*HP dv6t & dv7t (70XX / 71XX series) IVY BRIDGE Owners Lounge*

[basharg]

Some recommendations for SSDs:
Best SSDs and Best HDDs | Hardware Revolution
although make sure you pick a 2.5" one

[demonedge]

That 1080P screen is worth every copper cent over that atrocious standard screen. You will not be disappointed.

I purchased the last batch of dv7qte with the standard res of 1600x900 and thought the screen quality was excellent. I exchanged that one for the newest batch since I was still in the 21 day window and wanted to get the most for my money. After reading all the info on the web, it seems most people think you must be lacking a brain in order to NOT get the high def screen. So I started to regret my choice.. but I decided to do some of my own tests.

So I have a friend who has a sony VAIO with the "full hd" matte screen who brought over his machine and we compared a blu ray side by side. 1920x1080 and although the extra window space was nice I didn't see that much of a difference. The colors, gamma, contrast were about the same. The vertical/horizontal viewing angle was slightly better on his screen and I did enjoy the anti-glare of the matte but it made the picture look slightly "dull".

Where are all these people coming from that the other screen is VASTLY superior? Maybe this was true a year or so ago, im not sure. Any one have any valid reference to this claim?

[xAnimal]

I purchased the last batch of dv7qte with the standard res of 1600x900 and thought the screen quality was excellent. I exchanged that one for the newest batch since I was still in the 21 day window and wanted to get the most for my money. After reading all the info on the web, it seems most people think you must be lacking a brain in order to NOT get the high def screen. So I started to regret my choice.. but I decided to do some of my own tests.

So I have a friend who has a sony VAIO with the "full hd" matte screen who brought over his machine and we compared a blu ray side by side. 1920x1080 and although the extra window space was nice I didn't see that much of a difference. The colors, gamma, contrast were about the same. The vertical/horizontal viewing angle was slightly better on his screen and I did enjoy the anti-glare of the matte but it made the picture look slightly "dull".

Where are all these people coming from that the other screen is VASTLY superior? Maybe this was true a year or so ago, im not sure. Any one have any valid reference to this claim?

Not all 1080p screens are the same.
You can't compare a crappy 1080p screen vs a good 900p screen.

Contrast, Gamma, color temp all depend on the screen brand. Why do you think that some 1080p screens look crisper than others?

I don't know about other people, but the difference between 900p and 1080p is noticeable enough in games, blu ray, and once you get to his price range, there is no point in having a screen that isn't 1080p.

[Tonyn84]

I forget who all was asking above, but regarding msata vs hybrid drive options. The seagate hybrid drive is pretty impressive, but when it comes down to it, it only has 8gb (I think) of nand to write to. It would be a big help if you only had one slot and didn't want a full ssd due to capaticy or cost. However, since these new Pavillions have the option for an msata cache drive, I think that is a much better value, purely due to the capacity. They are both doing the same thing, one just has more space to store your most frequent data.

[neon10th]

I purchased the last batch of dv7qte with the standard res of 1600x900 and thought the screen quality was excellent. I exchanged that one for the newest batch since I was still in the 21 day window and wanted to get the most for my money. After reading all the info on the web, it seems most people think you must be lacking a brain in order to NOT get the high def screen. So I started to regret my choice.. but I decided to do some of my own tests.

So I have a friend who has a sony VAIO with the "full hd" matte screen who brought over his machine and we compared a blu ray side by side. 1920x1080 and although the extra window space was nice I didn't see that much of a difference. The colors, gamma, contrast were about the same. The vertical/horizontal viewing angle was slightly better on his screen and I did enjoy the anti-glare of the matte but it made the picture look slightly "dull".

Where are all these people coming from that the other screen is VASTLY superior? Maybe this was true a year or so ago, im not sure. Any one have any valid reference to this claim?

I thought people were more referring to the 1366x768 screen on the dv6.

[fmmsf]

Also I see numerous people are confused over the mSSD CACHE. This has to be coupled with a standard hard drive (preferably 7200 rpm for better performance, not a 5400 rpm). It can not be coupled with an SSD (solid state drive) and can not be combined with a Hybrid hard drive, which also has an SSD form of cache in it. This mSSD is a CACHE module, not a separate drive and can NOT be used as such.

carolina, do you know how the mSSD is physically connected? what port it uses, etc.. thanks!

[ahalleran]

Do we still not know if these come with optimus? It seems like it would be weird if it didn't but it's not in the specs anywhere.

[itsfuntodobadthings]

I'm thinking of ordering this laptop today... before I do.. could someone please tell me their experience with HP trade-in and upgrade program. If you had a Sandy Bridge laptop and upgraded to IB, how much did they give you for your old laptop? How much extra did you have to pay? Any other info?

I just heard they have a good trade in program, but cant find any details..

[coastal_carolina]

I purchased the last batch of dv7qte with the standard res of 1600x900 and thought the screen quality was excellent. I exchanged that one for the newest batch since I was still in the 21 day window and wanted to get the most for my money. After reading all the info on the web, it seems most people think you must be lacking a brain in order to NOT get the high def screen. So I started to regret my choice.. but I decided to do some of my own tests.

So I have a friend who has a sony VAIO with the "full hd" matte screen who brought over his machine and we compared a blu ray side by side. 1920x1080 and although the extra window space was nice I didn't see that much of a difference. The colors, gamma, contrast were about the same. The vertical/horizontal viewing angle was slightly better on his screen and I did enjoy the anti-glare of the matte but it made the picture look slightly "dull".

Where are all these people coming from that the other screen is VASTLY superior? Maybe this was true a year or so ago, im not sure. Any one have any valid reference to this claim?

Let me put this into perspective.

I have worked in I.T. for a while and have seen many types of monitors, etc.

My previous laptop was a DELL XPS M1710 which was a great laptop but based on 6 year old technology (2006).

The WUXGA Truelife (1920 x 1200) screen that it had blew the non HD screen on the dv7t-6000 series (which had the 1600x resolution screen) out of the fricken water.

Something is seriously wrong with that picture if a 6 year old laptop has a better screen than a shiny new HP with all the bells a whistles that is hot off the assembly line.

One of these dv7t quads I have is for me, and one I spec'd for my parents who are in there late 50's and even they thought that the non-HD HP screen was THE worse they had seen.

I haven't even touched on how I want to be able to see 1080P movies/video clips, etc in TRUE 1080P resolution which is going to take the 1080P screen, not a 1600x screen.

ALSO, if you are a multitasker and/or like spreading apps and/or information out onto your screen - 1080P it is.

I wouldn't even be able to FUNCTION day to day with the 1366x resolution on the dv6's.

As most of you can tell, I am DEATH on the non FULL HD HP screens. I don't think I would pee on one if I saw it on fire.

[PaKii94]

Let me put this into perspective.

I have worked in I.T. for a while and have seen many types of monitors, etc.

My previous laptop was a DELL XPS M1710 which was a great laptop but based on 6 year old technology (2006).

The WUXGA Truelife (1920 x 1200) screen that it had blew the non HD screen on the dv7t-6000 series (which had the 1600x resolution screen) out of the fricken water.

Something is seriously wrong with that picture if a 6 year old laptop has a better screen than a shiny new HP with all the bells a whistles that is hot off the assembly line.

One of these dv7t quads I have is for me, and one I spec'd for my parents who are in there late 50's and even they thought that the non-HD HP screen was THE worse they had seen.

I haven't even touched on how I want to be able to see 1080P movies/video clips, etc in TRUE 1080P resolution which is going to take the 1080P screen, not a 1600x screen.

ALSO, if you are a multitasker and/or like spreading apps and/or information out onto your screen - 1080P it is.

I wouldn't even be able to FUNCTION day to day with the 1366x resolution on the dv6's.

As most of you can tell, I am DEATH on the non FULL HD HP screens. I don't think I would pee on one if I saw it on fire.

haha kinda harsh (im surviving on 1280x800 until i get the refrshed envy) but i must say they are bad considering they are from 2012)