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?"
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.
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.
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
I prefer that my vendors not try to deceive me, even if the deception is harmless.
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
Ahh, so exactly how far does HP need to stretch the truth before it becomes illegal then? What if the 9200 had a different internal architecture than the 9000, then would it be wrong?
Is it such a problem for HP to put a ATI 9000 sticker on the case instead of a ATI 9200 one? 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.
Not really, they aren't trying to sell an XP 2500+ as an XP 2600+; they just changed their naming scheme.
This type of thing irritates me, but not because I feel these laptop owners were getting less video performance than the box promised.
It's more of the principle. PC hardware makers seem like they're doing more of this in recent years. They bend the truth about exactly what's in a product, in an effort to fool those who know "just enough about computers to be dangerous".
There is a difference between a 9000 and a 9200; support for 8x AGP bus. If the laptop doesn't do 8x AGP, then it's probably using a 9000 - and it should be labeled as such. This is just an attempt to confuse. (EG. People who don't necessarily know much about what each motherboard supports may at least know that 8x AGP bus is supposed to move data faster than 4x. If they do a little video card research and see that the 9200 is 8x, they might just assume a laptop using it does 8x AGP - making it better than a competitor's laptop with similar specs, but only stating it has a 9000 in it.)
...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.
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).
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.
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.
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
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
The big problem with this, imho, is that consumers already can't trust advertising in regards to anything. Because of this, those in the know have to rely on known quantities, like the parts of the machine and its known specs by independent (or should I say trusted by that person) reviewers.
Therefore they only way they can tell if the purchase is worth their time is by looking at the specs, which we don't expect to be lied to about - and I had thought we had the force of law on our side, truth in advertising and all that. (warning: Poorly thought out car analogy ahead) A car company can't advertise a truck as having 500 horsepower, even if they can claim that there new-fangled 300hp engine is just as good in all conditions. Or even if they could claim that by putting 500hp engine into this trucks transmission wouldn't give you anymore benefit cause the transmission can't make use of the extra 200 horsepower.
If the specs say one thing, but they give us another - then there is no point in deciding for myself what is the best product - I should say here's 1000 dollars, give me the computer.
And finally, just because _they say_ there is no difference. It doesn't mean there is no difference. They have already lied to me about one thing, why should I trust them on this? They are removing my ability to research the video cards and deciding on my own if its worth paying more $$ on a video card that gives me no benifits, maybe there are benefits that for my particular purposes that review sites like Tom's Hardware didn't take into account or didn't even think about. Maybe they are right and there is no difference - but then don't lie to me about it!
"I'm a Genius!"*
*Not an actual Genius
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.
This is not unlike digital still cameras.
Have you been to Best Buy lately? You can purchase a 5 MP camera for $300. How can that be?! Because the camera delivers an effective rating of only 2.0 MP. Somehow the manufacturers are able to tout their product as a 5 MP camera.
What's going on here is the manufacturers recognize that consumers of electronics are sensitive to product numbers. When was the last time you heard of someone walking into Sears and purchasing a dishwasher because it has an R52JU actuator servo? Never. But, how many times have you heard of someone walking into Best Buy and purchase PC133 or PC2100 memory? All the time.
HP and Toshiba know that laptop purchases are sensitive to owning a Radeon 9200 (just like how digital camera makers know that purchasers are sensitive to owning a 5MP camera). It's not surprising at all the manufacturer is willing to futz with the model number to deceive the consumer.
The real question is: what are you going to do about it?
Do it for da shorties
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
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.
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.
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.
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
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"
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.
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
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.
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
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
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
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
...
So some super cheap brand didn't follows ATI's reference design properly. If you don't pay for a real ATI card, don't expect real ATI support. I'm sure the driver disk that came with the card would have had drivers that worked fine. I've come across a similar card myself, and it sucks, but it's what you end up with when you try to cut system costs to the absolute minimum.
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:
Geforce2 Pro
Geforce2 Ti
Geforce2 Ultra
Geforce2 GTS
Geforce2 MX
Geforce2 MX200
Geforce2 MX400
(Note I didn't bother listing the DDR/SDR versions)
Don't tell me that XFree86 and lspci all agree and can properly identify these cards everytime. Remember, these cards are only half as old as your ATI, the differences here are still considered somewhat important today. Yes it's a pain that there's a lot of different names for what today we consider to be essentialy the same card. However, back when these were top of the line, the differences were important, and as such needed different names.
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.
Except an RV280 is simply an RV250 that supports AGP 8x.
"You've got an invalid haircut" -Warren Zevon - Life'll Kill Ya
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!
I can't view the upgrade instructions you posted without registering, but I assume they're probably complicated, void the warrenty, and are only valid for these particular laptops (so you'd have to find other instructions to upgrade the hypothetical two-years-from-now laptop). It's usually quite difficult and risky to mess with laptop internals, which is why almost no one does it.
It's hard to be religious when certain people are never incinerated by bolts of lightning.
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
--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??