HP Elitebooks up to generation 5 work well with Qubes 4.0, and generation 6, that has the ax200 wifi chip, is supported with Qubes 4.1
@Sven would it be better to separate the Qubes certified hardware list and the “just works” list? Currently, the second list contains the first one. If something is changed in the first list, you would have to edit the second one.
Instead, I suggest to add a link to certified hardware in the beginning of the post and then proceed to list the “just works” hardware without the certified machines. Something like this:
That’s alright, I just thought, if someone searched for “Elitebook” it may be encouraging for them to find this little info 
@fsflover asked:
@Sven would it be better to separate the Qubes certified hardware list
Keeping it merged has an advantage for (new) users.
Separating them has a maintenance advantage.
I volunteer to keep them synced so new users have all good options in one place. 
I don’t see any advantage for the users. Quite the opposite, the current list is a mix of two different things: official and unofficial recommendations. I suggest to link to the official recommendations on top, so the users are not confused and the whole thing is better organized…
The certified hardware page is linked with each entry that is certified. All links to the “community-recommended” list from the Qubes OS website are part of a list that begins with the certified hardware.
I don’t see any way this is confusing or not well organized. I do see that removing PrivacyBeast and NitroPad would make the Librem like the only option on the list offering attestation. I don’t want that. I feel conflicted about including them as it stands (they are likely to create issues down the road and this needs to be tightly monitored).
Fool me once, …
In my opinion, it creates unnecessary clutter in the list.
This is a good thing. But not everyone comes to that page from the Qubes OS website.
I disagree and actually see it the other way around. Currently, Librem 14 is on top of the certified hardware, whereas I suggest to put it below it. I don’t understand how such change would make Librem look like the only option. To me, it looks like that now.
Just a reminder, this laptop has to be flashed with Coreboot first in order to work with Qubes. It does work well but should be included in the large HCL.
Let’s table this discussion until I transformed the list into a proper markup table (next 2-3 days max, probably earlier). I have some ideas how to make it less cluttered too. Then if you still see an issue we can reevaluate. Discussing the current form is wasted energy. OK?
1 Like
FYI, I shared the “just works” list in the Qubes subreddit (because people ask for hardware recommendations there all the time):
It appears that some users have started replying with computer models in the comments, but it’s unclear why. I’m not sure if they’re trying to suggest additions to the list or what. (One of them is already on the list, so maybe not.) Anyway, just thought I’d let you know.
1 Like
Hi. There is no reason to use 4.0.4 anymore.
x220 works good with Qubes 4.1 from daily builds and lastest heads firmware.
If anyone need I can report freshly HCL
2 Likes
The reason to use 4.0 is that 4.1 is still in beta, and if you care about stability and security you should use the stable version.
This would be very helpful, since soon™ 4.1 will become the main version.
1 Like
There is, as @flover says, every reason to use 4.0, and not to use
4.1, at the moment.
4.1 is in beta, and suitable for testing, but no more.
As to generating hcl reports, I think this would better be done when we
have an rc, perhaps rc2. (And best of all, when 4.1 is released.)
Otherwise, Sven will be sent reports from different stages of the
release, and unless the old ones are pruned out, the situation may
become hard to work with for users.
My opinion.
Is there a possibility of regressions concerning the HCL report? I expected that if a device works well with 4.1-beta, it should also work well with 4.1-final, no?
I’m more concerned with cases where the device doesn’t work well with
the beta.
What of the case where the user details issues (with install and/or use)
that are fixed in the final release?
If you look at qubes-issues, you can see exactly this happening during the
move toward release.
It’s a mistake to think that HCLs are only to be made for machines that
work well, though some people obviously think this.
This discussion is going in the context of @0xxf0’s suggestion to make an HCL report for R4.1, where everything works flawlessly. In this case, it seems to me that it’s already useful.
Otherwise, I agree that “bad” reports should be delayed until the final release.
still reported P50 and x220.
with p50 there are no problems at all, everything works out of the box.
also more likely, quadro will work there with GVT-g /dGPU it’s possible, seems to be
@adw, unfortunately I had to remove the T450s from the list as is does not allow for 16 GB RAM according to it’s spec. It might very well be that 16 GB are possible, as with the X220 but we would need confirmation from the community for that.
Unfortunately the X250 does not allow for 16 GB memory according to it’s spec and I had to remove it from the “just works” list.