Is the HP compaq 6220s inferior to the hp compaq nc6320

  1. #1
    mcfe is offline Newbie

    Red face Is the HP compaq 6220s inferior to the hp compaq nc6320

    I am a computer novice and unfortunately have recenty dropped my student son's laptop a HP compaq nc6320 which he was quite happy with. The insurance company have offered me a HP compaq 6720s which is a lot cheaper (and my son thinks is less superior?)but they have said they have the same specifications. I have contacted HP as the 450 pound price different seemed too much they have said 'our' laptop had a 'higher component processer and was more durable and would be expected to have a better longevity'. Can you help me out I would like to sort this out before my son gets back from a school trip. I naively thought I would get another laptop the same although it is available on the web the insurance company said they can't supply it and he has had it 16 months??????????
    If the offer is inferior could you give me the corect terminology to battle with?


  2. #2
    jephree is offline ¨*·.¸ «.·°·..·°·.» ¸.·*¨
    Here are the specs:

    compaq nc6320

    http://h20000.www2.hp.com/bizsupport...dTypeId=321957

    compaq 6720s

    http://h20000.www2.hp.com/bizsupport...dTypeId=321957

    Both models especially the original have many options.

    Do you know your particular specs?

    What happened when you dropped it?

    What makes you think it is not repairable?

  3. #3
    mcfe is offline Newbie
    unfortunately the insurance company are closed until Monday so I can't get the specific options until then. It needed a screen replacement and a crack on the base where the blouetooth was.

  4. #4
    mcfe is offline Newbie
    I have dropped my son's laptop and it is 'beyond economic repair. It was HP Compaq business notepad NC63220 pentium mobile 1.6 15" monitor combo drive modem 512mb 40g?I am in the bad books because my ex-husband paid a lot of money for it and the insurance company have offered HP Compaq 6720s intel cor? which seems to have similar specs but I have been told is not as durable and doesn't look as robust. HP have told me that our laptop was more robust had a hiher procer capacity? this means nothing to me could someone explain why it was superior and recommend a model which is similar/robust/same specs?

    Thanks in advance

  5. #5
    jephree is offline ¨*·.¸ «.·°·..·°·.» ¸.·*¨
    As I mentioned your original laptop had a wide range of initial options.

    Without knowing these specs we can only guess what was in it.

    That same model computer could have been either high or low end depending on the options that were originally chosen.

    Any one of these CPU's could be in there:

    Intel Core 2 Duo Processor T7600 2.33 GHz 4 MB L2 cache 667 MHz front side bus

    Intel Core 2 Duo Processor T7400 2.16 GHz 4 MB L2 cache 667 MHz front side bus

    Intel Core 2 Duo Processor T7200 2.0 GHz 4 MB L2 cache 667 MHz front side bus

    Intel Core 2 Duo Processor T5600 1.83 GHz 2 MB L2 cache 667 MHz front side bus

    Intel Core 2 Duo Processor T5500 1.66 GHz 2 MB L2 cache 667 MHz front side bus

    Intel Core Duo processor T2500 2.0 GHz 2 MB L2 cache 667 MHz front side bus

    Intel Core Duo processor T2400 1.83 GHz 2 MB L2 cache 667 MHz front side bus

    Intel Celeron M processor 420 1.60 GHz 1 MB L2 cache 533 MHz front side bus
    That is a vast range. The replacement they offer has this range:

    Intel Core2 Duo (up to 2.4-GHz, up to 4-MB L2 cache)

    Intel Celeron Processor (up to 2.0-GHz, 1-MB L2 cache)
    The replacement @ 2.4-GHz is a better CPU than the best of the original @ 2.33-GHz.

    They both support up to 4GB RAM.

    The graphics in the replacement is superior as long as you have enough RAM. 2GB or more would be best.

    The replacement only offers Vista: either basic or business. Get business.

    With all the high end options the replacement they offer is a better computer than what you had originally.

    Just make sure you get all the high end options.
    Last edited by jephree; 03-05-2008 at 12:28 AM.

+ Reply to Thread