HP’s notebook disassembly stage show

Ed Dawson | Aug 8, 2007 4:32 PM

What can a vendor-controlled comparison of notebook technology teach us? Plenty – but not in the way it was intended. Read on as we expose HP’s notebook ‘Reliability Challenge’.

What can a vendor-controlled comparison of notebook technology teach us? Plenty – but not in the way it was intended. Read on as we expose HP’s notebook ‘Reliability Challenge’.

Under the dubious moniker of ‘reliability challenge’, HP technicians dismantled current notebooks from their competitors in a light-hearted media session at their Making Connections 2007 press event, ‘comparing’ their durability features. Rather than an impartial examination of the facts, what this actually entailed was five HP employees in an oftentimes whimsical demonstration, showing off dismantled notebooks from HP, Lenovo, Dell and Acer. The models taken apart were the Lenovo X60, the Dell Latitude D420, the Acer Travelmate 3022 (available only in Asian markets), and the new HP Compaq 2510. The process was described as “timely tear-downs and full disclosures”, comparing each manufacturer’s “platform testing regimen”. Of course, this was essentially a paper comparison of published information that each company is willing to publicly disclose, with a generous dash of strongly skewed opinion.

The so-called “competitor technicians” (all from HP).

The HP presenters wore white labcoats with the competitor vendor’s logos crudely printed on, guffawing as they joked around during the demonstration. As each component was compared, ‘points’ were awarded for each section’s winner. It was no surprise to any of the journalists attending that HP was crowned the ‘winner’ of this humourous PT Barnum-esque production. What HP didn’t expect, we expect, was that anyone would actually write about it.

Reliability and Service are two terms that PC Authority magazine takes very seriously, especially considering our industry-recognised Reliability and Service Awards. So as we watched this dog-and-pony show unfold, we were able to make some sharp observations on the comparisons being made, with a rather critical eye. PC Authority learned lessons in this ‘class’ that were not part of the curriculum. Additionally, despite the paper-thin credibility of the demonstration, it’s a very rare opportunity to see four notebooks from major vendors disassembled and compared together – our camera captured these exploded contemporary models, and we’ve followed it up with some research.

HP’s whimsical presenter.

Read on as we give you a front seat at this extraordinary presentation, but brace yourselves - it may come as a shock to see how technology companies can be when trying to shame their competitors – they really don’t pull any punches.

Next: External Durability

Presenter and the HP keyboard.

The first comparison that HP made between the four models was external durability, especially relating to the resilience of keyboard materials. Our presenter explained that you often notice with existing notebooks that the keyboards often develop shiny spots on the most frequently used keys, especially the space bar. This is especially true of journalists’ computers, so this point causing a number of acknowledging murmurs among the audience attending.

Presenter and the HP keyboard.

The presenter went on to explain that the simulation of thousands of keystrokes was done with a mechanical process called a taber test, which drags a cylindrical object back and forth along the keyboard 250,000 times. The results of this keyboard-wearing test were then shown, which were apparently carried out by an independent lab, Trace Laboratories.

The Acer keyboard after the taber test.

The Acer’s keyboard took a drastic beating in the taber test, showing vicious white scratches which had etched into the space bar’s surface. Indeed, the journalist gentleman beside me had typed so many words into his personal Acer notebook, that the entire keyboard exhibited a well-worn, polished appearance, as if sand-blasted. This was not part of the test, rather a coincidental confirmation of the speaker’s comments.

The Acer keyboard after the taber test.

The Lenovo keyboard also exhibited scratching to a lesser degree than the Acer, as did the Dell, but the HP Compaq seemed more resilient showing only the well-documented ‘shiny’ wearing. In this test, the HP Compaq keyboard was the least damaged by the taber test, with only a marginal effect on the plastic surface. Were these keyboards treated exactly the same during testing? We can’t confirm it. But the HP’s resilience was put down to the HP Compaq’s ‘Durakeys’ finish, a transparent coating over the keys that resists visible wearing, up to 50 times more than keyboards without it. HP has apparently bought the rights to this technology for one year, claiming that only HP keyboards will have this level of friction resistance. HP Durafinish is another technology that was showcased, which is a lamination process that surrounds the keyboard deck, improving the wear resistance of this area.

Dell keyboard after the taber test.

Is it fair to compare keyboards that are specially treated for wear resistance against those that aren’t? Of course not, and we expect that most of the notebook manufacturers will follow suit with resilient keyboard coatings this year. However HP appears to be first with it.

A side issue is that along with the ‘shiny’ evidence of wear, the character labels on a keyboard begin to be sanded off with heavy use, potentially making the keyboard difficult to read. Indeed, the very keyboard that composed this piece is losing the coloured printing that labels each key. The left Control key label is all but indistinguishable, while the A key is losing flecks of its identity, while the space bar and center row of characters are showing the tell-tale signs of wear, in shiny spots of varying dimensions.

Lenovo keyboard after the taber test.

Your mileage will vary, depending on the amount of typing you do. This desktop keyboard has suffered near-continuously typing for nigh on twelve months during business hours, so it’s perhaps not surprising that it’s showing signs of abuse.

At the same time, isn’t covering a notebook’s keys with impenetrable hard plastic ensuring that they’ll remain in the landscape for hundreds of years after being discarded? This is potentially a point of environmental concern. If an average notebook is used for two years, is it really necessary to harden the keyboard to the point of being indestructible? By the time it’s worn out, you’ll likely be looking at upgrading anyway.

The HP Compaq keyboard after the taber test.

Another item mentioned in this round was adding privacy filters to notebook screens. The privacy filter is of course a flat piece of transparent plastic that is placed over a notebook display, that prevents people next to you in an aeroplane or departure lounge from reading your screen – it makes the screen contents invisible to observers, other that the user who is looking directly at it. The key comparison here was that HP Compaq have a privacy filter that’s specially cut to fit each model of notebook, so that the use of sticky tape or other adhesives was not necessary to fix the privacy filter in place.

Next: Hard Disk Drive Protection compared
The second comparison that HP made between the four models was hard disk drive protection. The presenters each profiled their ‘own’ system for protecting the notebook hard drive (remembering of course, that they are all HP employees).

HP’s hard drive protection doesn’t use a rubber bumper.

The man with the Dell labcoat highlighted his strike zone in the casing design and rubber bumper around the drive itself. Lenovo have their two dimensional accelerometer and rubber bumper, also.

HP’s system for drive protection was of course given all the stage time, profiling their “3D Driveguard” system, which incorporates a three dimensional directional sensor and tilt sensor. The tilt sensor allows the notebook to anticipate an impact, by measuring a sudden twist in the computer’s orientation, as you would see when the notebook falls off a desk. Mid-air, the system is able to prepare the hard drive from impact and hence park the heads, protecting it. Whenever the notebook is in motion, for example being carried under the arm, the heads are parked indefinitely, until the system is motionless for 20 seconds, the lid is opened, AC power is connected, or the battery runs down.

HP also profiled their “HP DriveGuard” rigid hard drive mounting, where the drive is screwed directly into the chassis, rather than having it ‘float’ in a small cell area of the housing.

There are several schools of thought on this point, as some manufacturers tend to think that items which are not securely fixed to the mainboard are more resistant to shock damage. Without doing a scientific destruction test, it’s difficult to accept this as a superior feature.

HP also mentioned their HP Drive Encryption, which, like Bitlocker in Windows Vista Ultimate, can protect the entire contents of a hard drive from intruders after theft. Obviously, with the HP solution you can gain access to such protection under Windows XP.

Next: Battery reliability

The "competitors" compare battery assemblies.

The third comparison that HP made between the four models was battery reliability. As HP puts it, “Battery failure has been a recent cause of public concern,” That’s quite an understatement. Citing a long list of criteria, HP seemed to judge the winner in this category based on whether they complied with all of the battery features that HP listed. They cited cell selection testing, a flame-retardant casing, flexible circuit interconnects, conformal coatings over the PCA (Printed Circuit Assembly), cell barriers, no discrete wire interconnects and a safe charging algorithm.

HP’s battery assembly with the flexible circuit interconnects (orange lines).

It’s interesting to see how so many of these points are clearly geared towards the goal of “avoiding a fireball”, and additionally interesting that HP pointed an accusing finger at Dell’s battery design with its “regular wiring, which can kink, bend and heat up,” according to HP’s presenter.

HP’s presenter highlights the conformal coatings over the PCA (the green shrinkwrap covering).

That’s something you don’t hear every day. Could the discrete wire interconnects be one of the reasons for Dell’s infamous “fireball” laptop incident? At the same time, why do HP batteries require so many “fire-reduction” features? It seems as though Lithium-Ion, a high-energy density technology that won’t be superseded anytime soon, is a variable dragon that the industry must wrestle with for the duration, by designing in additional safety features to Li-ion battery systems.

A close-up of HP’s battery assembly.

HP claims active participation in the IEEE Standard 1625 Committee, which covers standards for rechargeable batteries for portable computing. Of course, no-one from Dell was present to counter the allegations and claims being made by HP, so they should be taken with a grain of salt.

Next: Structural Integrity

The HP representative shows off the magnesium alloy structure on the HP Compaq 2510.

The fourth comparison that HP made between the four models was structural integrity.
HP touted its magnesium alloy display enclosure and magnesium alloy support structure (also called the “roll cage” or “chassis”). This claim was able to be met by Lenovo’s X60, which has exactly the same strong materials for the display enclosure and roll cage. Acer apparently has a magnesium roll cage for its models but only in the 12-inch class, while according to HP, Dell couldn’t claim the same high-tech materials.

The HP representative drops a steel ball onto the display of the HP Compaq 2510…

HP also touted the performance of their screen with "chemically strengthened glass", which they subjected to an impromptu physical test, as the audience looked on. Dropping a steel sphere the size of a golf ball from waist height directly onto the screen, made many observers in the room wince. "Has the screen got the chops for this test?" asked the presenter rhetorically. But it simply landed, with a significant "bash" sound, and rolled to the corner. The screen (which was operational during the test) was none the worse for wear. It was displayed to the audience members for close inspection immediately afterwards. None of the other notebooks were subjected to screen impact tests.

Next: Integration Testing

The final topic of comparison that HP covered was integration testing. Integration testing involves analysis and testing of the computer on various operating systems and productivity software suites. HP claimed more total hours of integration testing than the competitors on show, but there is no realistic way to challenge or verify this claim. After this was covered, a table was displayed with the final reliability challenge ‘scores’ as determined by HP.

Overall, while this presentation may have been strongly skewed in favour of HP (without allowing their competitors a right of reply), the keen observer can make useful conclusions from the disassembled machines. See the next page for our complete photo gallery, with detailed close-ups of many different notebook components that were on show, including extreme close-ups of various open battery housings, showing the different approaches to lithium-ion battery systems.

The HP notebook Reliability Challenge was held during HP’s 2007 Mobility Summit in Shanghai. Ed Dawson attended the conference as a guest of Hewlett Packard.

Next: Complete Photo Gallery

See also: HP video of technicians 'shooting and exploding' their own servers

The so-called “competitor technicians” (all from HP).

HP’s whimsical presenter.

Presenter and the HP keyboard.

The Acer keyboard after the taber test.

Dell keyboard after the taber test.

Lenovo keyboard after the taber test.

The HP Compaq keyboard after the taber test.