Disappointing screen resolution. Dunno why HP doesn't offer 1600x900 screens anymore. First gen 14" Envy had them.

Agreed. "Ultra" should not be used to define low-resolution. 1366x768 is fine on 10 or 11". But on 14" it is a poor show. 1680x1050 should be their target. 1600x900 is very 2007. 2012 should bring us progress

even the envy 13 had those screens!

768p slap

You can get 1600x900 screen, just not in the base configuration. Do people ever read anymore? :shadedshu

FourstaffYou can get 1600x900 screen, just not in the base configuration. Do people ever read anymore? :shadedshu

I think we all read the OP, "news", PR, Marketing blurb. And it said nothing but something we all felt was rather poor. I don't think it should be necessary for us to have to start an internet hunt to track down options that the Press Release / PR guys obviously didnt think was important for us to know.

Is the fault ours? Or is the fault attributable to poor PR? I call for those PR guys to fall on swords, and for us to continue to pester the industry to take high pixel density seriously. HELL, I bet Apple will do high pixel density on their next iMac/Air range and THEN, FINALLY, the herds of PC manufacturers will follow suit.

Why do we have to wait for Apple to bring the innovation (in an expensive walled garden product) before the PC industry finally moves their pedestrian design/PR teams to bring out something similar but cheaper?

i7-2770M? I didn't know that a CPU with that name was released and I checked at the web, Intels homepage and at CPU World. Specs please. The name suggest a quad and hence about 45 W! In a Ultrabook, most be a hell of a blower sitting on top of that CPU. According to HP site it is a i7-2677M.

Completely BonkersI think we all read the OP, "news", PR, Marketing blurb. And it said nothing but something we all felt was rather poor. I don't think it should be necessary for us to have to start an internet hunt to track down options that the Press Release / PR guys obviously didnt think was important for us to know.

Is the fault ours? Or is the fault attributable to poor PR? I call for those PR guys to fall on swords, and for us to continue to pester the industry to take high pixel density seriously. HELL, I bet Apple will do high pixel density on their next iMac/Air range and THEN, FINALLY, the herds of PC manufacturers will follow suit.

Why do we have to wait for Apple to bring the innovation (in an expensive walled garden product) before the PC industry finally moves their pedestrian design/PR teams to bring out something similar but cheaper?

That would be Bta's style of writing the news, because quite a few other websites mentioned about the higher res screen you get if you are going with the recommended specs. Everybody shares the some of the fault, but it makes me sad (and slightly annoyed) that posters will just post some junk without researching a bit deeper, making themselves look like fools.

I have no problems with low pixel density, but people conveniently forget that you can easily get high pixel screens for a little more cash. The option is there, but blinded by "omgwtfcheap" glasses(tm) everybody seems to wear. Every major laptop manufacturer produce 1080p screens for their standard (non budget) lineup as an upgrade, and quite a few even does the 1200p demanded by a certain vocal group of people.

Fourstaff. Everybody shares the some of the fault, but it makes me sad (and slightly annoyed) that posters will just post some junk without researching a bit deeper, making themselves look like fools.

I know that this was not an reply to my post (wrong CPU in press release) but how can 20 different sites post the press release and not think - wow a new Intel CPU.....and then research and commit on it?