HP Spectre XT 13in Ivy Bridge Ultrabook review The Spectre XT is HP’s third shot at an Ultrabook in less than six months. The gleaming Gorilla Glass livery of the original 14-inch Spectre was both eye-catching and rugged, but it was also very expensive and quite a bit heavier than you’d expect from an Ultrabook. That was quickly followed by the Envy 4, which was much more …
On a smaller screen like this, it's probably excusable. Not sure I would want it running much higher in practice. Obviously 1280 x 800 would be far preferable though, as with most widescreen portable devices.
Now, how about a review of the Novatech ultrabooks, or whatever they're presumably rebadging?
Now I'm never not normally one to think focus groups are a good idea, but ffs..
Dear manufacturers. There are plenty of people looking to spend our money and there's a decent sub-section willing to pay for a retina-esque, non-shiny, quality display.
Ditto for 1080 desktop monitors - If I wanted a TV, I'd have bought one.
I have just noticed that iSuppli have had to downgrade their estimate for ultrabook sales in 2012 by about 50% - I wonder why? Couldn't possibly have anything to do with the OEMs selling mediocre kit at premium prices by any chance?
More than anything else in this sloppy review, The Reg should be embarrassed over the sorry Benchmark comparison dished up here!
Its October 2012, and you're comparing this Spectre with a load of Sandy Bridge based Ultrabooks from last Year!
Is HP paying you for this misinformation?
How about obtaining some benchmark results from this year? There are a number of Ultrabooks that also feature the Core i5-3317U, like Acer's S5, Sony's T11 and others, I take it you haven't heard of any of them...
Disgusting...
This post has been deleted by its author
"and – by Ultrabook standards – competitively priced."
Still more than twice the price of a conventional laptop.
As AC states above 1366x768 is not acceptable at this price point.
I notice your performance list only includes "Ultrabooks", would be interested to see some conventional laptops and desktops on there for comparison.
I like to do some CUDA stuff on my laptop. There are some pretty decent 13" laptops out there, with nVidia graphics, and a lot more processing clout, for less money. OK, they might not be quite as thin, but they are still quite light (I have seen an ASUS of just 1.78kg). Much more useful to me.
With a screen res of 1366X768 it's another junk consumer laptop in an expensive ali shell.
There's a reason ultrabooks simply won't sell, and the screen is pretty much it. Windows 7 can't cope with a 1080P 13" screen and no business user with any respect (target market) wants that stupid consumer-res 16X9 screen. As Dave said above, 1280X800 is better for real work. I could probably use this lappy since I normally use a 1920 X 1200 external monitor, but when I'm working away every last pixel on height helps.
When WILL they learn?
Interesting article here about scaling for Windows 8 but it essentially holds true for Windows 7.
It doesn't work very well with high res but small screens.
http://techreport.com/review/23631/windows-8-ppi-scaling-on-the-zenbook-prime
1440x900 is about as high as you want to go at 13"
I would have expected a better GPU for that price too. At least something around the AMD 6450 level.
I bought a dell laptop in 2005 that had a 1600x1200 15" screen. WHY do modern laptops all have such a low res ? Is there a genuine reason for it ?
Seriously my mobile phone has almost the same resolution as the laptop reviewed here (HTC One-X at 720 x 1280)
I want a non-glossy (cos I use it in the real world), screen with at least 1600x900, but ideally a 16:10 screen.
Never ascribe to malice that which can adequately be explained by stupidity.
It's all in the name. If you make panels for tellies you think that "HD" means 1366x768 and "Full HD" means 1920x1080.
Computer marketroids probably hear a lot of people saying that they want "a laptop with a high definition screen" so they look in a components catalogue and see a lot of manufacturers flogging "HD" panels and think that's what the user wants. They don't understand that the user was thinking more along the lines of 1680x1050, or maybe 2560x1600, when he said "high definition"; he didn't mean "HD".
We need to change what we ask for. I don't want "HD" ... I used to think I wanted SXGA+ (1400x1050, like my old 14" Thinkpad) but screens are getting better, and production methods are improving so that higher pixel densities can be achieved with greater yields ... WQXGA will do. Just don't say "high definition" or you'll get 1366x768.
I like the Air (not keen on OSX, but that's just a personal preference and not the point here), but it's connectivity is limited. No ethernet (not even 10/100) and no HDMI - while you can get adapters, these add to the cost.
There appear to be few Ultrabooks that really tick all the boxes. Somewhat surprising really.
£900 + 1366x768 screen should automatically mean a harsh review hopefully containing words like unacceptable, useless, waste of money.
I talked to a Toshiba guy at a trade fair and asked him why the screen resolutions were so low, he had no idea it was a problem and I can only blame the press for that.
If people are playing a premium price they want a premium product. That means not only a high resolution screen but also 8GB of RAM.
I have mentioned this to a few tech sites that chances are the target audience don't want laptops costing more than £600 with low res screens and integrated Intel graphics so should stop reviewing them.
Basically tell the manufacturer's "Sorry but this machine falls below the standards our readers would want!"
Yes it might mean less laptops for review but then they (the manufacturers) might start asking why
Maybe set a Reg Hardware minimum spec requirement for kit submitted for review?
Otherwise why bother publishing reviews that just get laughed at?
By all means do the odd "£300-£400 laptop round up for your Mum/kids" article come Xmas but for the rest of us we need a little bit more.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
