Talk:HP 2133 Mini-Note PC

Not qualified as a Linux device

Otherwise, we will need to say every single x86, and in fact, many cell phones that can run Linux, and other Unix servers as Linux device. Raysonho (talk) 18:00, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

The device SELLS with Linux preinstalled, which qualifies for a template inclusion. Wikipedia:Third opinion requested. --Kozuch (talk) 14:50, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, maybe we should do that? If it runs linux, then it's a linux based device, right? --causa sui ^talk 19:43, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

It is a Windows device then, as it has Windows preinstalled. I don't think a laptop (or computer) should be grouped in this kind of "XYZ-device". 99.9% laptops on today's market can be shipped with any OS that runs on x86. If there is demand, there can be laptops preinstalled with Solaris, and even QNX or VxWorks. However, it's marketing more than anything else as there is nothing special with the device itself. --Raysonho (talk) 23:23, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Kozuch (talk · contribs · count) says it is preinstalled with Linux? Which is correct? --causa sui ^talk 23:49, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

It is preinstalled with Win XP or Vista, together with Linux being an option to the users when they order the machine. --Raysonho (talk) 01:28, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

There is 11 more devices like this HP netbook in the laptop section of Template:Linux devices. Why dont you have problems with them too then? --Kozuch (talk) 00:25, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

I will cleanup the template itself, but it's the first step to clean up the article page. --Raysonho (talk) 01:28, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

I am affraid you will not reach consensus here.--Kozuch (talk) 18:49, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Third opinion

Template is appropriate as the device ships with Linux 1 and is stated to be for Linux at the product specification on the manufacturer website.2. Species8473 (talk) 02:29, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

There are 6 models of HP 2133 shipping with Windows XP or Vista, while only 2 with Linux preinstalled. See the comparison page. I don't see why we need to emphasis Linux while ignoring Windows. And, as I mentioned above, over 99.9% of the laptops are shipped with either Windows or Linux, there is nothing special about the hardware. --Raysonho (talk) 02:51, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Following two editors on the template talk page rules section, all products that are shipped with Linux can be added. If you don't agree with that, I believe it's best you take it there. As it would influence many other products having the template as well. Windows doesn't have to be ignored, there is nothing against adding a template for that as well. Species8473 (talk) 03:44, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Of course I will cleanup the template page -- see the discussion in the Not qualified as a Linux device section. Now you see a problem of adding the template for Windows?? It tells us that the HP 2133 is NOT designed for Linux, it's just another laptop model that the manufactor ships Linux with some models. And, there are only 2 models that are shipped with Linux, which makes it less important.

Further, all general purpose computers can run Linux, but without Linux the machine can be installed with Windows or Solaris and still work perfectly well. I don't understand why we should group all kinds of laptops and desktops and servers as "Linux Devices" and add all of them into the template. But to maintain an unbiased WP:NPOV if we add this huge list as Linux Devices, we will also add the same list (may be a bigger list, as Windows supports more laptop models) as Windows Devices. --Raysonho (talk) 15:26, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

As already said, feel free to start similar "Windows laptops" template. However, I guess you will fail to do so because it is way too general topic and therefore, it would make no sense to start such a template. Isnt it just enough when various Wikipedia articles say MS Windows is market dominant (and therefore ships with 90+% of laptops or desktop computers)?--Kozuch (talk) 18:55, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Windows is market dominant has nothing to do with not adding a template for it. But my initial reason is exactly what you just said: "because it is way too general topic". We don't need to group all personal computers into a template and say that they are personal computers. And again, what is the value of the template to the reader?? --Raysonho (talk) 14:02, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

HP identifies the product as being a Linux mini-notebook1 There are other HP notebooks listed as certified for Linux, but they cannot be bought bundled with Linux.2 On that topic, the range of Linux bundled products for another PC builder (second in market share after HP 3) is limited to four products 4.

The initial reason for removal was stated in part to be that it is not a "Linux based device".5 HP does state it to be a Linux mini-notebook.1

On the point of it being a way too general topic, the two biggest players in the market have only a very limited range of Linux bundled notebooks.

The value of navigational templates such as this one is that readers can browse to articles on similar topics. In this case they may be interested in other Linux based notebooks and products.

I find the point that the template is making the article busy unconvincing. As similar templates are used on many important wikipedia articles.1 2 3 4 That really is a personal opinion.

After further exploration my non-binding third opinion remains that the template is appropriate. Species8473 (talk) 16:25, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps a Linux devices category would be a better solution here? As it is very true that the list has the potential of becoming quite big. While leaving out devices even though they are stated to be for Linux by the manufacturer and sold with Linux seems unsettling too. It exists here, so use that and drop the template? Species8473 (talk) 01:11, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Sure the template can become very big. But today, it is not big yet. So what is the question again? Also FYI, the page sits in the cat you name for weeks already.--Kozuch (talk) 11:44, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

It appears there is no official policy on templates, but what we do have Wikipedia:Navigational_templates states they "should be kept small in size". If the template is to stay, it could very much use some {{documentation}} with clear guidelines for inclusion. Until the latter has been achieved the Template_talk:Linux_devices#Rules consensus that products shipped with Linux should best be followed. And that would be the only thing relevant to this talk page. I maintain to be of opinion that the template currently is appropriate for this article, for the reasons stated in the first line of this section. Species8473 (talk) 12:34, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

IMO, adding the template makes the page too "busy". It's not news that laptops can run Linux. And, if a laptop computer that ships with Linux can be added to the template, then most HP, Sun, IBM, Dell server/computer Wikipedia articles should be added as well. And even thinkpad laptops should be added as the manufactor ships some model with Linux. How big do you think the list is???? --Raysonho (talk) 14:02, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

I have made a copy of this at Template_talk:Linux_devices and replied there. Species8473 (talk) 15:08, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

"Linux open source drivers" is full of BS

VIA has been steadily releasing more and more of its chipset specifications along with even its padlock spec, and even without that linux does support almost every VIA chipset; and for the GPUs there's OpenChrome & other community drivers... As for the wireless I wouldn't know myself but the bcm43xx driver should be mature now. Jorophose (talk) 00:05, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Linux open source drivers

Reviewers have noticed that HP choose hardware that is not best suited to Linux enthusiasts. The hardware HP choose to build Mini-Note doesn't have open source Linux drivers. HP choose VIA as it's platform. VIA graphics chip needs proprietary Linux drivers and Broadcom wireless chips also. This is an issue for Linux enthusiasts and who like to install different Linux distribution (other than HP provided SLED) because the hardware doesn't work out of the box manually installing drivers (a task really hard for not experienced users).

(added for historic purposes)

Changed "Successors" to "Similar products from HP"

The Mini 1000 is meant for a different market segment^source so it can't really be called a successor. --Edward Sandstig (talk) 02:37, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

A very fair point, especially given the 2140's just come out and is more reasonably called a successor. Speaking of which, I'm not sure how to rework the article to better include that. 82.41.72.10 (talk) 19:58, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

The 2140 doesn't seem to be a clear-cut improvement over the 2133. It's larger, heavier, and has an inferior screen resolution compared to the 2133. And almost double the starting price compared to the low-end 2133. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.50.52.46 (talk) 14:16, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

HP Mini Note 2140 Additions

There doesn't appear to be a dedicated page for the 2140 and there should be. The 2140 and 2133 are closely related, but apart from the physical resemblances they are quite different internally. The Mini-Note 2133 page should remain that. I suggest that a new 2140 page is created and that the 2133 page references the new one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.66.19.181 (talk • contribs)

Taking a look at the the service manual (which is shared between them) they seem pretty damn similar to me internally as well as externally. The only significant changes are the better processor/chipset and screen. IMO that isn't significant enough to justify a seperate article. We don't have seperate articles for all the different EEEPC models for example.

I would however suggest moving this page to a more general title and giving the new model equal treatment to the old model. Plugwash (talk) 10:50, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Clarification on screen resolution, XP ACPI compatibility

I recently purchased a "low-end" 2133 (the one that comes with a 4 gb SSD drive, SUSE Linux, 512 mb ram and 1 ghz CPU). This unit has a screen resolution of 1280 x 768.

HP's spec sheet (13009_div.pdf) for the 2133 does list an alternative or optional screen (1024 x 600), perhaps also having a different backlight (LED vs CCFL). Does anyone know which 2133 models do indeed have the lower resolution screen? Or do all 2133's have the 1280 x 768 screen?

Also, I have replaced my 4 gb SSD drive with a 160 gb hard drive, and have installed XP-pro SP3, but can't get the ACPI component to work. Does anyone know if there are valid XP ACPI drivers for the 2133? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.50.52.46 (talk) 14:05, 3 May 2009 (UTC)