Cheap, functional, upgradeable: HP’s Stream and Pavilion Mini desktops reviewed

These inexpensive Windows desktops have a surprising amount to offer.

Read the whole story

 

[rwxatc]

Man oh man, if form followed functionality, this device would be in big trouble.

It is SO ugly.

 

[JustQuestions]

robert.walter[/url]":38etlrn6]Man oh man, if form followed functionality, this device would be in big trouble.

It is SO ugly.

Yeah it's to a point where it is almost comical. I would either hide the USB ports and logos and try to convince house guests that it was an expensive piece of postmodern art, or just put it in a cardboard box that was spray-painted black with holes cut out for the ports.

I mean, if it looks worse than a spray-painted cardboard box, then you failed to meet what I would call the minimum requirements.

 

[rodalpho]

Rookie_MIB[/url]":35v5vvr9]I like it, but the only problem is if you're building a HTPC for local file playback, when you're going up against the newer Raspberry Pi 2, you're running at a pretty serious disadvantage with regards to capability vs price.

That's basically correct. The rpi and rpi2 are extremely effective OpenELEC/Kodi devices. These haswell celeron boxes have a number of other advantages over the rpi, though. I can watch Netflix in Google Chrome, which can be controlled with a remote control. I play games through Steam in-home streaming. And I run other services on the box, like my openvpn server and so on. The rpi doesn't have enough power to do that stuff well.

There's also a strong argument to be made for the amazon firetv stick for client-only use; it comes with a remote and remote-capable netflix/hulu+/hbogo/amazon clients for $40, and it runs Kodi extremely well too. Tradeoff is 23.976Hz synced video and a bit of performance.

 

[jnuneznj]

segphault[/url]":3acg7obw]These look like a fairly compelling option for replacing the ancient Mac Mini that I have on one of my TVs, but the lack of IR is kind of a deal-breaker for me. I've got a Logitech universal remote that I use in that room. Anybody have experience with USB IR receivers on Windows? If I could plug in an IR receiver and make it work with XBMC/Kodi, I'd be set.

(Edit: looks like something like this would probably do what I want...)

A bit pricey. I have put together it receivers for just a few dollars on my old MythTV. Unless ir tech has changed (doubt it). You should be able to find it receivers for less than $10

 

[rodalpho]

Flirc is the best in breed, but normal windows MCE receivers will work just fine in Kodi in both linux and windows.

 

[sonolumi]

I've been waiting for this for a while, I've got the extra monitor and desk space ready. I'll just have to wait a little longer until the bespoke drive connector is available and then I will be picking up a Stream Mini. Its duties will mostly include Web browsing, media playback, loading up my SD-cards for journeys and acting as a layer of separation from my production and gaming machines.

I also quite like the look of it, but aesthetics are a personal thing. Since it can be dismantled easily there's nothing stopping motivated folks from re-casing it into something they prefer. In fact, I would not be surprised if it attracted some attention from custom builders.

 

[Philotech]

CppThis[/url]":jkgugpxl]

trenzterra[/url]":jkgugpxl]Doesn't the stream 11 come with a n2830 and not a 2955u?

The Stream 11 does in fact carry a N2840, which is Bay Trail based and not quite up to the task of fluid Windows use. The Stream Mini packs a much improved 2957U.

True. I returned a Chromebook because I preferred the better app compatibility of actual Windows PCs, but the Stream 11 Convertible (not available in the US; it's the ordinary Stream 11 with a 360 degree flippable touchscreen) is definitely no joy to use. It feels sluggish every single moment, to an extent that I often don't know whether it has registered a mouse click or key press.

 

[tipoo]

Hat Monster[/url]":1bfl1vz4]

tipoo[/url]":1bfl1vz4]The processor in that 179 Stream Mini has a tray price (what manufacturers pay - not what we pay) of 107.00...That's kind of funny in a way. The entire rest of the machine has to fit in 72 bucks, and eke a profit out of there somewhere.

HPs race to the bottom is both turning up some exciting products, and a bit worrying. Like, can they really make any money on the $99 Stream 7?

The tray price is what tiny manufacturers pay - it's a reference point, a place to start negotiations. Tier 1 OEMs pay a fraction of it. Back in the day, Intel was selling some Pentium 4 grade at a tray price of $269 while a leaked document from Dell showed Dell paying $110 for the same product.

Was that including the, uh, "Special incentives" during the Pentium 4 days though?

 

[Philotech]

Callitrax[/url]":28ilgqk7]

JButler[/url]":28ilgqk7]

CppThis[/url]":28ilgqk7]

trenzterra[/url]":28ilgqk7]Doesn't the stream 11 come with a n2830 and not a 2955u?

The Stream 11 does in fact carry a N2840, which is Bay Trail based and not quite up to the task of fluid Windows use. The Stream Mini packs a much improved 2957U.

Most users of cheap Bay Trail CPUs (N2840, Atom Z3735, Z3745, etc., they all have similar CPU benchmarks) are actually pleasantly surprised by responsiveness of the CPU. Web surfing, task switching, video streaming are quite snappy in fact. Where it can get slow is when you have a disk intensive workload (e.g. a big Windows Update) because these systems usually have an eMMC storage. At least that's my experience with Dell Venue 8 Pro. Stream 11 with a real SSD should perform much better, I would think.

What he said. Typing this on my Dell Venue 11, Z3770 CPU. Any complaints in order would be RAM amount, eMMC, GPU, various programming complaints about third party software and finally CPU. Windows itself works just fine on the SoC.

I don't know the exact reason, but my Stream 11" feels sluggish. Maybe it's the Windows 10 Technical Preview, but somehow I doubt that. Especially browsing is slow. Opening a new browser tab (Chrome) and loading a page takes 15-30 seconds before it even starts. No, that's not the internet connection speed, because it's the same for loading the Chrome settings page.
I would assume it's because of the just 2 GB of RAM. I checked with Taskmanager, and after booting with an empty desktop with no apps running, the 2 GB are already fully utilized and a few hundred megs are paged out.

 

[bob123]

Philotech[/url]":ycpp6wu3]

Callitrax[/url]":ycpp6wu3]

JButler[/url]":ycpp6wu3]

CppThis[/url]":ycpp6wu3]

trenzterra[/url]":ycpp6wu3]Doesn't the stream 11 come with a n2830 and not a 2955u?

The Stream 11 does in fact carry a N2840, which is Bay Trail based and not quite up to the task of fluid Windows use. The Stream Mini packs a much improved 2957U.

Most users of cheap Bay Trail CPUs (N2840, Atom Z3735, Z3745, etc., they all have similar CPU benchmarks) are actually pleasantly surprised by responsiveness of the CPU. Web surfing, task switching, video streaming are quite snappy in fact. Where it can get slow is when you have a disk intensive workload (e.g. a big Windows Update) because these systems usually have an eMMC storage. At least that's my experience with Dell Venue 8 Pro. Stream 11 with a real SSD should perform much better, I would think.

What he said. Typing this on my Dell Venue 11, Z3770 CPU. Any complaints in order would be RAM amount, eMMC, GPU, various programming complaints about third party software and finally CPU. Windows itself works just fine on the SoC.

I don't know the exact reason, but my Stream 11" feels sluggish. Maybe it's the Windows 10 Technical Preview, but somehow I doubt that. Especially browsing is slow. Opening a new browser tab (Chrome) and loading a page takes 15-30 seconds before it even starts. No, that's not the internet connection speed, because it's the same for loading the Chrome settings page.
I would assume it's because of the just 2 GB of RAM. I checked with Taskmanager, and after booting with an empty desktop with no apps running, the 2 GB are already fully utilized and a few hundred megs are paged out.

Windows 10 Technical preview runs slow on a lot of things I've installed it on, including my Dell Venue 8 Pro, which ran Windows 8.1 flawlessly. Sometimes IE take a whole minute to open. My guess is MS is mostly working on the new features, leaving the optimization until the feature set is complete.

 

[Philotech]

bob123[/url]":17bktapj]

Philotech[/url]":17bktapj]

Callitrax[/url]":17bktapj]

JButler[/url]":17bktapj]

CppThis[/url]":17bktapj]

trenzterra[/url]":17bktapj]Doesn't the stream 11 come with a n2830 and not a 2955u?

The Stream 11 does in fact carry a N2840, which is Bay Trail based and not quite up to the task of fluid Windows use. The Stream Mini packs a much improved 2957U.

Most users of cheap Bay Trail CPUs (N2840, Atom Z3735, Z3745, etc., they all have similar CPU benchmarks) are actually pleasantly surprised by responsiveness of the CPU. Web surfing, task switching, video streaming are quite snappy in fact. Where it can get slow is when you have a disk intensive workload (e.g. a big Windows Update) because these systems usually have an eMMC storage. At least that's my experience with Dell Venue 8 Pro. Stream 11 with a real SSD should perform much better, I would think.

What he said. Typing this on my Dell Venue 11, Z3770 CPU. Any complaints in order would be RAM amount, eMMC, GPU, various programming complaints about third party software and finally CPU. Windows itself works just fine on the SoC.

I don't know the exact reason, but my Stream 11" feels sluggish. Maybe it's the Windows 10 Technical Preview, but somehow I doubt that. Especially browsing is slow. Opening a new browser tab (Chrome) and loading a page takes 15-30 seconds before it even starts. No, that's not the internet connection speed, because it's the same for loading the Chrome settings page.
I would assume it's because of the just 2 GB of RAM. I checked with Taskmanager, and after booting with an empty desktop with no apps running, the 2 GB are already fully utilized and a few hundred megs are paged out.

Windows 10 Technical preview runs slow on a lot of things I've installed it on, including my Dell Venue 8 Pro, which ran Windows 8.1 flawlessly. Sometimes IE take a whole minute to open. My guess is MS is mostly working on the new features, leaving the optimization until the feature set is complete.

Hm... maybe I should really go back to 8.1, install some tools that sort of bring back the desktop, start menu and things and call it a day. As this is a convertible, I put a lot of hope on the Continuum feature, but right now it doesn't really do anything but put everything into full-screen mode.
Unfortunately, I've never tried 8.1 before installing Win10 on the thing, so I can't compare.

 

[Black Jacque]

Because of the way SSDs work, a 32GB drive is going to have lower read and write performance than a higher-capacity model—those drives have more NAND chips on board, and part of SSDs' performance advantage comes from the ability to perform multiple reads and writes from and to different chips at the same time. It's why OEM-provided performance numbers for 128GB drives are usually lower than those for 256GB or 512GB drives.

Hmm... I'm not sure if this is an overly dumbed-down explanation of Little's Law, or just ignorance of the underlying technology by the author.

SSDs are built on an array of flash memory packages which are connected through between two and 10 channels to flash memory controllers. Transferring data from/to multiple flash memory packages in parallel on the channels provides high bandwidth in aggregate.

Typically, the smaller capacity SSD drives inside a model-line use use flash controllers with fewer channels, while the larger capacity drives in the SSD model-line use flash controllers with a greater number channels. For example, 128GB and 256GB SSDs may have 4-channel controllers, and 512GB and 1TB SSDs have 8-channel controllers.

Also, The size of the DRAM cache on the SSDs by capacity may differ as well. Larger DRAM caches generally result in better performance. Larger capacity SSDs typically have larger DRAM caches than smaller capacity SSDs. For example, a 256GB SSD may have a 266MB DRAM cache, while a 1TB SSD may have 1GB of DRAM cache.

So, the performance difference between small and large capacity SSDs is not as simple as 'more NAND chips on board'. (Its more channels and larger caches that make-up a large part of the difference.)

 

[Shinmen Takezo]

Hey Ars, I was surprised that you haven't included video playback benchmarks.

I believe many people want to use these boxes as HTPCs, therefore, it would be really nice to see how they perform playing HD and UHD content.

 

[kansanian]

Interesting little units. If I knew the Intel GPU was "perfect" for encrypted h.264, I'd be a little more "sold" on HTPC use. Apparently, Intel has some issues with some of their drivers for some of their chipsets, on some OS' (Win7), on some cable channels...

The only other thing is that I prefer at least *some* kind of expansion, in the form of a PCIe slot.

I was almost sold on similar devices, but I really wanted to keep the ability to re-use a few existing parts for my HTPC, so I got an ASROCK J1900 board with a nice small case that still fits into the entertainment center cabinet. It has an old 1TB drive, DVD burner, and runs great. Had to buy board, RAM (single 4GB stick), and case.

One thing these greatly interest me in is "office" PC use. Do they come with any DP to DVI/VGA adapters? I know HP ships these with other models... Many, many monitors simply don't have HDMI or DisplayPort connections.
These things would be flat out marvelous "office" machines, even with their "standard" configurations. It really is amazing that these could do 99% of what a standard user would "need," even over the next 2-3 yrs. I can see them becoming more standard than many "slim tower" or standard "mini tower" sized machines.

The wifi is also probably not a "huge deal" to "average" users of these things. If they can get online at all, and not totally suck, that's 99% of what matters to most people who'd probably use the things. I can see why HP saved some costs there, but am very glad it's upgradable, and not soldered to the board. Same with the SATA connection and RAM slot. Great decisions there.

Great review, thanks for the full breakdown of all that these little things are capable of!

 

[arthurdent4242]

Griffinhart[/url]":2tdyg7a9]

tjones2[/url]":2tdyg7a9]Any idea if the Stream Mini (the $180 model) makes a decent HTPC? Or is its CPU and RAM too limited?

I have the $180 model and I added a 4GB stick of RAM. It's a surprisingly good HTPC.

I have a HDHomerun Prime w/cable card and I am using the Stream Mini with Media Center and and a 4tb USB 3 Seagate HD. It is recording 2 HD TV shows, playing a 3rd HD channel and streaming to a Xbox 360 extender with no problems.

It's a pretty impressive box for the money.

I have also put it on a meter to check power draw. while recording multiple channels and powering the USB 3 drive It is only burning about 17 Watts.

The only problem I have run into is that the installed version of 8.1 with bing doesn't allow the Media Center Pack upgrade. I had to buy the 8.1 Pro pack upgrade. it included media center, but that was an extra $90 I spent.

The included version also doesn't allow RDP. You have to install something like tightVNC.

 

[conan77]

Invid[/url]":33s1hf83]

Not sure why you'd be running antivirus on a dedicated media box.

Well, some viruses can spread via SMB shares, and you are probablunusing SMB shares to get files on and off of your dedicated media box. Also, you may be going to some dodgy websites or torrent services for some of your content. Finally, even if you only use it to watch TV off of Hulu, there is always the risk from a drive-by download inserted into an ad network.

You said you were a Mac guy, don't worry, this is all coming to Apple too, just you're about 3 years behind Windows in viruses due to the smaller (but growing) user base.

 

[multimediavt]

Meh. For $50 more than the Pavillion mini (upgraded) I can get a bottom end Mac mini with a 1.4 GHz Core i5 (Haswell 4260U) with Intel HD 5000 graphics, two display port/thunderbolt ports, the same USB config, same RAM config, not have to "mackintosh" it, etc.

If tinkering is your thing, then one of these might suit some need, but if you want a useable mini PC then I would pass. The only thing the Mac mini doesn't have is an option for 802.11ac wireless, but that's really only good for local traffic in most homes in the U.S. Surprised the Mac mini wasn't even mentioned in this "neutral" article.

 

[arthurdent4242]

This looks to be a far better deal than the NUC is. Intel is really screwing the pooch with their pricing. You used to be able to buy an i3 NUC for under $200. Now the only NUC you can get for that money is a slow celeron powered unit. Add to that RAM, SSD and wifi card if necessary and you are going to be over the $400 mark after tax (depending on SSD size and RAM configuration). Now the cheapest i3 NUC is $262 for the previous version and $293 for the current version. These are the models that don't support 2.5" drives. The models that do are $278 or $294. By the time you add all the necessary parts to these you are in Mac mini territory for the i3 model. The i5 model (same as the base Mac mini) comes out to *more* than the Mac mini costs with comparable specs. Hell, you can buy an ultrabook for the kind of money these things are now going for. Intel is doing it wrong. They started with a noble idea and let their profit margins take over. The NUC is already aimed at a niche market, a market comprised of people who will know tech and will understand when something is a good deal or not, and with the way they are pricing them it seems like they are trying to box that market out.

 

[arthurdent4242]

multimediavt[/url]":3m42byj7]Meh. For $50 more than the Pavillion mini (upgraded) I can get a bottom end Mac mini with a 1.4 GHz Core i5 (Haswell 4260U) with Intel HD 5000 graphics, two display port/thunderbolt ports, the same USB config, same RAM config, not have to "mackintosh" it, etc.

If tinkering is your thing, then one of these might suit some need, but if you want a useable mini PC then I would pass. The only thing the Mac mini doesn't have is an option for 802.11ac wireless, but that's really only good for local traffic in most homes in the U.S. Surprised the Mac mini wasn't even mentioned in this "neutral" article.

Refurb Mac mini is even cheaper!

 

[Devin]

Second, that stick only populates one of the Mini's two RAM slots, limiting memory performance to single-channel mode (in other words, you lose half your theoretical bandwidth). This is also true for the Pavilion Minis, which include a 4GB stick of RAM that likewise fills only one slot.

So you'd rather pay to replace both sticks to upgrade, and have a useless module sitting around after the upgrade. Got it. By the way... manufactures sticking two smaller density modules instead of one slightly more expensive module has always been a bad thing.

 

[rodalpho]

multimediavt[/url]":1l2i4a3n]Meh. For $50 more than the Pavillion mini (upgraded) I can get a bottom end Mac mini with a 1.4 GHz Core i5 (Haswell 4260U) with Intel HD 5000 graphics, two display port/thunderbolt ports, the same USB config, same RAM config, not have to "mackintosh" it, etc.

The higher-end models aren't particularly attractive, agreed. The $180 model is pretty cool for the money, though.

 

[salamanderjuice]

multimediavt[/url]":3mdyl2hw]Meh. For $50 more than the Pavillion mini (upgraded) I can get a bottom end Mac mini with a 1.4 GHz Core i5 (Haswell 4260U) with Intel HD 5000 graphics, two display port/thunderbolt ports, the same USB config, same RAM config, not have to "mackintosh" it, etc.

If tinkering is your thing, then one of these might suit some need, but if you want a useable mini PC then I would pass. The only thing the Mac mini doesn't have is an option for 802.11ac wireless, but that's really only good for local traffic in most homes in the U.S. Surprised the Mac mini wasn't even mentioned in this "neutral" article.

The bottom barrel Mac Mini doesn't have RAM slots either so your stuck with that 4GB for the life of the device. It also has half the hard disk space. But if you know you're never going to upgrade the memory and really want it for OS X it's probably worth the $50 extra.

 

[kansanian]

arthurdent4242[/url]":1f57w3ml]

Griffinhart[/url]":1f57w3ml]

tjones2[/url]":1f57w3ml]Any idea if the Stream Mini (the $180 model) makes a decent HTPC? Or is its CPU and RAM too limited?

I have the $180 model and I added a 4GB stick of RAM. It's a surprisingly good HTPC.

I have a HDHomerun Prime w/cable card and I am using the Stream Mini with Media Center and and a 4tb USB 3 Seagate HD. It is recording 2 HD TV shows, playing a 3rd HD channel and streaming to a Xbox 360 extender with no problems.

It's a pretty impressive box for the money.

I have also put it on a meter to check power draw. while recording multiple channels and powering the USB 3 drive It is only burning about 17 Watts.

The only problem I have run into is that the installed version of 8.1 with bing doesn't allow the Media Center Pack upgrade. I had to buy the 8.1 Pro pack upgrade. it included media center, but that was an extra $90 I spent.

The included version also doesn't allow RDP. You have to install something like tightVNC.

Pro works, though ...there's also a "workaround" out there...

Also, I've found a program called "Input Director" (as well as "Synergy") to be great for controlling a machine with a laptop. Remote Mouse is also fantastic for "touchpad" like control with a phone/tablet.

Props to making a nice HTPC setup out of one of these!

 

[Devin]

JustQuestions[/url]":zwxjb5eh]

robert.walter[/url]":zwxjb5eh]Man oh man, if form followed functionality, this device would be in big trouble.

It is SO ugly.

Yeah it's to a point where it is almost comical. I would either hide the USB ports and logos and try to convince house guests that it was an expensive piece of postmodern art, or just put it in a cardboard box that was spray-painted black with holes cut out for the ports.

I mean, if it looks worse than a spray-painted cardboard box, then you failed to meet what I would call the minimum requirements.

Find a SGI logo and slap it on there.

 

[Meathim]

At least here you can find 2GB DDR3 SODIMMS for less than €10 on ebay and the like. You might even get one for free as a 4GB laptop generally holds 2 sticks and they are hard sells.

Only using one slot out of the box is very excellent of them.

 

[arthurdent4242]

kansanian[/url]":1mueygnn]

arthurdent4242[/url]":1mueygnn]

Griffinhart[/url]":1mueygnn]

tjones2[/url]":1mueygnn]Any idea if the Stream Mini (the $180 model) makes a decent HTPC? Or is its CPU and RAM too limited?

I have the $180 model and I added a 4GB stick of RAM. It's a surprisingly good HTPC.

I have a HDHomerun Prime w/cable card and I am using the Stream Mini with Media Center and and a 4tb USB 3 Seagate HD. It is recording 2 HD TV shows, playing a 3rd HD channel and streaming to a Xbox 360 extender with no problems.

It's a pretty impressive box for the money.

I have also put it on a meter to check power draw. while recording multiple channels and powering the USB 3 drive It is only burning about 17 Watts.

The only problem I have run into is that the installed version of 8.1 with bing doesn't allow the Media Center Pack upgrade. I had to buy the 8.1 Pro pack upgrade. it included media center, but that was an extra $90 I spent.

The included version also doesn't allow RDP. You have to install something like tightVNC.

Pro works, though ...there's also a "workaround" out there...

Also, I've found a program called "Input Director" (as well as "Synergy") to be great for controlling a machine with a laptop. Remote Mouse is also fantastic for "touchpad" like control with a phone/tablet.

Props to making a nice HTPC setup out of one of these!

Yep. Just wanted to make sure people were aware that the version of windows that comes with this does not include RDP. Plenty of other ways to remote into it, but built in tools are always nice.

 

[evan_s]

Black Jacque[/url]":1gvkiz8c]Because of the way SSDs work, a 32GB drive is going to have lower read and write performance than a higher-capacity model—those drives have more NAND chips on board, and part of SSDs' performance advantage comes from the ability to perform multiple reads and writes from and to different chips at the same time. It's why OEM-provided performance numbers for 128GB drives are usually lower than those for 256GB or 512GB drives.

Hmm... I'm not sure if this is an overly dumbed-down explanation of Little's Law, or just ignorance of the underlying technology by the author.

SSDs are built on an array of flash memory packages which are connected through between two and 10 channels to flash memory controllers. Transferring data from/to multiple flash memory packages in parallel on the channels provides high bandwidth in aggregate.

Typically, the smaller capacity SSD drives inside a model-line use use flash controllers with fewer channels, while the larger capacity drives in the SSD model-line use flash controllers with a greater number channels. For example, 128GB and 256GB SSDs may have 4-channel controllers, and 512GB and 1TB SSDs have 8-channel controllers.

Also, The size of the DRAM cache on the SSDs by capacity may differ as well. Larger DRAM caches generally result in better performance. Larger capacity SSDs typically have larger DRAM caches than smaller capacity SSDs. For example, a 256GB SSD may have a 266MB DRAM cache, while a 1TB SSD may have 1GB of DRAM cache.

So, the performance difference between small and large capacity SSDs is not as simple as 'more NAND chips on board'. (Its more channels and larger caches that make-up a large part of the difference.)

It can be either. A smaller drive might have less channels than a larger driver but it may also have the same number of channels just with fewer Flash chips per channel. Any modern controller is able to not only read from multiple channels simultaneously but able to read from multiple chips on the same channel simultaneously. Also, the additional memory on the larger drives is usually because they need to store the NAND mapping table in ram and a larger drive with more chips has a larger mapping table. It's hard to say how much more memory is actually available for caching.

Sometimes the smaller drives do use a controller with fewer channels, especially in budget drives, but the 4 and 2 channel controllers seem more common on ssd sticks because they don't have the space for the flash chips to do 8 channels anyway.

 

[Deleted member 192806]

robert.walter[/url]":alkhbmol]Man oh man, if form followed functionality, this device would be in big trouble.

It is SO ugly.

You're suppose to compute with it, not date it.

 

[Devin]

arthurdent4242[/url]":aam874qh]

kansanian[/url]":aam874qh]

arthurdent4242[/url]":aam874qh]

Griffinhart[/url]":aam874qh]

tjones2[/url]":aam874qh]Any idea if the Stream Mini (the $180 model) makes a decent HTPC? Or is its CPU and RAM too limited?

I have the $180 model and I added a 4GB stick of RAM. It's a surprisingly good HTPC.

I have a HDHomerun Prime w/cable card and I am using the Stream Mini with Media Center and and a 4tb USB 3 Seagate HD. It is recording 2 HD TV shows, playing a 3rd HD channel and streaming to a Xbox 360 extender with no problems.

It's a pretty impressive box for the money.

I have also put it on a meter to check power draw. while recording multiple channels and powering the USB 3 drive It is only burning about 17 Watts.

The only problem I have run into is that the installed version of 8.1 with bing doesn't allow the Media Center Pack upgrade. I had to buy the 8.1 Pro pack upgrade. it included media center, but that was an extra $90 I spent.

The included version also doesn't allow RDP. You have to install something like tightVNC.

Pro works, though ...there's also a "workaround" out there...

Also, I've found a program called "Input Director" (as well as "Synergy") to be great for controlling a machine with a laptop. Remote Mouse is also fantastic for "touchpad" like control with a phone/tablet.

Props to making a nice HTPC setup out of one of these!

Yep. Just wanted to make sure people were aware that the version of windows that comes with this does not include RDP. Plenty of other ways to remote into it, but built in tools are always nice.

That's good to know because the article just states that the bing bundling is the only difference.

 

[thehardcard]

Boskone[/url]":1yc2o946]I keep trying to get work to buy me one to eval, but they won't. :|

"Why would we buy one of these when we have 10-year-old PCs you can use?"

Seems like the reduced electricity costs would pay for one of these inside of two years, if not sooner. Not to mention my smartphone is faster than a 10-year-old PC.

 

[clackerd]

koreandude[/url]":1ehzgh0h]I don't need it.

But for some reason I want it.

Amen. I'm looking for a reason to buy one now.

 

[Jason Honingford]

Will the Stream really do 1080p YouTube in a browser, along with Netflix and Amazon? Its hard to believe the Celerons would be able to handle this and output 5.1 decoding.

 

[rodalpho]

Yes, of course. Forget haswell celerons, even bay trail atoms can take on 1080p h.264 video. It's all GPU accelerated these days. These machines can handle medium-bitrate 4k h.264 too.

H.265 acceleration is not ready this generation, more of a 2016 thing. It will be important for 4k streaming in coming years. Luckily h.265 content is still quite rare.

 

[evan_s]

I could see myself getting something like this for my wife. She's currently using an old Athlon x2 system with Windows 7 on it so she doesn't need a very powerful system. A Chromebook/Chromebox would probably be fine for her but the WAF would be low. I already tried OpenOffice on windows and that failed the WAF so windows is a high priority.

I think your opinion on the memory config largely depends on what you'd do. If I bought one of these I'd grab the stream and immediately add a second 2gb stick and install the 64gb ssd from her current system in it so a single 2gb stick is perfect. If I didn't plan to add more memory then 2 1gb sticks would be preferable to get dual channel operation, especially when you are using integrated graphics.Ideally they'd make it an option but a single stick is probably cheaper for them and most people probably wouldn't understand why you'd want to pay more for 2 1gb sticks or 2 2gbs sticks instead of a single 2 or 4 gb stick so it would probably ultimately be wasted.

 

[tipoo]

salamanderjuice[/url]":2dca8g63]

multimediavt[/url]":2dca8g63]Meh. For $50 more than the Pavillion mini (upgraded) I can get a bottom end Mac mini with a 1.4 GHz Core i5 (Haswell 4260U) with Intel HD 5000 graphics, two display port/thunderbolt ports, the same USB config, same RAM config, not have to "mackintosh" it, etc.

If tinkering is your thing, then one of these might suit some need, but if you want a useable mini PC then I would pass. The only thing the Mac mini doesn't have is an option for 802.11ac wireless, but that's really only good for local traffic in most homes in the U.S. Surprised the Mac mini wasn't even mentioned in this "neutral" article.

The bottom barrel Mac Mini doesn't have RAM slots either so your stuck with that 4GB for the life of the device. It also has half the hard disk space. But if you know you're never going to upgrade the memory and really want it for OS X it's probably worth the $50 extra.

Yeah, anything after Snow Leopard is zero fun on 4GB (it's ok with a solid state drive, but that's not in the base Mini either), while Windows 8 and 10 are very manageable on 4GB for average users.

 

[danbert2000]

I don't see how the Pavilion Mini competes with the Alienware Alpha on performance or cost. For the same price, you could get a discrete graphics card and a bonus wireless controller for gaming.

 

[Timber112]

If you go to HP Stream's website, the fine print at the bottom reads: "WARNING: This product contains a chemical known to the State of California to cause cancer. (California law requires this warning be provided to California customers)". Does that concern anyone? I've never seen such label before.

http://store.hp.com/webapp/wcs/stores/s ... ---200-010

 

[theoilman]

Timber112[/url]":2d2o895a]If you go to HP Stream's website, the fine print at the bottom reads: "WARNING: This product contains a chemical known to the State of California to cause cancer. (California law requires this warning be provided to California customers)". Does that concern anyone? I've never seen such label before.

http://store.hp.com/webapp/wcs/stores/s ... ---200-010

that label is on basically any electronics device in California. electronics have lots of bad chemicals in them.

don't eat your computer and you should be OK.

 

[pavon]

Since none of the 20 people who voted you down had the decency to say why they disagreed with you, here's my take:

....then plug a Chromecast into your TV, open Plex on your phone/tablet/laptop/desktop/toaster and cast that shit.

I don't want to walk over to another computer and load up a program to watch something on my TV. I don't want to buy a smartphone for every member of my family, nor have a dedicated one to keep by the TV just to use as a glorified remote. I want to interact with the device I am using, which is the TV screen. Then there's the unfixable security vulnerabilities in chromecast that allow some bored teenager to takeover my TV screen. The price of chromecast is great, which makes it useful in a pinch, but everything else about it is a clumsy hack.

HTPCs are pointless...Run Plex on your desktop (or better, a dedicated server) and get a Chromecast.

That is exactly what my HTPCs are; dedicated servers. I don't need some big-ass rack-mount computer to act as a simple home file server. I want something that has low power use and is relatively affordable. Most of those are small devices that sit nicely in a entertainment cabinet, so why not put them there and get a better interaction model than chromecast provides?

 

[theoilman]

pavon[/url]":3vqyf7xb]Since none of the 20 people who voted you down had the decency to say why they disagreed with you. Here is why I prefer having an HTPC.

....then plug a Chromecast into your TV, open Plex on your phone/tablet/laptop/desktop/toaster and cast that shit.

I don't want to walk over to another computer and load up a program to watch something on my TV. I don't want to buy a smartphone for every member of my family, nor have a dedicated one to keep by the TV just to use as a glorified remote. Then there's the unfixable security vulnerabilities in chromecast that allow some bored teenager to takeover my TV screen. The price of chromecast is great, everything else about it is a clumsy hack.

HTPCs are pointless...Run Plex on your desktop (or better, a dedicated server) and get a Chromecast.

That is exactly what my HTPCs are; dedicated servers. I don't need some big-ass rack-mount computer to act as a simple home file server. I want something that has low power use and is relatively affordable. Most of those are small devices that sit nicely in a entertainment cabinet, so why not put them there and get a better interaction model than chromecast provides?

you'd rather build a computer than buy a $50 smartphone to keep by the couch?