Quick review of the HP 2140

[gregw]

Right... I'm still in the process of installing software on this thing, but after my adventures of Upgrading the 2140 with an SSD and Win XP SP3, I thought I'd take the time and play around with it first.

I have to say, that THIS is the Mininote that HP should have sold in the first place. Not the 2133. I'm in the process of copying about 30GB of stuff from my USB hard drive to the SSD in the Mininote while at the same time, watching a movie with KMPlayer at full screen, with the "Quality" preset. CPU usage is easily 95% to 99% while all this is going on, but temperature of the CPU remains at less than 60 celsius, and the video is still playing smoothly with no missing frames or jerkiness. And yes, the heat problem from the 2133 is now history..

I've also realised that now that the screen is a 10.2" instead of a 8.9" in the 2133, I no longer have to use a larger font to read comfortably, so for me, it actually displays more on 1024 x 576 than it did at 1024 x 600.

I'll add more to this review as I use it, but so far, aside from the disk recovery issue in the link above, it's a thumbs up from me for the 2140.

[luvit]

glad you chose 2140, gregger!
(:

[Annabel]

Whoa!
Does it work for 8 hours from 6-cell battery? (or 4 from 3-cell)

[gregw]

I haven't tried it for a full battery yet, but the battery icon in the tray forecasts about 7+ hours on my 6 cell battery if I'm just browsing the internet with Bluetooth and WLAN on. That's much better than the 2133.. :lol:

[nimaim]

Thanks for the mini-review gregw. Everything sounds great, but the only reason I bought the 2133 is that it is the only netbook on the market that gives you close to full resolution of other notebooks at 1280x768 (heat and weakness of the C7-M is the only downfall). I can't stand netbooks with 1024x600 where even fitting one post on the screen becomes a chore. It's so annoying have to scroll down for EVERYTHING. The 2140 is a VERY good revamp, no doubt, but I will only consider it when they offer it with the 1366x768 display, expected in a few months. Plus, I got my KX870AT for $325 A/R + cashback so I doubt the 2140 will be that cost effective. We will see though; I am sure HP will offer a big rebate on the 2140 sometime down the road. I am still not certain how HP will be offering the highest res. screen though. I thought that the Intel chipset restricted resolutions to 1024x600 but I guess not.

[gregw]

nimaim, I guess my point of view is slightly different. With my 2133 and it's 8.9" screen at just 1024x600, I already had to increase the fonts to 125% in order to read comfortably. Now that the 2140 has a 10.2" screen at 1024x576, I can leave the fonts at 100% and still read comfortably. Leaving the fonts at 100% in the 2140 actually means that I now have less scrolling to do than in the 2133.

For me, I would imagine that I would have had to make the fonts at least 150% or more to read properly if I had the 1280x768 8.9" screen in the 2133. With the larger font, I think the difference in the amount of information on the screen between the higher and lower resolution screens wouldn't have been very much.

[nimaim]

No worries, I understand it's different for everyone. I'm glad you've found the perfect netbook for yourself I just love the best resolution I can get because I can get the most work done that way. I have a WUXGA (1920x1200) screen on my Dell Latitude E6500 (15.4" screen) and most people think that is insanely small since many come from 1280x800 15.4" screens. Same thing here: 1280x768 on a 8.9" is way too small for a lot of people, but great for others. I leave everything on default 100% zoom level and I have no issues but when my dad tried to use it, forget it, lol. I worked with 1024x600 resolution before (on a Dell Mini and Aspire One) and just couldn't stand it.

I'm glad HP is releasing the 2140 with two resolutions (one low, one high), very smart on their part. I'll be waiting for the 1366x768 display. For now though, the 2133 is close to perfect. I appreciate the review greg, puts things into perspective, and I enjoy reading reviews from fellow HP 2133 geeks

[gregw]

Speaking of different resolutions on the 2140, I've found that the 2140 screen can't be "squeezed" to 1024x768 like the 2133. i.e. in my 2133, I could change the resolution to 1024x768, and everything vertical would be "squeezed" vertically, but everything would still be visible. In the 2140, 1024x768 is possible, but it extends beyond the screen and scrolls vertically. i.e. if you move your pointer to the bottom of the screen, then the desktop will scroll to the bottom and vice versa. There is no option to be able to display it "squeezed" like the 2133.

Also, to change the resolution higher than 1024x576 on the onboard screen, you need to go to "Display Properties", "Settings", "Advanced", "Monitor" and uncheck the "Hide modes that this monitor cannot display" box, in order to get other resolutions. All resolutions are then available, but the desktop will just display beyond the screen and there will be a lot of scrolling that you will need to do.

[gregw]

I just replaced my failing Linksys WRT-54G router with a Belkin N router to take advantage of the Draft-N WLAN card in my 2140. Connecting at 15 feet from the router, I'm getting connection speeds of 216MB/S and above. So, the WLAN card on the 2140 seems to be performing pretty well. I'll need to try some throughput testing later..

-- edit --
I've found that the Belkin N Router has a tendency to drop WLAN connections once in a while if you're using a mix a/b/g/n setting with 40mhz bandwidth. I've had to drop it down to a single 20mhz setting for stability, but this also means that the top speed is now only 150MB/s instead of 300MB/s, but connections do seem to be more stable... I also did an informal throughput testing with 40mhz bandwidth to a wireless G (54MB/s) laptop and it topped out at 1300 Kb/sec, which is basically the max for wireless G due to the overhead required to talk to to WLAN laptops.. I'll try testing again by copying a file to a wired laptop next time.

[gregw]

I just tried some throughput testing, copying a big file from a wired PC connected at 100MB to my 2140 connected with Wireless N. I found something weird.

In my Belkin N Router, you can enable 40Mhz connections, which will allow you to connect up to 300MB/s, i.e. 2x 150MB/s channels. If I enable this dual channel connection, connecting speed is indicated at 240MB/s, I am getting a max download speed of only 3500Kb/Sec.. However, if I disable the dual channel and connect at only 20Mhz bandwidth, I am connecting at an indicated speed of 117MB/s but getting a max download speed of 6100Kb/Sec.. :lol:

I guess the overhead hand shaking traffic required to handle dual channel is causing the speed to halve. I think this is probably a limitation of the Belkin N router I have since this is the "middle" model, and not the Belkin N+ model, which should be able to handle both channels without a reduction in throughput. In any case, if anyone can do some testing and come up with other figures, I'd appreciate it.