
identified differently than the brand name for the graphics solution
commonplace, or is this a unique case?
A: While not extremely common, this practice is not unusual or unique.
The graphics ASIC or chip alone does not determine the final brand for
the
part.
* Q: Why is the ATI graphics ASIC marked, "9000", if the solution
is
branded "9200"?
A: The "ATI MOBILITY(tm) RADEON(tm) 9200" brand comprises a complete
graphics solution, including graphics ASIC, video bios, video driver,
and
system board implementation. The actual label on the chip doesn't in
this
case communicate specific features to customers.
9200 brands. What is it all about... is it good, or is it whack?
HP did this many years ago. Back in 1992 or 1993, they had a desktop model "HP 686." It was just a 286 CPU (probably an AMD, not sure), and at the time, very few people even knew the processor numbers, let alone associate models with it.
But the few people who did follow such things felt the desktop's model number was very misleading. Then again, the people who were in the know knew there was no 686 CPU...so it was a wash.
A programmer is a machine for converting coffee into code.
Quite simply, they suck.
AMD doesn't claim it runs at 1700Mhz, it seems that they have the same problem here.
ie. they never were promised a real 9200 chip.
The 1GB=1000MB is far more nastier since in the 'normal' meaning of Giga and Mega that is correct although not common in computer land.
There is a very large grey area between downright misleading and nice sounding numbers in advertising.
(If not practicly every commercial would be outlawed)
Jeroen
Secure messaging: http://quickmsg.vreeken.net/
Your call. I'll bet they're not the first vendor (from any manufacturing sector) to replace functionally-identical parts with cheaper ones though. I'd be willing to bet that parts from a range of items (your toaster through washing machine, car through calculator, skiing-jacket through water-heater, .....) have had "alternate" supplies made where the customer can't tell the difference.
...
Buying something like this is a promise by the manufacturer that you'll get X for your $Y. If you are getting X for $Y then that's the end of the story for me. We obviously differ on this one
Simon
Physicists get Hadrons!
Can we really do that?
i don't get it.
care to explain?
Obviously you are supposed to read other slashdot posts and learn how to overclock it to 9200.
Seems like HP is notorius for this type of misleading labeling. When I was shopping for a laptop we looked at the HP Pavillion ze4430us (this laptop is crap for Linux by the way, stay far away). It was advertised as 2.0Ghz. We were told it was a 2.0Ghz, but when the box came to the register it said 1.8Ghz. We were then told it operated at the same level as a 2.0Ghz. Go figure
i've noticed that its not too uncommon for computer products to have little magazine testimonial logos ("pc mag editors choice", etc.) and the like on their boxes... but if you read the fine print, you realize that they are all for a previously released product, not for the one in the box.
That's why I always remove the plastic casing.
You post too much
And if I see another "Flat screen" CRT, my head is going to explode. Sorry, suckers, but a flat FRONT of the screen does not make a flat television/monitor. Bulging out 2 feet to the rear isn't what I'd call flat.
:/
There are many reasons why I like LCD, but I'm sure there's something they lie about with those, too
Endless arguments over trivial contradictions in books written by ignorant savages to explain thunder in the dark.
RTFAFAFLFTA....
There never was spyware installed. They just weren't helping customers uninstall it when they got it. (I.e. send em to get AdAware).
Uhh... In reality there's almost no difference between AGP 4x and 8x with current hardware. It's kinda like how SATA is faster than ATA133; it's capable of higher speeds but under current conditions you'll never see the difference.
Even with high-end hardware (think Radeon 9800s) you'll get less than a 5% performance difference by 'doubling' the AGP bus speed.
my sig's at the bottom of the page.
FUCK YOU YOU FUCKING DINGLEBERRY!
I am sick and fucking tired of hearing you bitch and moan in this article, get a fucking LIFE!
Imagine you see two similiar laptops.... ...right?....uhh sorry.....it is deception to increase sales pure and simple....
one has a 9000 and this one has a 9200....
the 9200 is only a few bucks more so you go for that one because you're getting the better graphics
Return it and make it clear why. That should send a signal that they can't get away with this.
Run and catch, run and catch, the lamb is caught in the blackberry patch.
If a company pulled that shit with me, I'd return the hardware, demand a refund and never do business with them again. Sure in this case you don't get burned like that, but if you let the companies get in the habit of doing this, there will be a next time and maybe that time you won't be so lucky. You could waste hours trying to get a component working that won't actually work with your setup.
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
mostly off topic, but interesting: They make two-wheel-drive bicycles now... you could call these "all wheel drive"
The ONLY, repeat ONLY difference between 9000 and 9200, as others have stated, is AGP 8x support. As the motherboard only supports AGP 4x, adding extra circuitry that would make *no difference at all* would be stupid. Sure they're misleading you, but it's no more misleading than a desktop company that puts a real 9200 in a machine with an AGP 4x motherboard.
An enormous controversy is going on at the X1000 forums over laptop parts
You and I have very different ideas about what is `an enormous controversy'
-Colin Gregory Palmer
--
American Weblog in London
Sorry but this is relevant to such a small segment of the population as to be unimportant. I'm sure there are people who know the impedance of every type of gold Monster Cable that Radio Shack sells and can tell you chapter and verse of which part no's are the REAL Monster Cable too.
Great... All of the 'articles' linked in the story are forum posts to a forum that doesn't allow annonymous viewers. While this may be a reaction being /.ed, it doesn't help us any. Would somebody be so kind as to be a karma whore & post them?
my sig's at the bottom of the page.
It's the same thing AMD has been doing recently. They label a chip as (for instance) 3000, and it performs roughly as one would expect from a 3000, but it is really (for instance) a 2200 chip. Shady? Hell yes. But marketing majors have shown that they're good for at least something.
I was curious about this fine print issue, and I came up with this. I thought marketing hype was usually done on the main page for the laptop with some for of words about the product, not specifications. If you look at the specifications for the HP Pavilion ZT3001US, it says ATI Mobility Radeon 9200. It is pretty simple, if that is not what you got, but that is what was specified, then they should make it "right". I think that this is a bait and switch, they tell you that you are buying one thing and then sell you another under the assumption that you will never look under the hood, cause most people that buy a pavillion will never look at what the chipsets are. It isn't fair no matter what is being sold. Specifications are not marketing hype, they are the information of the machine. I also took the liberty of looking up the quickspecs for the HP Compaq NX7000, and the and the Compaq Presario X1000. The presario has 3 different options, and I don't think a 7500 chipset is the same as a 9200. On the other side of the coin, it is possible to get an older version of the laptop that was still in stock. They do do that quite often, and then improve the equipment as time goes on. Since I don't look at consumer based laptops, I am unsure as to how long these have been on the markent
But companies only do that with the un-advertised components of that product. When the describe the pickup, they don't tell you what brand the bolts are, or who made the axle, or who manufactured the circuit boards. But they tell you that the engine is a hemi. If the circuit boards are changed, you don't care, you made no purchasing decision on who/what those are. You did make a purchasing decision on the hemi though, and if they changed that on you and said, don't worry - the performance is the same. They would be facing a class-action lawsuit.
It's all about the fact that they advertised a very specific brand of video cards, and outright lied about it.
"I'm a Genius!"*
*Not an actual Genius
>replace functionally-identical parts with cheaper ones though
They are not functionally identical because one is AGP8x and the other is not. I also bet that manufacturors are very careful about not specifying particular models, or even not specifying the use of a class of part when they want to change parts mid-line. If they said they'll use a particular bolt model then they'd have to use that model.
>Buying something like this is a promise by the manufacturer that you'll get X for your $Y
And if they give you Z instead, like what's being assumed here?
Our corporate masters want to own their markets. They want to patent ideas and business models, keeping anyone else from adopting innovations, and substitute anything they want under a brand. The attitude is "when we want your opinion on choices, we'll give it to you".
--
make install -not war
Leaving aside all their claims...
Why not label it with what it actually contains?
Is there some reason for them to label it that way?
I can see how people would be upset when what they purchased does NOT contain what it seems to have claimed on the package.
Is there some reason to risk annoying your customers when you could just label your product so that they CLEARLY understand what it contains?
Carly Fiorina has announced she is actually a transexual and all of you can suck on her salty balls.
I was all excited about picking up my brand-spanking new HP Pavilion ZT3000 on Monday, now I have to tell my Boss "lets wait and see" BUMMER! Even if it's not my money I expect to get what we pay for. That should go without saying! CMON HP we have spent hundreds of thousand of dollars on your products,,,,Whats this bullshit?
Sig: BEEeeeP,,Please press pound, so I can get on with my fucking life!
If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck...
"Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." - Philip K. Dick
It is false advertising. You cannot say that you are selling a product but give someone an entirely different one. It is terrible business practices and when i buy laptop this summer it will not be a compaw.
This is like buying a red car and receiving a blue car. But don't worry, they both go the same speed.
The whole display is not the "screen".
There is in fact a wire mesh behind the front of the display, much like a screen door. That's is the "screen" in a CRT, not the bulbous part in the back.
Anyone who refers to the entire CRT unit as the "the screen" need to go back and hang out on AOL's techboards. Use google and educate yourself.
Your comment would be fair if the laptop makers were not advertising the 9200 as part of the spec. But they are. Therefore, it should have a 9200.
You know, the offending laptop makers could easily fix this by putting "9000 or equivalent" in the spec. instead.
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
Always read the fine print.
I have an NX7000, and I specifically configured it on the HP website to have a 9200. Screw the fine print. They either lied, or the deliberately misled. I don't understand why we allow the fine print. Say what the hell you mean.
Just like the title says, a 9200 is a 9000, ATI just renamed it, for some reason or other when they released all the other new cards. Check out ATI.com, I think the article on that is buried on there somewhere.
WHY do they have a problem with labeling the equipment CORRECTLY?
WHY even play this kind of game when you should KNOW that you'll annoy some of your customers with it?
Many here have commented that it is no big deal that the machines are labeled 9200 when, in fact, they contain a 9000.
Ask yourself this:
If the performance and end result are the same then why claim a 9200 is present when a 9000 really is? If "everyone" knows that 9000 has the same performance as the 9200 on those particular mobos then why claim a 9200?
I can only conclude that the reason these machines are labeled 9200 is to confuse those that know just enough to perceive a performance difference that does not exist.
"If the wookie is from endor than the 9000 series GPU is not a 9200 series GPU."
Rob
-ZiN-
I forgot to qualify that with "your CRT monitor(s)." LCD displays do not appear to be afflicted with this misnomer (as others in this thread have pointed out).
Join Tor today!
As someone who is "affected" by this crime then ive been reading tons of responses on the subject. While i agree its misleading, you cant forget the fact that it doesnt affect ANYONE. These buyers bought the laptop because its great, not because of a magically rare vid card. People just love to victimize themselves and thats why this is an issue. Again, i think its wrong to mislead and mislabel. But in the end then its an incredible machine that does more than any laptop ive ever used, and even more than my desktop at half the price!
Companies were calling USB 1.1 USB 2. Their justification was that well USB 1.0 was the first, so 1.1 must be the second. The problem was they did this when the real USB 2 was comming out.
Face it, computer companies have doing this for a while. Cyrix did and AMD does with the performance rating. You can argue that the Athlon 2400+ is as fast as a 2.4 ghz P4, but it's still misleading.
CD-Rom drives did this with their fast speeds that were only obtainable a fraction of the time. 56k? Try 40k when I was using dialup. 200 gb hard drive where suddenly giga means billion bytes and not 2^30. Firewire and USB transfer speeds are almost never reached.
specs
Perhaps ATI, and HP want some of my cupcakes?
Oh they don't know that cupcakes mean my ass? Oh, I'm sorry, I thought thats what it implied.
Who the hell buys a laptop for it's 3D performance?? If you want to play games you need to get a desktop, period.
If the laptops contain a certain chip, why not label the laptop as containing that chip?
Why label the laptop in such a way as to give the impression that it contains a different chip?
If they labeled them correctly, none of the expenses you mentioned would occure.
AMD pioneered in this particular area of model obfuscation when they decided to base their whole model numbering scheme on the performance of Intel products. I remember some people putting up a fuss but I remember a loud chorus from others defending AMD's right to number things however they wanted.
This is much the same thing. So we probably better quit squealing about it and cope.
I agree with the parent, and I really don't know how "Caveat Emptor" got modded 5, Insightful. There was NO fine print stating that these buyers would get a Mobility Radeon 9000, instead of the promised 9200. (A note to mods: Just because someone is FP, doesn't mean they have anything valid to say.)
And for all of the people out there who say, "Well, what does it matter, they got the same thing anyway," I remind them that for the majority of consumers (including myself!) who didn't know that 9000 ~= 9200, lots of them might have bought an X1000, a ZT3000, or an NX7000 specifically because of this "better" graphics chip.
Lastly, I'm not an advocate of frivolous lawsuits, but in this case, where literally thousands of consumers have been deliberately tricked (unless HP/Compaq can somehow prove it was a mistake that these machines were being loaded with 9000s), I think that if HP/Compaq is not willing to issue a refund or replacement notebook (with a 9200!) to anyone who was fooled, they should be taken to court in class-action.
As consumers, we cannot allow companies to use deceptive marketing tactics in order to sell their products. That is, unless you want to live in a country where you need to reverse-engineer everything you buy just to see if you actually are buying what is advertised.
It is STANDARD PRACTICE in the electronics industry to treat equivalent configurations that meet advertised practice as the same model. The difference between a 2.4 GHz and 2.6 GHz CPU? More of the batch the 2.4's came from failed when clocked at 2.6 then the 2.6 batch. That's it.
I'm sure the company planned to use 9200 chips eventually, especially when the 9000 chips ran out. How it probably happened is that the laptop companies designed in a 9200, found out 9000 would save some money without costing anything feature wise (due to the AGP bus width), then did a chip swap, as they were identical as far as this configuration was concerned. I wouldn't be suprised to find out that "9000's" are actually the same die as 9200's, but if the AGP 8X bus fails tests (or if it doesen't and the chip manufactuer just wants to have a price differential), then the chip manufacturer screens the 9000 number on the chip and ships it out. This is economical for the chip company because they then only have to gear up their production line for the 9200 layout, while they can sell them as both 9000's and 9200's.
Its not false advertising, its an error at worse, and doesn't hurt ANYONE in ANY WAY. There is NO damages here for anyone.
Want to see every step I took to start my company? http://www.rowdylabs.com/blogs/pitchtothegods
it does not run at 1700GHz
Indeed.
Aern't these the same people that say we have to compete for jobs with workers countries where the affluent live at a 1/10th of the cost of living in any western country?
It's just another reason NOT to buy HP/Compaq to begin with. Their advertising spin will only become more pronounced as their customer base dwindles.
Uhh... In reality there's almost no difference between AGP 4x and 8x with current hardware. It's kinda like how SATA is faster than ATA133; it's capable of higher speeds but under current conditions you'll never see the difference.
That's not the point - HP lied.
"We returned the General to El Salvador, or maybe Guatemala, it's difficult to tell from 10,000 feet"
So it is not called a 1700GHz. Care to re-read?
--
FreeNET user? Comfortable with the adverse selection?
People who travel a lot may want a laptop for gaming. When I was a consultant and flew every monday morning and friday afternoon between home and clients, I enjoyed playing video games on the plane.
Not to mention any mobile applications that would be used in on-site engineering.
No, I got it the first time.
This is really sleazy... Putting an inferior 9000 in the laptop and still claiming that it is a 9200 and justifying that by saying that they have the same performance. If i got it right, the 9000 and the 9200 would perform the same in these machines just because the motherboard doesnt support AGP8x. Where the hell is the logic in that? Just because you have a limitation somewhere else in the machine doesnt make it legitimate to "upgrade" some component in the ads and say that its no big deal that it really isnt that particular component because it wouldnt be fully utilized anyway. If its only the support for AGP 8x vs 4x that differs between the computers i would expect to have 8x if there is a 9200 sticker somewhere on the computer.
Dunno why this pisses me of so bad but it does...
In Court Reporting Services, Inc. Court Reporting Services, Inc.; Darwyne Dianne McVey; and Benjamin S. Thompson, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, vs. Compaq Computer Corp the settlement gave the buyers of the Compaq PC's a $10 refund.
The lawyers recived fees "not to exceed $1,000,000"
The case was about Compaq selling home-computers with (surprise!)non-working backup/restore/partitioning software.
Compaq Presario QR Class Action Settlement Website.
Melius mori in libertate quam vivere in servitute.
Then yours was a pointless dull and redundant comment?
YHL FOAD HAND.
--
FreeNET user? Comfortable with the adverse selection?
A Centrino-based laptop does not support AGP 8X. Therefore, they are functionally identical.
It's hard to be religious when certain people are never incinerated by bolts of lightning.
AMD labels their processors with a number - CONSUMERS attach meaning to that number, i.e. as you said:
people mindlessly assume it equals some Pentium clock speed
The number is somewhat misleading, but then again, AMD doesn't hold your hand down that path by TELLING you that their chip runs at the clock speed when it does in fact not do so. Ignorant customers will make incorrect assumptions.
If the company making the laptop claimed that a particular video chip was in there and they simply LIED about it, that's a whole hell of a lot worse.
I've always thought that we made a rather serious mistake back in the 1830's when Caveat Emptor was allowed to become the legal standard. Prior to that it was assumed that there would be "Fair Dealing". Obviously there are flaws with the fair dealing standard (who defines "fair" just to begin with), but in the nearly 200 years we've been operating with Cateat Emptor it hasn't worked out too well for Joe Average.
The main problem is the double standard, if Joe Average messes up (fails to read fine print, actually expects a product to behave as advertised, etc) he not only gets reamed, he's expected to bring his own vasaline. When Foo Corp messes up (prints "incorrect" prices, etc) they don't get reamed; usually they're allowed to get away with saying "oops, we made a mistake, you really can't buy a computer for $50". And that's a serious problem. Personally I'd rather we went to a standard that *didn't* encourage corporations (and people) to look for tiny mistakes that can be used to ream someone, but if that's the way we want to play it the system needs to work in reverse too.
On a more on topic note, I'm pretty sure that Caveat Emptor doesn't apply anyway, it sounds more like a case of false advertising to me. The ads and the box say "Now includes *FOO*", but the fine print defines "foo" to mean "bar". If that's legal, it shouldn't be.
"Mission Accomplished" -- George W. Bush May 1, 2003
The final verdict is that 9200 brands is good.
I'm sorry, but if you write: CONTAINS RADEON 9200 on the side of something or in an advertisement and it does not in fact CONTAIN RADEON 9200, you are lying to people. Can this be explained in any simpler terms? I DON'T THINK SO.
That's weak. Buy my new laptop with 400MHz DDR SDRAM. But it's not 400MHz DDR SDRAM, it's PC100 RAM. But, oh, by the way, the chipset in that laptop only supports PC100 RAM. So it's functionally equivalent and OK with you, right?
I can't believe the ATI/Intel apologists in this thread. It's as surprising as it is disturbing.
everything in moderation
*cough*parentsatroll*cough*
NO, it was not a redundant comment. You see, you claimed that the chip did not run at 1700GHz. That is the equivalent of 1,700,000MHz. Well, of course it doesn't run that fast! My comment ("Indeed.") was a reflection on that fact, and also on your misuse of GHz where MHz should have been used.
Sure, but HP would have honestly called it a 9000, not a 9200, unless they thought they'd gain something by lying. If they wanted to say, "Yeah, it's a 9000, but you don't really need the 9200," they should have said so.
plain and simple
Its a clear case of misleading advertising. If its a 9000 then say 9000, if its a 9200 then say 9200, don't give this "it has the same performance" BS, hell they could have stuck a Geforce4 5200Go in there and got similar performance, but I would hardly call that a 9200.
...) Identical quality of fit and finish, identical paint, identical seats, etc.
Damn right.
Back in '67 or so GM was trying to cost-cut and consolidate. The Odlsmobile and one of the Buick models were by then built on the same chassis and were virtually the same car, with three differences:
- The brand-name/model-designation trim.
- The shape of a couple body panels.
- The engine.
They were built on the same production lines by the same workers. (Indeed, they were literally intermixed on the lines. Olds, Buick, Buick, Olds, Buick, something else, Olds,
But Oldsmobile engines were built at an engine plant in Lansing Michigan - one of the few holdovers from the original Oldsmobile company. They were a descendant of the "Rocket '88" V8 engine - which was VERY powerful. It was said that it could pass anything on the road but a gas station. (At one time the stock design was tuned so it had no "top end", i.e. you could literally go out on the highway, floor it, and it would accellerate until the engine blew.) Despite its mass and strength, the Olds was one of the peppiest cars on the road.
GM was in an ongoing cost crunch, and decided to close the engine plant - gradually, weaning the customers of their perceived "love affair with the Oldsmobile", which they believed to be purely a product of advertising and status games.
But the Olds was both significantly higher status and significantly more expensive than the Buick. And there were TWO reasons to pay the premium:
- The high-status brand name.
- The engine.
GM did a run of Olds Cutlasses with the Buick engine in them. And they didn't mark it on the paperwork. A few months later (after a LOT of Olds customers were driving new cars with Buick engines and cursing the emission regulations that they believed had robbed them of their expected performance), GM got caught. And they got sued, BIG time, for consumer fraud.
They had laid off enough workers that they couldn't ramp the engine plant up enough to put genuine Olds engines in all the Oldsmobiles until the model year AFTER the one where they pulled the boner. So for the next year's model they built some with each engine type, and clearly marked it on the sticker. Something like this:
"This car has a high quality GM engine manufactured in {an Oldsmobile plant in Lansing, Michigan / a Buick plant in Pontiac, Michigan}.
It was a VERY expensive lesson. (I think they ended up shelling out refunds for the FULL cost of an Olds engine to each of the customers.)
(So of course the NEXT year the suckers pulled ANOTHER switch: They substituted a 200 (Chevette) transmission for the 350! Hanging an extra ton of car on one end and an extra hundred horses on the other caused it to melt a seal and fail after about 25,000 miles. Oops! But substitute a rebuilt 350 and it would run like a bat unti it finally started the one-horse shay number at about 200,000 or so - a very long life for cars of that vintage.)
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
AMD has rebranded _one_ product with no parts renamed. They wanted a numberring scheme that reflected their performance and were relatively clear in their advertising that this is what they were doing. Their justification by benchmark legitimated their naming & customers could refuse if they didn't agree.
HP is baiting and switching here. Offer the appeal of the more expensive chip and supply the cheaper one. Performance is not the only issue, lifespan heat etc.... even the intangible satisfaction of brand recognition is a concern.
If its the best part for the design label it right. I can't advertise a car with designer parts in it then remove them before delivery. I could put in equivelent, even better parts, but if they are not what I advertised I should offer the customer a chance to return the car.
If you change the deal after its made you unmake the deal.
If there is no difference they wouldn't have changed the name -- they should have properly named the chip.
ls
beef taco - chicken taco - fish taco - cock taco
The laptop's chipset doesn't support AGP 8x, so there isn't going to be any difference, performance-wise, between a 9000 and a 9200 in the laptop. You could send the laptops back to them and ask them to put in the 9200, and they may put in a 9200 - but the performance wouldn't change at all.
Admittedly, the advertising is deceptive, but come on - the difference between AGP 4x and AGP 8x to begin with is almost nil. The companies should give the people who actually bought those laptops refunds for the difference between a 9000 and 9200, correct the future advertisments, and apologize - even though their defense of the model change was pretty lame, it's not as if the original sin was something that I'd be up in arms about if I purchased one of those laptops.
I also noticed that Futuremark.com does not list the Mobility Radeon 9200 in its Online Result Broswer, but only the 9000... does anybody knows why?
The ENIAC Demo Competition
I think it all comes down to whether the video card itself can support AGP 8x or not. If it does, then it's a 9200 in a motherboard that can only handle AGP 4x. If it doesn't, then it's a 9000 and they're advertising false information.
Haha! Too many Stellas! Sorry!
--
FreeNET user? Comfortable with the adverse selection?
There are dozens of bad analogies on here.. comparing it to V8 vs V6, horsepower etc etc
The problem is that horsepower is a measurable statistic.
They advertise it as a *Mobility* Radeon 9200
Where do they say that the *Mobility* Radeon 9200 has AGP8x? No where.
This is no different than Intel selling a Mobile P4.. it's not identical to the desktop P4.. does that mean they can't call it a P4?
There's nothing measurable about the number "9200". It's an arbitrary number that obviously means something different when prefixed with the word "Mobility".
Huh? Clearly they are HP/Compaq apologists. ATI and Intel have no need for apologies since they aren't responsible for any of this, I don't know why you would insinuate that they do unless you are a pathetic AMD/nVidia fanboy astroturfer. :-)
...wearing a skin-tight topless leather jumpsuit, with cutaway buttocks and transparent crotch panel.
Copied from the forum:
f am.ht m?iid=ipp_browse+chpsts_fe
Subject: ATI Mobility(tm) Radeon(tm) 9200 graphics solution used in select HP notebooks.
Effected models:
Compaq Presario X1000 family
HP pavilion zt3000 family
HP compaq nx7000 family
Statement:
It has come to the attention of HP that there is some confusion regarding the graphics solution in certain HP notebooks that are sold with ATI MOBILITY(tm) RADEON(tm) 9200 graphics.
The effected notebooks, when advertised and sold with MOBILITY RADEON 9200 graphics do correctly include the graphics solution specified.
The particular brand applied to a graphics solution is based on several elements, including the silicon, video memory, electrical implementation on the system board including clock frequencies, the drivers, and the video graphics BIOS. The brand is determined by a number of factors and is not solely limited to the silicon or ASIC used.
In the case of the notebooks in question, HP and ATI designed a solution inclusive of all of the above elements that are branded and sold as MOBILITY RADEON 9200 graphics in the selected notebooks. This solution was created for supply flexibility, and it has been fully tested by HP and certified by ATI to ensure that performance consistency and parity of the MOBILITY RADEON 9200 brand are achieved with these models.
The ATI chip itself contains the MOBILITY RADEON 9000 family designator, which is only one factor in determining the graphics controller brand in a notebook computer.
We apologize for any inconvenience this confusion may have caused.
-----------
Q&A
Q: Doesn't the MOBILITY RADEON 9200 graphics solution include AGP8X? Why isn't this enabled on the Presario X1000?
A: HP never advertised or made any claims the notebook or graphics controller supports AGP 8X. In the case of the Presario X1000, 8X AGP operating mode is not supported due to the feature not being present on the Intel(r) 855pm chipset which is used on the Compaq Presario X1000 notebook PC. Also, AGP 8X mode operation is not a requirement for the MOBILITY RADEON 9200 brand. More information on the Intel 855 Chipset family can be found at:
http://intel.com/design/chipsets/mobile/855_
Q: How does the graphics performance of HP's MOBILITY RADEON 9200 graphics solution compare with other ATI 9200-based graphics solutions?
A: The MOBILITY RADEON 9200 graphics solution provided on the Compaq Presario X1000 provides equivalent features and performance to other notebooks with MOBILITY RADEON 9200 graphics solutions.
Q: Is the practice of using a graphics ASIC physically marked or identified differently than the brand name for the graphics solution commonplace, or is this a unique case?
A: While not extremely common, this practice is not unusual or unique. The graphics ASIC or chip alone does not determine the final brand for the part.
Q: Why is the ATI graphics ASIC marked, "9000", if the solution is branded "9200"?
A: The "ATI MOBILITY(tm) RADEON(tm) 9200" brand comprises a complete graphics solution, including graphics ASIC, video bios, video driver, and system board implementation. The actual label on the chip doesn't in this case communicate specific features to customers.
-------------
WW Escalations Engineering
HP Mobile Computing Global Business Unit
The ENIAC Demo Competition
The fact that the chip inside of your laptop is called Mobility Radeon 9200 means that brand could be an old ATI Rage and nobody could complain. Mobility Radeon 9200 is a brand of it's own. The fact that you equate the Radeon 9200 with the Mobility Radeon 9200 is your problem, not a problem with their marketing.
So yes, you can feel duped, or you can realize that this kind of thing happens all the time and is now considered fair marketing practice. :)
"It's here, but no one wants it." - The Sugar Speaker
Seems like nobody complains about AMDs product naming. I mean, a AMD Athlon 2400+ has 1800 Mhz. Guess what people think when they hear AMD 2400 somewhere...
It's just marketing vs. tech. Just like AMD, ATI has the freedom to lable any card anything. Unless they specifically say that card X has chip Y and it doesn't - which doesn't seem to apply here.
Cheers,
Andre
Yeah, sorry. I saw "Centrino" (Intel) and "Radeon" (ATI), but I do realize neither of those companies makes laptops, so you're right (except the AMD/Nvidia thing -- I'd bash them for this just the same). It's still annoying, no matter for whom they are apologizing.
everything in moderation
Why did the man who jumped off the 100 foot building die when he used a Fifty Foot bungee cord?
After a ton of frustrating questions like "Was it cut?" or "Was it around his neck?", I would give the answer:
"Fifty Foot is the brand name, it's 200 feet long."
I design user interfaces for a free network management application,
In any case, we don't live in ancient Rome. If we did, cheating merchants would be slapped in chains and sold in the maketplace to recoup their ill-gotten gains.
This is my post. There are many others like it. If you don't like what you read here, go try one of the others.
Why do you conclude a high-end graphics is only for gaming? I have a laptop that i use for client presentations in SoftImage|XSI. While i got the best i could afford in 2002, I have still have to run a modified UI to make it work, as the resolution i need isn't available on the LCD. Personally, if had purchased a machine labelled as a 8xAGP 9200m, i'd want a 9200m - not a 4xAGP 9000m.
Learn about Photography Basics.
The fact remains that the two chips offer identical performance in their present configuration. Remember that the 9200 is merely a 9000 with 8x AGP support, which you won't be getting on the i855 chipset. If we were talking about a notebook that utilizes the i865 chipset then this would really be an issue, but if someone is suing for damages, then that's absolutely silly. At most, the best HP could do is issue a public apology and send Mobility Radeon 9000 stickers to users affected. They should also change their sites, and any related marketing collateral to state that their chips will contain either the Mobility Radeon 9000 or the Mobility Radeon 9200. Suing for damages would be wrong in this case as no damage has been done other than to HP's credibility.
Personally, the controversy over the 15.4" WSXGA+ screens on the Dell Inspiron 8600 should be garnering more attention as there is a noticable inferiority in the quality of LCDs provided by Hitachi in the current crop of 8600s as opposed to the superb Samsung screens on the earlier machines produced.
IMHO this really depends in what's covered by a brand. If it's just a product (a commodity), then there has been misdirection. But not if there's more than that.
.inf change
This is what tipped everybody at first:
T1 - The MR9000 and MR9200 present different Chip IDs to the system. The ones in the HP/C laptops are the same as the MR9000.
T2 - some users opened their laptops and found a MR 9000 chip on the graphics card.
ATI-related facts:
A1 - There are two distinct GPU chips.
A1.1 - The MR9000 has a rv250 core.
A1.2 - The MR9200 has a rv280 core.
A1.3 - Both chips have same specifications except for AGP 8x.
A1.4 - AGP 8x is actually an optional feature for the 9200 (small print in ATI's product comparison matrix).
A1.5 - a graphics card is made putting together these GPU chips with more hardware.
A2 - There is apparently a difference between the "Mobility Radeon 9200 brand" and the actual chip (which is only a part of the brand, according to ATI and HP).
A3 - The companies don't seem to be denying that there is a 9000 chip inside.
A4 - ATI's product portfolio quotes that the 9200 is slightly faster than the 9000 (10x vs. 9x, when compared to the slowest Mobility Radeon [1x]).
A5 - Apparently (reviews) the only difference between cores is that the 280 is cheaper to manufacture, everything else being equal.
A6 - Most claims on the web regarding the 9200 as a better product are copies from a press release available around March 13th 2003. All of these do not contain benchmarks. The reviews that have benchmarks show no difference in performance.
A7 - ATI's disclaimer on their terms of sales:
"Performance tests and ratings of ATI products as presented on this Site are measured using specific computer systems and/or components and reflect the approximate performance of ATI products as measured by those tests. Any difference in system hardware or software design or configuration may affect actual performance. Buyers should consult other sources of information to evaluate the performance of systems or components they are considering purchasing."
HP-related facts:
H1 - HP's Terms of sale
"Some newly manufactured HP Products may contain and HP Support may use remanufactured parts which are equivalent to new in performance."
H2 - They also seem to acknoledge there's a 9000 inside (see other post for their official response).
Software-related facts:
S1 - HP/C is using the same drivers for the "9200" as with the MR9000 with just a
S2 - Most users' (non-review) benchmarks show no performance difference of a 9200 over a 9000 clocked at the same speed. The X1000 have higher Futuremark.com scores than every other latpop though, but that's probably because of the hardware environment, not the chip itself.
The two crowds on the forums divided by this issue have two opposing views of brand: one claim it is only a physical product (the chip) regardless of everything else, so they claim misdirection. The other side claims that the brand entails more than just the chip and so the actual part is irrelevant. It all depends on a single definition... Google defines brand as "the name of a product or service".
The ENIAC Demo Competition
ATI put the label on it. Get a brain. I have to deal with these cases when they get escalated within HP cause people are retards. Go ahead, sue, HP legal has already determined the customer has no leg to stand on since they GOT the chip they paid for, just not the sticker.
HP would only be liable if they put the wrong chip on the motherboard. Heck we had a few thousand laptops come out with the wrong model sticker on them. Took us a while to figure out what happened but it appears someone put the wrong stickers into the machine that puts them on. HP wasn't liable either, they got what they paid for, we sent out a new sticker.
I guess we could send out stickers to people to cover their 9200 chip that says 9200. But you got to take nearly the entire laptop apart to do that and most customers would cause customer damage to the laptop doing so and void their warranty. Likely not a good idea.
Get over it, it's what you paid for, HP/Compaq will let you return the laptop if you're that stupid and cannot comprehend simple facts if you're within your return policy time from the store you purchased it.
To sum it up for some of you, 9000 sticker does not turn a 9200 into a 9000, the customer got exactly what they paid for.
I used to work for an OEM in their laptop factory. They used to mislead customers in a very curious way:
the advertisment said that a laptop had a 10 Gb harddrive but we put a 12Gb or even bigger ones inside.
The problem was our automated labeling system which checked the partnumber from the database (which
I maintained) and printed the label accordingly. So I had to write a script which changed the partnumbers
for the laptop models (where this policy was used) so the labels would print showing the smaller HDD
instead of the bigger one.
I don't know what kind of problems this caused for the dealers if a customer returned a laptop because
of a faulty HDD...
I would rather have PC100 RAM in that laptop than DDR RAM that doesn't work - DDR's not backwards compatible :-).
Seriously, though, if (in some hypothetical universe where DDR RAM was backwards compatible) someone offered me a Pentium 1 with DDR memory, I'd know that it would still only perform as PC100. As long as I wasn't planning on reusing that DDR in a better machine someday (a non-issue here, as laptop GFX cards are for all practical purposes non-removable), and I wasn't being overcharged for it, I wouldn't be too upset.
It's hard to be religious when certain people are never incinerated by bolts of lightning.
Radeon 9000 = AGP 4X
Radeon 9200 = Radeon 9000 + AGP 8X
Centrino = AGP 4X
So, HP thought they might as well stick in some Radeon 9000 and no one would tell the difference.
So they would also sell the following then:
CPU x at 2GHz = 400MHz front side bus
CPU y at 1.4GHz = 200MHz front side bus
chipset z= 200MHz front side bus
System advertised as CPU at 2GHz, but since they used chipset z, CPU at 2GHz can only perform as CPU at 1.4GHz. Therefore they would just install CPU at 1.4GHz, because no-one would tell the difference.
Pretty clear case of misleading advertising.
Wrong AC. There are other differences between an ATI Mobility Radeon 9000 and an ATI Mobility Radeon 9200. ATI refers to these parts as different, so why shouldn't laptop manufacturers?
everything in moderation
Way to totally miss the point. If it's advertised as a "400MHz DDR SDRAM" machine, how do you suddenly decide the options are "broken machine that needs PC100 with 400MHz DDR instead" vs. "working machine with PC100 RAM". It's advertised as 400MHz DDR, so it should include it, and work with it.
You're either dense or trolling. Or maybe trying to avoid eating the crow you should be chewing on given your previous posts in this thread.
everything in moderation
not precise semantics. A reasonable customer would expect the 9200 brand to refer to a chip with model number 9200. It's one thing to sell both the 9000 and 9200 chips under the brand "HyperSpiffyChip" or whatever, and entirely another to sell them both under the "9200" brand, since the latter leads the customer to expect something you're not delivering.
What's cock taco all about? Is it good, or is it whack? Please discuss amongst yourselves.
This is standard operating procedure for companies. They establish a brand which has certain consistent characteristics. The brand becomes popular because the characteristics are valued. Then they leverage the popularity extending the brand to new products that don't necessarily have the valued characteristics. It's essentially dishonest, but since they never promised that the brand meant any particular thing, they can deflect criticism.
My pet peeve was Robitussin, which literally for decades referred to a cough syrup with a specific ingredient (guaifenisin). Then Robitussin introduced a line of "Robitussin cough drops" which contained no guaifenisin, no dextromethorphan, just the usual menthol-and-hard-candy throat soother stuff. I complained that they were marketing "Robitussin cough drops" that didn't have any Robitussin in them; they basically gave the Humpty-Dumpty defense (words can mean whatever we say they mean), and, after all, they own the trademark.
IBM did the same thing with the PS/2 line of computers, which originally referred to set of computers, one of whose characteristics was that they opened extremely easily (one dime, one captive screw, about a quarter of a turn and voila!). When they brought out a "PS/2" with a standard ISA bus, I recommended that our company get them. Dumb me. Only after they arrived did we find that they didn't have what I thought of as the "PS/2" mechanical construction at all. In fact they were just perfectly generic clones, featuring the standard screwdriver and a dozen screws and a cover that comes off fairly easily but won't go on again for love or money. Of course they charged IBM premium prices for these commodity machines.
Then, there was the flap about--was it Buicks that GM built with Chevrolet engines in them? Very good engines, GM insisted. Nothing wrong with them except that they weren't Buick engines.
"How to Do Nothing," kids activities, back in print!
This reminds me strongly of the whole problem with hard drive sizes (manufacturers define GB as 1 billion bytes, but OSes use 2^30 bytes, or 1,073,741,824 bytes). That's not quite so blatant (they do disclaim below the size they use to measure GB), but still... I was rather POed when I first bought a laptop and found that its drive was almost 1.5GB less than advertised, by the OS' definition of GB.
--- Bwah?
Radeon 9200 = Radeon 9000 + AGP 8X
No. The radeon 9000 has the RV250 GPU while the 9200 has the RV280
unless you want to live in a country where you need to reverse-engineer everything you buy just to see if you actually are buying what is advertised.
Say hello to DRM.
The customer has reason to expect the chip to be model 9200, not some chip that performs similarly to the 9200. Dishonesty is still objectionable when it doesn't hurt anybody.
No reasonable person can deny the fact that claiming a product to be one thing, while it is actually something else, even if its performance is equivalent is right. This is a blunt marketing deception of the consumer and it saddens me if it goes unpunished, setting an example for more companies to do the same.
Er, I'm not apologising for anyone. This is my opinion - if they'd put a 9200 in there, I would have experienced no difference in operation. There is no possibility of upgrade, no future issues. I just don't see the problem.
You obviously do. Fine. Please don't put words into my mouth.
Simon.
Physicists get Hadrons!
If the Centrino were advertised as "AGP 8X graphics card", then I would have a problem with that. However, as HP says, "HP never advertised or made any claims the notebook or graphics controller supports AGP 8X ... AGP 8X mode operation is not a requirement for the MOBILITY RADEON 9200 brand."
It's hard to be religious when certain people are never incinerated by bolts of lightning.
No reasonable person can deny the fact that claiming a product to be one thing, while it is actually something else, even if its performance is equivalent is right.
This is a blunt marketing deception of the consumer and it saddens me if it goes unpunished, setting an example for more companies to do the same.
Reminds me of the time way back in the '80s (or maybe it was the '70s, I can't remember that far back ;) when General Motors got into Deep Stuff because they were selling (some) Oldsmobile cars with Chevrolet engines in them. Their argument was that "it's just as good", so what's the problem?
Well, the problem is that customers expected an Oldsmobile to have an Oldsmobile engine. GM had spent decades building up the "Oldsmobile Rocket 98" engine brand, and there was a factory that built Oldsmobile engines. Yet they quietly put something else in some of the cars.
I don't recall what happened in courtrooms, but I do recall a huge publicity stink.
First, Centrino is a CPU, not a graphics card or GPU. Second, HP can invent new definitions of "MOBILITY RADEON 9200 brand" all it wants, but it's still false advertising in context of this, at least until ATI changes thier pages that clearly distinguish "MOBILITY 9000" from "MOBILITY RADEON 9200".
everything in moderation
if the 9000 is AGP 2X and the 9200 is AGP 8x, why not call it the 9100 since it's 4x? Oh wait, that would actually make sense. My bad...
Ahh, but that would place one in direct violation of the DMCA. So even if one did reverse engineer the product and find something fishy, they would place themselves at serious risk by publishing their findings.
Thank you DMCA.
Centrino is *not* a CPU. Centrino is a brand.
If a notebook uses a "Pentium-M" processor (think P4 Mobile), an Intel 855 chipset, and Intel Wi-Fi, it can be marketed with the Centrino brand. IBM offers some ThinkPad models which are identical except for the brand of wireless adapter. With an Intel wireless adapter, they're Centrino notebooks, and marked as such. With a Cisco wireless adapter, they're Pentium-M notebooks, and marked as such. This despite having the exact same CPU and chipset.
I totally agree that this is cheap and dishonest and bait-n-switch and whatever way it can be declared awful.
Too bad you can't truly buy off-the-shelf components and build your own laptop.
My parents once asked if a particular Gateway would suit them, I looked at the specs and said "sure, whatever". What a mistake! The 3 PCI slots were only two, because the huge slot-1 assembly completely blocked access to one slot. Bah, whatever, I'll spare you the long list of frustrations with that thing. Worse yet, I knew better. I had been through sucky Gateways at work.
Oh, in another case, the Matrox video card was specifically described as "Millenium". But, it was an OEM version which lacked the daughter-card attachment, had a DAC half the speed, and some other differences. That's just to show an example quite similar to your problem, but one from like 1994.
This type of thing is routine. Typical. Standard business practice. Always been the case. The only surprise is that you were caught off-guard. I'm sorry about that. I've been caught off-guard as well, and it sucks!
Consider the old CRT display size issue of a many years back. Or, the Nintendo Gameboy Advance... they had TV commercials and print material that demonstrated a bright and clear screen. It was a total lie.
Probably... every single product that has, or ever will be, marketed... should result in a class action lawsuit. Voting with your wallet makes only the tiniest dent... but it's all we have.
Perhaps don't you realise that 1ghz==1,000mhz and NOT 1ghz==1024mhz ?
It says Award and has a picture of a ribbon as if it won an award.
The Centrino is a complete platform, not a CPU. Part of that platform is a 4X AGP slot. The graphics card that fits in that slot was apparently certified by ATI to "ensure that performance consistency and parity of the MOBILITY RADEON 9200 brand are achieved". Make of that what you will.
It's hard to be religious when certain people are never incinerated by bolts of lightning.
A problem I see is unfair competition. For example is HP is offering the laptops with a sticker that says 9200 when it actually encludes a 9000 and for instance Acer is selling a laptop that is marked with a 9000 and all other specs are the same which one are most consumers gonna choose? Of course the HP cuz it has a "better" GPU. This is obviously meant to be deceptive otherwise they would have simply put the correct sticker on the box. As I work selling these machines I will make carefull not to tell my customers about this.
done all the time by network companies...
The best example is the linksys LNE100TX network card...
The manufacturers keep the same product number/upc code, but the product is different. There are at least 7 different versions of the card using at least 4 different drivers/chipsets.
The only way to tell the cards apart is to reference the web page and to look at the card physically. On some boxes they now have a stuck on label that says "version" and the card version... but the model name is the same....
--
Time is on my side
'There is no job that is America's God-given right anymore'- Carly Fiorina
And apparently truth in advertising. ("But my Monopoly money is just a 'brand' name. It performs exactly the same if you are trying to buy Boardwalk, so why can't you accept it as payment for my laptop...")
Welcome to the begining of the end of HP. With the amount of disrespect they seem to show their employees and their customers, it will take alot more than fine print to save their sorry asses now.
I can tell you the ATI Radeon 9000 AGP video card outperforms a ATI Radeon 9200 AGP video card. Just because it has a higher number doesn't mean it is better. This is Especially true with ATI. A ATI Radeon 9500 Pro will utterly DESTROY an ATI 9600 SE or PRO.
Consumers no longer have a God given right to get what they pay for.
If tyranny and oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy. - James Madison
You are an idiot. Graphics chipsets are not copy protection devices and the DMCA does not apply, dammit.
Of course you can move the card.
How to upgrade your video card w/ pics
Hey HP even sells replacement parts (appropriately mislabeled as well).
hp partsurfer
Except an RV280 is simply an RV250 that supports AGP 8x.
"You've got an invalid haircut" -Warren Zevon - Life'll Kill Ya
- First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then ???, then profit.
This colloquy reminds me of the Clinton impeachment scandal:
Democrats: What's the big deal? He lied about something that has no bearing on the performance of his duties.
Republicans: That's not the point; he lied.
Imagine playing cooperative Counterstrike with a few people who are also on the plane, and then talking to your teammate...
"Alright, let's go, you got the bomb?"
"I got it. You cover the hostages."
fun fun.
What time is it/will be over there? Check with my iPhone app!
This is wrong for the following reason: there's nothing that they've done to advertise or provide informaiton about the branding being done for 'perceived' performance before people started complaining.
The only other instance that comes to mind is AMD's XP+ branding of CPUs. AMD isn't calling their CPU's 2000MHz Athlon XPs or suhc, the're calling them XP 2000+'s - the + is a huge difference in indication. Not only that, but AMD actually came out prior to the fact and bolstered the fact - "Hey, we're giving our CPUs a performance rating instead of a clock rating, because it's more accurate."
In the case of ATI, however, none of these things apply. They're the performance leader, yes, but their performance is fairly consistent with the branding that they've traditionally given them. This "9200" is simply a "9000" model. It has nothing to do with performance, it's just a mis-labeling - and false marketing.
~/ssh slashdot.org ssh: connect to host slashdot.org port 22: too many beers
Besides all the "false and misleading advertising" points which are correct, another issue is when someone is trying to make sure their hardware will work with their favorite OS. Such as some versions of Linux. My Athlon box has an ATI 9200. When I first installed Red Hat Linux 9.0 I discovered that RH 9.0 can handle many ATI cards including older slower cards - but not the 9200. Grrr! Fortunately I now have Fedora Core 1.0 which rocks and works fine with my graphics card. But - what if I was expecting the card with this new laptop to work with a certain OS and discovered that it would not because that is not really the correct GPU!
This colloquy reminds me of the Clinton impeachment scandal:
Well, that's the thing: the part used has a significant bearing on which laptop people choose. It's like when Bush lied about the WMDs to justify the war in Iraq.
"We returned the General to El Salvador, or maybe Guatemala, it's difficult to tell from 10,000 feet"
True, but I don't remember any class-action suit over the GeForce "4" MX. (Which, of course, was an overclocked GeForce 2 with DDR memory - it did not have a GeForce 4 core.)
Right or wrong? Definitely wrong. If the GPU is a 9000, why not just say it's the 9000. If it has the same specs, but doesn't support 8X just as the chipset on the motherboard doesn't, then why try to mislead people. The stupid masses don't even know the difference between the 9000 and the 9200... Those of us who do are thinking they must be incredibly dumb.
User logging on... 300 baud... 300 BAUD?!? (Click!) NO CARRIER
You've still missed it...
there is no chip that runs or claims to run at 1700GHz whether you define GHz as 1000, 1024, or 78.3, the original post was (giving the benefit of the doubt) a typo.
The Indeed post was pointing that out and making fun of it...which has resulted in this depressingly long chain of missing the point.
Advanced users are users too!
I knew if I read long enough I wouldnt have to make that point. Wish I had mod points for ya.
Shout it from the Roof tops that Its the worst Laptop you have ever seen... Make comments till your blue in the face about how slow it is for being a 9200! Do everything you can to get Review sites to look over the fact its Just called a 9200 but has a 9000 series chip in it.. Make it look unattractive as a purchase option.. Do everything you can... They only way to prevent Marketing "Guru's" from misleading the public is to Make thier misleading marketing practices fall flat on its face. This is the only way Marketers will listen... They only use Tried tested and True Methods to sell thier products... Its Rare they ever venture out on a new limb.. and if its a bad limb... Break it off and shove it down their throat untill it has a negitive impact on their paychecks. This is the only way they will listen.... Taking them to court only Drives up the costs of products and they usually slink away somewhat unscathed anyway.
Who needs WiFi when we can have Packet Over Sheep! http://datacomm.org/PoS-InternetDraft.txt
the rv280 is a revision of the rv250 with different clock speed tollerances and a new interface that supports AGP 8x
Shh, it's best not to bother him. He's a "hardware geek". This generally means he's got part numbers and 3dmark scores memorized, but hasn't the slightest context for any of that information.
It's been a long time.
It did have some Geforce 4 features, such as LMA II, just not all of them. Anyway, most people knew what they were getting, and those who didn't were just plain and simple stupid for not researching a "if it sounds too good to be true, it probably is" sort of offer. Personally, I've still got my G4MX460-VTP, and It's worth every penny I spend for it -- a lot less than the low end Ti at the time.
It's been a long time.
If it was advertising itself as a 9000 and it was a 9200, nobody would complain if they had the same performance, SIMPLY BECAUSE THE NUMBER IF BIGGER! If the number is smaller (and they still have the same performance), people bitch & moan.
This is such a non-issue..What a bunch of whiners.
A cable compagny used the term ADSL for their internet access solutions (using coax). They made TV commercials about their great ADSL connection.
The case went to court when the main telco in the Netherlands noticed. Obviously they were in their right. It is impossible to use ADSL on coax. The telco won the case.
HP is wrong here. People are expecting a 9200 chip in the computer with 9200 performance (read, 8x AGP). If this is not delivered they are needlessly confusing customers.
The cable company made a simmilar argument as HP and ATI, telling customers that their service was as good as that of the telco's, and that all the acronyms were fullfilled (asynchronous, digital, subscriber and line).
I think that it is pretty simple though. If it's a horse, call it a horse. Even if it looks like a cow, or has horns. Otherwise you are needlessly confusing customers that want to buy a cow and get a horse. Err, or something like that.
Somebody should sue HP for this.
become a word geek... look up the word 'context'. hardware geeks would have more of a 'context' for these types of matters than you would anyway.
A Libertarian wouldn't have even asked the question in which he lied in his answer.
Bill Clinton: Pimp we can believe in. - The Shirt!!!
When people invest their money in something that they think is going to be worth their while, they pay for what they see. Mis-advertising is illegal in this country. I don't see why the laptop company's aren't being sued. People pay for the name... not the performance... (that comes later... after the box is actually opened?)
Well, the AMD/nVidia bit was just a joke, but it turns out I was wrong anyway since it looks like ATI is part of the problem after all. They are the ones who came up with this "MOBILE RADEON 9200" nonsense, where "MOBILE" means "Not really a" I guess. Somebody posted a link to the new Acer models and they claim to use the M-R-9200 also.
...wearing a skin-tight topless leather jumpsuit, with cutaway buttocks and transparent crotch panel.
Let's assume that ATI has to pay ten dollars to settle the lawsuit. This may seem inadequate, but think about the margins in the computer business for OEM suppliers. This may cost them enough money to just tell the truth.
The lawyers are making a windfall, it seems, in class actions, but without them, no one gets anything. It is a fundamental issue with class actions.
A NYC lawyer blogs. http://www.chuangblog.com/
True.
But these machines all have decals on the keyboard handrests proclaiming that they are powered by Radeon 9200s.
To me, that is the issue. They are not just branded and sold as such - they are flaunted as such.
To have ambition was my ambition.
When Foo Corp messes up (prints "incorrect" prices, etc) they don't get reamed; usually they're allowed to get away with saying "oops, we made a mistake, you really can't buy a computer for $50".
No, if they have them in stock, they have to sell them for the advertised price. If they don't have any in stock, they may be required to give you a rain check.
But you need to stand up for your rights. If you encounter false advertising, document it and go to the Better business Bureau. If you just sit on your ass and take it, then you are forfeiting your rights as a consumer.
And of course, with rights come responsibilities. Read the fine print before you enter into a contract --- including the contract implied in any sale of merchandise. If you are ignorant of something you have agreed it, then unless you are a minor, it is your own fault.
(Of course there are some rights you cannot sign away, and there are contracts which cannot be binding. But that is getting into details.)
It seems like HP is not using the 9200 "brand" anymore and is now correctly using the 9000 "brand".
X1000
ZT300
LOL
If somebody sold you a boxed 9000 and called it a 9200, that would be illegal. If somebody sells me a desktop machine that states it has a 9200 when it in fact only has a 9000, that is also illegal. How is the fact that the machine is a laptop any different from the two above, other than the fact that it can't be corrected by replacing the card, as it is integrated?
Question for you all: What's an Athlon XP 1800+ ?
It reminds me of the person that got detained for passing through airport security with a copy of "Hayduke Lives"; a continuation of Edward Abbey's "The Monkey Wrench Gang" and one of the best books I've ever read. It is also one of the first books that talks about environmental extremeists and the cover contains a picture of someone's hand holding a bundle of dynamite. Even though the book is a comedy and was written years ago the airport officials known for their exceptionally high IQ's saw fit to detain him.
Restore America: Dr. Ron Paul for President!
Engineers are sticklers for details. Guess the "close enough" attitude of its response makes it quite clear HP is no longer a company of engineers, but of marketers and MBAs. The engineers are either shut up, fired/laid off, left, or are at Agilent.
I hadn't thought about that,
When we can't twiddle with our black boxes, we'll buy it based on what the vendor says... and we'll have no way of knowing what the heck it is.
And they can screw with bench marks too.
But I think That'll be a little ways off...
Other fun possibilities:
You buy a record that only you can listen to... how do you know that it's the same one as everyone else got?
luckilly that would require brain implants, but it's a neat thought none the less.
Please use [ informative / summarizing ] SUBJECT LINES
Flame me here
--Agreed. First there was the outsourcing article on Thu, and now this. HP lost my business back when my parents bought a 500MHz "desktop" system from them - POS.
--Now if they had chosen in their initial response to say something like, "we're incredibly sorry, some intern mistyped the number and it accidentally got into the ad" that MIGHT give them some grace. But they didn't, and now the whole world knows they suck that much more.
.
== WolfriderV6 == I'm willing to admit that *I just might* be wrong... Are you??
--Hey, regarding your sig - "Cash paid for your spare CPU cycles [randyrandy.net]. " what the hell kind of data are they processing, anyway? Their website doesn't say, and the "cash payments" look too small to be worthwhile.
.
== WolfriderV6 == I'm willing to admit that *I just might* be wrong... Are you??
Not the point - at first, SATA was the same as IDE. Would you want them to advertise SATA but stick an IDE in there since it was the same?
$10 would be a huge individual payout from a class-action. I often hear of people getting checks for a couple of bucks after years of legal rangling. I got a check the other day for 5 cents; that was my share of a suit (that honestly, I'd forgotten about). It's fun to put it on the wall as a conversation piece.
Ok, everyone seems to be saying the same thing, so let me put it this way:
Why do you think they called it 9200 instead of 9000? What do you think they wanted to convey? Can anyone think of an ethical reason to call it a 9000? The only reason, I can find is to be deceptive. Does its performance match a 9200? (As AMD processors claim) Is 9200 an arbitrary number? (I doubt it). I would like to hear someone seriously think of another reason that they named it a 9200.
www.facebook.com/DareDefendOurRights
www.fairtax.org
"Smart money," such as myself, logs on to HP/C's web site and begins buying Presario x1000s en masse b/c they are advertised to include the Radeon 9200. Once the machines are delivered, I feverishly rip out the Radeon chip from the laptops and book a first-class plane ticket to Chiperia.
After standing in line for two days at Chiperia's Central Bank (by this time, the news has broke), I get to the front of the exchange window -- only to be turned away because the supposed Radeon 9200 in my x1000 notebooks is really a 9000. To the central bankers of Chiperia, the Radeon 9000 is worthless.
The flawed assumption made by HP and ATI is that customers who specifically selected the Radeon 9200 for their x1000 notebook did so to get the "performance" of the Radeon 9200. Because the 9000 allegedly delivers the same performance as the 9200 in the x1000's Centrino environment, the companies assumed it would be acceptable to customers to use the 9000 instead (w/o telling them, of course). To make that assumption, however, HP and ATI would need to know why I purchased my x1000 and what I intended to use it for. In the absense of such knowledge, all that HP and ATI can reasonably assume is that I specifically selected the Radeon 9200 because I wanted the actual Radeon 9200 chip. Indeed, I might have quite legitimately purchased my x1000 for the advertised parts inside -- to sell at a huge profit to the central bankers of Chiperia. Just because I buy a computer doesn't mean that I intend, necessarily, to ever turn it on and use it.
This, to me, is a clear case of false advertisement, borne by a poor business decision, based on narrow and untenable assumptions.
it's False and Misleading advertising
Yes, and the Pyrex brand sells nylon spatulas. Only if they actually said, "this system contains a 9200 card" is this going to go anywhere, more's the pity.
"We reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals." --The American President (20.1.2009)
It's not a 1.8GHz processor. That's why it's an 1800+ (I'd bold and italic the plus, but it doesn't really show up), not an 1800. Saying a Radeon 9000 is a 9200 is FALSE. Saying a 1.(something lower than 8) GHz processor probably performs like a 1.8GHz processor isn't false.
And I suppose you'd be upset if I told you that the first generation of AGP 4x graphics cards were similarly hindered.
Back in 1999, AGP 4x was all the rage, but the most popular Intel motherboard chipset ( 440BX ) only supported AGP 2x. Same goes for the first Athlon chipset, the 750 "Irongate". Nobody complained, because the people who bothered to educate themselves knew there was no reasonable alternative, and the people who didn't bother didn't give a rat's ass.
What I find surprising is that ATI has actually released another model number for the AGP 8x part. In '99, official AGP 4x support was quietly added to the TNT2, Rage 128 and the G400 line after initial release. But then again, Nvidia did the same model number increase with their 4000 series upgrade to AGP 8x, so you can hardly fault them.
The point is, manufacturers always deal to the least common denominator. If you're going to be uneducated in your purchases, then you deserve what you get.
Man is the animal that laughs.
And occasionally whores for Karma.
Umm... it would perform as PC50 (forget the ns rating that matches that), PC60, or PC66.
Not the Pentium 4-M. Think Pentium 3.5-M. However, no Pentium 3 would work with the 855 (or any Intel P4 chipset - the 855 is a version of the 845 optimized for the P4), and no Pentium M would work with the 440, 810, 815, 820, or any other P3 compatible chipset.
Ah, HP/Compaq, champions of offshoring jobs...
-Rich
Be careful! Bears shouldn't consume large furry dogs.
Thank you.
Not much processing -- they do "real world" website performance analysis using distributed user connections from around the world. CPU usage on my machines never exceeds 1%, and the client is stable and inobtrusive. Not big bucks, but keep in mind it is multiplied by the number of machines you have on. Free $10-20/mo. for me (6 machines on 24x7) with no noticeable impact on CPU or BW. YMMV.
everything in moderation
I did _really_ miss the point.
Thanks a lot for pointing this out.
But how many people here actually bought one of these (own money, not corporate hand-me-down).. and of those people.. WTF were you thinking? Why would you do that to yourself? Both companies pre-merger were notorious for not making the best of systems, just "commodity systems" .. so it stands to reason this wouldn't change post-merger.. and you call yourselves nerds..buying HP computers bah!
It's funny because you don't have the most basic understanding of what I said.
Context: Sure, this video card got 300000 blitzmarks on the super3dbenchmark2000, and that one only got 200000, but that one is cheaper, and you won't really see the difference in anything but a benchmark anyway.
So I can sell my Westen Digital ATA100 Hard Drive as an SATA drive on ebay and then tell people that there's no difference under current conditions?