Discussion on:

Ultrabooks: A new era for PCs or Wintel innovation bankruptcy?

As funny as you put it, you are obviously wrong. It does not help it that you don't understand it -- you are still wrong.

My kid used to have a Windows computer. At one time, that computer was already "too old and ugly" and we were out for a new one. I had the heretic idea to move to kid to Mac. So we had a conversation line this:

"Do you want an Mac instead?"
"Wow, Mac? But they are so expensive. Plus they don't run any of my software. Are you sure you want to spend that much money for me"
(here, I did the math that buying the next cheap Windows computer will last for few months to a year and that later I will have to buy another cheap Windows computer etc. I then remembered [from my business, that is, I work with computers for the past few decades] that however expensive Windows computer I buy for the kid, it will be obsolete and .. still UGLY)
"But of course, one gives only the best to their kids!"

With the new Mac (iMac actually) at home, my kid asked me to install it.
"Here, just switch it on" - I said.
So upon switching it on, typing in their name and making it personal to them, it was done.

By the way, what sold my kid to the Macintosh was the little leaflet that came with the computer (documentation) that had only this printed on it:

"You and your iMac are made for each other."

we did copy the contents of the Windows drive to an external disk and connected that to the Mac -- it found all the documents, media files, tens of thousands pictures, songs etc.

That was years ago. The kid's Mac is still humming, unlike a number of Windows systems, far superior than it that died around.

My wife used to be wild fan of Windows, just like you apparently are. She (although computer engineer) believed the myth that unless you have an Windows computer, you can do nothing. But she recently just junked her laptop for an Macbook Air and I doubt she will ever look at Windows again.

I don't care about the Universe, I care for my own computing needs. So do millions of others.

My platform, that I use all the time, since '80s is UNIX, by the way. Don't have any use of Windows. Don't care that those junk Windows-only programs do not run on my computer. I have so much better choice.

If all you know is Windows, then yes, I can understand your confusion. But as R.E.M. sing, "Ih, life is bigger, it's bigger than you and you are not me"

to win your silly argument.

There is no real reason for anybody, nobody, to purchase a Mac. And, your son was stuck with the silly decisions you made for him, and it's doubtful that he had any choices or any arguments that he could make that would make you change your fanatical mind about Apple products.

When it comes to Apple products, and like I've mentioned in the past, I have owned Macs and even the iPhone, and right now I'm using an iPad2 as I write (though the posting I'm doing is from a Windows-Pro PC with AMD Phenon processors).

I might have the Apple equipment, but I still find myself using PCs for most of what I do, and I still resent the fact that I had to pay more for something that was priced much higher and less useful.

The iPad is a nice little gadget, but, for most purposes, useless, at least for my needs, and I would guess that, if most people actually thought about it, they too would realize that, the Apple gadget was priced much higher than its usefulness warranted.

When it comes to quality, I still have with me 2 XP computers, one 9 years old, and another 7 years old, and they both still work as well as they did when they were new. I've kept them because I can't bring myself to part with something that "just works" and I was completely happy with. I also have 2 other Windows 7 PCs, aside from the one I'm using to type this response on, and I'm quite happy that I didn't have to spend obscene amounts in order to get the equivalent Apple versions. I would estimate that, with my 3 Windows 7 computers, that I saved more than $2000 dollars by not going with Macs. That's real money, and I don't even miss not going with Macs. Like I said, I do have a Mac, but, it gets very little use, since, I don't really see anything that I really need to do with it that I couldn't do with my PCs.

Oops! My daughter just borrowed the iPad2 to set up a baby registry on the internet. She wanted to use THIS computer, but I told her I'd be using it for a few minutes of typing (this response). She's actually having a hard time using the iPad right now, since, it doesn't have a keyboard (other than that pretend keyboard).

Now, where was I? Oh yeah!

Now, you still cannot answer the questions which I posed earlier, and you won't really be able to, because, you won't be able to come up with any to justify paying so much more for something which isn't really materially better or superior, or that is even longer lasting.

BTW, like I mentioned, I can still use my XP PCs from 7 and 9 years ago. Can you say the same about your Apple computers? Talk about obsolescence! It'll be the same with your current Macs or iGadgets.

Funny you say that. I doubt intelligent beings on other planets have even heard of Windows, less they are so primitive to use it.

Apple knows how to make laptops and portable devices in general.
This includes the operating system.
Blindly copying the hardware and using a bloated and "desktop optimized" operating system on top of it is not going to change things.
People buy the Apple's Macbook Air, because it is portable, light, beautiful, it does all they need for a mobile computer to do, especially the hassle free Apple integration and it has long enough battery life.
In return, they sacrifice some 'freedom' to do what they please with their device.

Apple, also is well known for their ability to run the same software on different processor platforms. Those, who remember will know that the Macintosh has had processors from Motorola (68k family), IBM (PowerPC family) and today Intel (x86 or rather the AMD64 family). There is nothing to prevent Apple from moving on to a new hardware platform, any time they see fit. The same cannot be said about Windows laptops. They are forever bound to Intel.

This all is a failure for Intel and Microsoft, because thin laptops had existed for years. Nothing new. It is not enough to clone the product of a successful business such as Apple -- as many Android tablet makers discovered already.

Until you find any, my statement about the "most used OS in the universe" remains true.

And, yes, people do make sacrifices when they opt to purchase an Apple computer, because, most software does not run under Apple's OS. That's besides sacrificing a little bit more of cash, because, generally speaking, Macs do cost more than comparably equipped PCs from other makers.

I've seen comparisons of the same hardware cost less on a Mac than on a PC. The difference is that they're not comparing Apples to apples.
You can always cut corners and make a cheaper case or reduce the number of ports but if you compare everything Apple is very competitive.

No, it isn't.

I have a friend who always argues that Mac's are expensive, when I ask him to give me a substitute of a given Mac here always says I can get a fong kong Netbook for $200. When you compare each manufacturers flagship like the HP Elitebooks, Sony Viao F Series, Toshiba Qosmio etc etc and given the fact that you can dual boot/virtualize windows on a Mac I think Macs are an absolute bargain. As for performance I think that at the end of the day it will be ridiculous to argue that the processor heavy creative industry which processes video, graphics and music are crazy for going all out on Macs.

Apple's products are generally more expensive than comparable products from other providers.

I've never found an instance where what Apple provided, in any form-factor, was superior to the competition, and which therefore merited paying more to get. Pretty is not a feature which is a sales point for me, unless it's the beauty of a lady.

When you look at "PC" hardware, and just compare "processs", "memory quantity" and "disk drive size", to a Mac, you might say "Mac's are always more expensive." But, there is a lot more to a Mac than just the hardware, and this is where Android fanatics miss out on the "benefits" of iOS devices as well.

What you have to understand, is that Apple has enhanced hardware integrations, better software in the OS and tons of things that are valuable, beyond the hardware.

Until you've actually used a Mac for a week to a month, I don't think you can really talk about the price point, with any valid argument.

Certainly, if "functionality" of the computer is not valuable to you, and all you need is the "biggest", "fastest", "most extreme" hardware so that you can hold it up and wait for people to pat you on the back, then perhaps the price point, for you, is on the side of a PC, where you can "build" something that is "the most extreme", even though all of that hardware can't do anything useful, to improve your computing experience in relationship to the price you paid.

Go the the Apple store, and close a macbook. Let is sit for a bit, and then pull it open, and open safari and go to a web page, like this, full of dynamic content. Time the whole experience, do it a couple of different times. Then, go home, and do that on your PC, and see what the best "open-to-page loaded" time is that you can get. Let us know here, how that works out for you. And, make sure that if you have an SSD on your machine at home, that you use an SSD macbook and a non-SSD macbook, and tell us how both compare.

Why would anyone want to go through the hassles of checking out the features, in as detailed a fashion as you describe? What would be accomplished by such? That, perhaps, the Macs or any other iGadget is "made" with superior quality? Again, why would it matter?

The fact is that, for what MOST people use their computing gadgets, they expect a life-expectancy of 3 to 6 years, and they expect that, for most of what they need in a computing device, most PCs will serve them well or as "good enough" as any Mac. Even if the Macs are better quality, and might even last longer, they become obsolete as quickly as any PC, but, meanwhile, the Mac purchaser ended up paying more for something which wasn't "functionally" superior. See the difference? Function. Why pay more for something that isn't going to provide superior functionality? In fact, it a Mac is actually inferior when it comes to functionality, because, most PCs can run most software ever written for Windows, while Macs run software written for an OS with somewhere between 5-7% of the market. Macs might be capable of running applications written for Windows, but, with simulator or virtualization software. Why jump through hoops if it's not necessary?

I'd rather pay $400-$1000 for a PC that can do all I need, while I'd have to pay $800-$2500 for a similarily equipped Mac that is intended to run on the Apple ecosystem.

BTW, I have owned Apple computers, but, I always ended up shelving it when I had to pick up the "inferior" PCs I owned in order to get anything done.

Line item for line item, PCs are cheaper. But OS X really does run smoothly. I am *so* sick of unlocking my Win 7 PC every day and waiting two minutes while the disk carries on doing whatever it is doing before Outlook catches up and shows my new mail. Then I go through this again every time I restore a browser window from the taskbar.

I bring it on myself, I know it. There are many ways of avoiding this -- like shutting down once a week, or closing all my apps and logging off every night. But I don't do that on my Linux box running right next to the PC either, and even with VirtualBox and an XP VM, it's still quite snappy. I've never seen OS X get flustered like that either, at least until you've exceeded the available memory. Windows says I still have something like 30% physical memory available. You sure couldn't tell.

Windows is just very poorly designed -- and is arguably also more expensive. (I know, it's not apples to apples on the price tag, since you can't pick up a retail box of OS X.) The faulty design part is more provable. Look at the monolithic architecture of most core services. And why is Windows still the only major OS that doesn't allow you to set your system clock to UTC?

Of course,those who abandon Windows make sacrifice -- they sacrifice the Windows experience. The endless need to take care of your Tamagotchi.

> This all is a failure for Intel and Microsoft, because thin laptops had existed for
> years. Nothing new. It is not enough to clone the product of a successful
> business such as Apple -- as many Android tablet makers discovered already.

Oh please. Your own words are contradicting what you're saying. There have been ultra-thin laptops available for over 10 years, long before Apple jumped on the bandwagon. Sony Vaio, NEC Versa SX, etc etc. It's laughable that you honestly believe that Apple somehow "invented" the concept of a thin laptop and others are cloning it. Nobody's trying to clone Apple. It's the other way around. Apple has never invented anything. In the beginning, they gained success by simply packaging already-existing technology into a single box (the first generation of Apple computers in the late 70s and early 80s). Then when they were on the verge of bankruptcy in the mid 90s, they survived by catering to the moron-class who stood in line to buy purple, orange, or lime computers. In the mid 2000s, they continue to survive not by inventing anything revolutionary, but by creating over-priced products marketed to the technologically-challenged hippie douche bags who wail against corporations, yet at the same time are more than willing to bend over and take it up the iChute from Apple Inc.

As for Android tablets, they're rapidly taking over the market. Apple and its overpriced iDiot tablet will once again be relegated to a small percentage of the market, which is where Apple products have always been for the last 30 years.

Oh please Apple never said its Air was ultra what not. Ultrabook is just a gimmick that Intel invented to out compete AMD from the lucrative premium end of the laptop market. Apple's own marketing at the time the MBA was released simply called it the WORLDS THINNEST laptop so stop trolling. Yes Apple will ???be relegated to a small percentage of the market, which is where Apple products have always been for the last 30 years" and continue to earn over half of the profits in that market as profits in the more competitive PC market nose dive to razor thin margins. I really feel sorry for Apple.

> and continue to earn over half of the profits in that market as profits
> in the more competitive PC market nose dive to razor thin margins.
> I really feel sorry for Apple.

You have this incredibly gifted view of economics and profit margins. You seem to think that companies are MORE likely rather than LESS likely to survive by overcharging for their products and living off 40% profit margins. Why do you think Apple has a history of going to near-bankruptcy every ten or so years? It's precisely because of their ridiculous profit margins. They were never content making 5 or 10 percent. No, they had to overprice their iCrap and get 35 to 40% profits, and thereby ensure they would never garner any real market share.

The current generation of iSheep who are too stupid to know any better (the ones who are lining up for days for the privilege of overpaying for Apple products) will soon grow up and their priorities will undoubtedly change. They'll realize that with having to work for a living and supporting families, they can no longer afford to throw money in the garbage. Mortgages, food, diapers - they all cost money. And when the iDiots are living out in the real world and are no longer in mommy and daddy's basements, rest assured they'll be far less likely to pay $699 for a tablet which has zero technological advantages over a competitor's tablet that costs $299. Same goes for phones, laptops, desktops, or anything else which is made by Apple.

As the revenue stream from the douche bag generation dries up for Apple, their stock will plummet and they'll be right back on the verge of bankruptcy yet again. The new generation will be far more tech-savvy and price-savvy, and they'll understand that you truly have to be a moron on an epic scale to purchase an Apple product, when for half the price you can get something with equal (or better) performance, not to mention the freedom of being able to do whatever you want with your device, rather than being limited to doing what iDaddy tells you. They'll be choosing Android or Microsoft over Apple. They'll be choosing to pay less while getting more. They'll be choosing common sense over stupidity.

As this generation of Apple fans mature out of the Apple garden, they will be replaced by the next generation. Use what you want but buy Apple stock.

Also, don't forget that it was because of Bill Gates and Microsoft that Apple still exists.

Paul

Let's ignore the fact that Apple was making Personal Computers long before anyone else still alive in this industry, but Apple have been baking laptops for quite more than 10 years.

If we buy into the argument that there have been ultra-portable laptops 10 years ago (which is true, because even Apple did offer such) then what the current "ultraportable" concept means? Intel just woke up and discovered that laptops might be made thin and light?

> what the current "ultraportable" concept means? Intel just woke up
> and discovered that laptops might be made thin and light? happy

You do understand that Apple has been using Intel processors exclusively since 2006, right? You do understand that it's not 1996 anymore, right? You do understand that the only thing Apple actually MAKES are the shiny plastic cases for their iDiot devices, right?

You can keep bashing Intel until you're blue in the face, but without Intel, Apple would've been confined to history books years ago.

I am old enough to remember the appearance of the first personal computers. The very popular Apple ][ did not use Intel processor.
The very popular Macintosh, too did not use Intel processor.
At that time, Intel processors were really a joke.
The Macintosh used first Motorola 68x family processors (too sad those were killed) then IBM PowerPC processors (remember the first "supercomputer PC" -- a PowerPC G4 Macintosh)...
Apple already uses ARM chips for most of their products. So what?

Intel would have been dead already, without the innovation from AMD, to create the 64-bit "Intel compatible" CPU architecture. It was set to destroy AMD, but had to license AMDs architecture or become history.
Intel has had far from the best architecture - although it might be argued that the current AMD developed architecture is quite reasonable.

Both Microsoft and Intel are IBM creatures. IBM created them what they are still now. If it was not for IBM, you would hear of Microsoft only as an Apple computer software vendor and for Intel as an micro controller chip vendor.

But the world is changing.. some say, 2012 is the end of the 13-th cycle.. maybe the end of the commuting as many know it (Intel & Microsoft)

While all the people here in this conversation (forum) is a "computer cultured" person, that know about FPS, DMA, Gbytes.. there are 100s (or more) people that does not care about. They only want to enter their social network, watch movie, talk in internet (with video). produce a small media, communicate... They will buy price.
If you ask a population of 10.000 persons of all the social classes (from rich to poor...) about what car they would like to have: I bet they would say a brand new, a mercedes, bmw... and so on.. a car of US$ 50K. But if you see what car they really will buy?? 90% will buy an used cheap car... The same for Thechnology It does not matter what is inside the hardware, it must be cheap, easy to use, and do things they needed. Those who first bought Mac Air, have money to do it (only a few=5.6%), this helps fit the production X profit for apple.. When Apple invented the Tablet, everyone said it would be a failure (I have an Lenovo (running unix), and an iPad).. For working I use the Lenovo, the rest of the time, I use the iPad,I do not use my cell phone for months now, as I answer calls using Bria inside the iPad) Now I am thinking in GalaxyTab10 or transformer prime)... Even if Apple does not represent the numbers in the industry, it is target on MONEY, and as long as I can see, they are doing very well... My son took 3 days in NY and 3 hours in the queue just to buy ONE iPhome 4GS... Here there is one week wait time to buy a sansung tablet.. My conclusion is simple: Microsoft will rule in the business... while Apple will rule in personal and entertainment. For each computer running Microsoft, there will be 50 (or more) running Apple.. Make an experiment, if you have children (teens) give them a tablet. Watch than how much time they will spend in the Desktop computer?? In my house, I have donated 2 of them (desktops) only one remains (the one that runs iTunes)...

because, when it comes to computers, most people still use "Wintel" technology, and Apple is still a very distant second, their market cap notwithstanding.

The typical user does not care what the processor is inside, or what the operating system is -- as long as the thing does the job. Bonus, if it is a pleasure. Bonus, if it is pretty. Bonus, if it requires less maintenance.

Wintel and especially the Microsoft part of the duo gives you an Tamagotchi. A thing, you have to take care of, but.. not for the fun -- you need to take care of the poor thing, or it will not work for you and eventually will die. (this may sound over-statement, but takes some observation and abstraction to understand).

Apple, on the other hand has learned what the decision factors are and sell products that: require less maintenance, are beautiful by design, are fun to use and just do the job.

Many people did not understand why Apple went to the phone/tablet business. That was not because of desire to evade that market, but because those devices are sort of 'independent' -- you can buy an iPod for example, even if you are the greatest fan of Microsoft and Intel. Then you discover that this thing is real joy to use -- and at some point might try to see if a Macintosh is good for you. All of the surprise, you soon discover that there is almost nothing that you cannot do with a Macintosh, that you can do with a Windows PC -- and for those specific tasks there is either emulation or dual-boot

I know few people who were so frustrated by their Tamagotchis that they dared to try Macintosh. I am not aware of a single person who ever looked back. This tells it all.

especially when the prices are lower at Apple's competition for similar products.

The user does indeed care, when he has to jump through hoops in order to try to run a piece of software which runs "natively" on Windows, and then he needs emulation or virtualization software on an Apple device. If the case you're making is about "simple" or "easy", then virtualization or emulation is the opposite of that.

The user does, indeed, care that a PC is capable of running most available software in the world with a Windows-based PC.

If pretty is the remaining winning factor for Apple, then you can go ahead and keep that "advantage".

Myself and most other people, who just want something that works with virtually every piece of software around, and is compatible with most hardware/software combinations around, and costs less (oftentimes much less), and is not that much different from what Apple offers, well. we'll keep using Windows-based PCs. But, hey, don't get me wrong, Apple does make some pretty good technology, but, let's not overhype their advantages, which, after all is said and done, are not really that much to write home about.

What is the Windows-only software that a normal user needs?

Internet access software is available for any platform -- typically works better in non-Windows environments.
Wordprocessing, Spreadsheet, Presentation, Video Editing etc software is available for any platform as well, many are considered better than those sold ($$$) by Microsoft and all of these are cross-compatible.

If you deducted that I claim Apple are the best, I do not. But they without doubt offer much more polished and higher-performing products than most of their competitors. It is joy to use Apple products and this matters great deal to many people -- especially when it comes to spending money.

You're assuming (quite incorrectly) that every computer user is just like you -- that they have everything they could ever possibly need OR want built right into their operating system.

You want a prime example of the fallacy of your assumption? Walk into ANY electronics store or software store or any department store which sells software. Look at the multitude of titles that are being sold, and notice that ALL of them are for Windows, and NONE of them are for Apple.

But of course, in YOUR mind, that automatically means "Apple has all that stuff built into the OS", right?

But the question is still unanswered by you or anyone on your side regarding "why does one NEED to go with an Apple product, when an equivalent offering exists from the competition, and at lower (sometimes, much lower prices)?

adornoe@ - Among the FEW that seem to get "IT"... Except the 'Universe' comment of course... Cause, according to some other poster's, you never know what they are using on Mars
Another thing that a lot of these guys don't understand a win for Apple (in relation to PCs) is a win for Intel... see they are using there parts..

I don't write to make readers happy -- that's an impossible task. I write to help people cut through and critically analyze all of the marketing speak and spin that comes from technology companies (including Apple).

That is completely true Jason... but well then do it. I have read a few of your articles and they seem to be very Apple flavored. Aim at your obectives, true journalism, which is what we finally like to read. In the mean time keep up the good work.

There's no lawyer on earth that could word things in such a way to make it appear there is no bias for this crowd. People see exactly what they want from an article no matter what you say. When there's something negative to say about a product and the fanboys read it they automatically start accusing the author of being Apple flavored or Android biased or MS lovers. There's no stopping the anti-fanboy fanboys. You just have to report what your perspective is the way you see it. Not try to please every freakin Tom, Dick and Harry fanboy. It's not going to happen. Just read the articles and argue your points but let the authors write how they see it without accusatory statements. You can't have "true journalism" since you're addressing people with biases.

I would agree with your comments to a point. I still want to be able to have all the power I have now and I am still very distrustful of the cloud. From your article, what I perceive is an Ultrabook with all that power combined with a multitouch screen and a Kinect. It got me thinking about the announced Kinect availabilty for the PC coming this month. As I'm sitting here I can see in my mind a Kinect sitting below my monitor and being able to sense my typing 3 dimensionally (not using a keyboard), see my facial expressions, interpeting my voice, perhaps reading my lips. What a concept! I'll be getting a Kinect soon just to try this out. By the way I'm using my 3-year-old "tablet" pc (PC tablet, not Android or IOS) as my main computer hooked up to an external monitor and keyboard (with a KVM switch as I work on many different computer systems). Ok, now combine all of this into an Ultrabook with a tablet multitouch screen with Kinect built into the screen and now I have the whole setup right in front of me, perhaps in the form of the ASUS Transformer Prime with 1920x1200 15"-17" screen (my 65-year-old eyes can't see the smaller type anymore) or like the Ultrabook prototype I saw from a CES clip from Vizio (sooo thin and light and strong). Now I'd pay $2000 for something like that.

I actually think Wintel might be in trouble, but not necessarily Microsoft. If Windows 8 pans out and is successfully ported to ARM multiprocessor technology, it could survive Intel's falling. There needs to be a range of CPUs, GPUs, APUs, etc available in the market place and Microsoft could actually be agnostic and survive quite well, thank you, with Windows, XBox, Kinect, Surface, and all of the other software and hardware technology that is out there. Everyone wrote Microsoft off but then came Kinect that sold faster than even iPhone. I think Microsoft will be around for a while.

By the way if anyone decides to patent these ideas I will be watching and I will see you in court. I am so sick and tired of seeing prior art and common sense being misused by Apple and everyone else. Only the lawyers win.

Thank you!

Thanks Jason for your insight and totally agree with you on the part about "Ultrabooks are nothing more than thinner laptops" at least that's absolutely true with current release candidates. Looks like few aren't happy about the comparison between the apptel and wintel, at least from the few comments that I read in response to your post, but go on mate, continue to speak your mind. At the end, it's all about innovation, market shares isn't the absolute way to judge, which can always be defined by the price tags.

tablets are great for browsing, movies, music and reading but to do work you need a real keyboard and precision cursor control... work like coding, cad, writing large documents or spreadsheets. The next generation needs to have hardware and OS that fully integrate and customizable interface: Page size (8.5"X11") multi-touch gesture OLED display, multi-touch gesture LCD touch pad (full width like Intel suggests), converts from a tablet to a laptop, SSD or Hybrid drive, USB 3.0 and/or Thunderbolt, Bluetooth, Accelerated 3D graphics.... Oh, and a nice desktop dock that supports multi-displays, advanced battery management, secondary storage and so on....... I would have one!!!

Being an Apple indoctrinee for years I fell for all the hype. In the end the greatest criteria is functionality. If my computer can handle the 3d design, photoshop, openoffice tasks like a good workhorse I don't care who's Flagship they copied. If they can get the price down out of the stratosphere that's a plus. In the end Apple or Wintel it's the user that decides.

I'm all in favour of lightweight laptops but I don't understand this fetish for ultrathin laptops that are so thin they can't accommodate an optical disc drive. I don't want to have to carry around two devices (laptop + external optical drive) when one will do. I also don't want to sacrifice robustness for style and it's a simple physical fact that it's easier to break something that's very thin than something that's thick. Have you tried sitting on a Macbook Air? Finally there's the upgrade/service aspect: the more tightly you pack things in, the more difficult it is to get at parts that need replacing for either repair or upgrading. Try working on a modern car with a transverse engine and front wheel drive and compare it with a 1950s model with an equivalent sized engine driving the back wheels. Yes, the modern car is more compact and sleeker but far more difficult to work on. Practicality is what I want from a laptop and I shall not be buying an ultrabook.

Is it just a netbook with more power?

might have a full-size display, too... whoop de doo.

The displays tend to be slightly larger than netbooks. Most netbooks had a roughly 10 inch display. Ultrabooks seem to have two varieties, 11 inch and 13 inch displays. The resolutions seem to be more "standard" than netbooks. Netbooks had some rather odd resolutions, vertical in particular, which didn't always play well with applications and even web pages.

The real defining attribute for Ultrabooks is their thickness. They are super thin compared to netbooks and especially standard laptops. Other than that they are really just evolutionary improvements on the netbook. (Which I happen to like a lot. My netbook has made my work and personal travel much easier, well lighter anyway.

I read at least eight different articles in various and unrelated publications or online newsletters in which all the authors or bloggers stated the same thing. Ultrabook , despite what their purported innovative features may claim to be, is nothing more than a concept gone awry. Each of the authors also noted, as Jason does too, that none of the features that are supposed to be implemented are even ready to go forward. Some authors were more detailed in their analysis, but the point was still the same; Ultrabooks are not going to be the be all end all of computing now, nor will it be in the future. If it was juust Mr. Hiner alone thinking out loud I could see that some readers maybe biased. Conversely how biased can he be if many other experts and industry analysts are saying the same things. I think Jason does a great job of providing insightful commentary. Me, I do not agree with everything Mr. Hiner writes, but here is an example of his providing commentary that mirrors many others in the industry so to those readers who may have an opinion contrary to Mr. Hiner's, my kudos to you for exercising your first amendment rights, but please give Jason his due as his job is not to be an arbiter of popular opinion, only what can be derived from the evidence.

*wave*

I think the major reason we are seeing this push is that not much money was being made with netbooks: ultrabooks are just a push to increase profit margins on every unit sold.

I would be happy to be proved wrong of course: if you own an ultrabook: what does it give you that a laptop does not?

An Ultrabook is smaller and lighter. Isn't that enough?

People don't want "functionality". They want small and cheap, and the ability to play games and watch movies. All technology ultimately tends toward entertainment.

Do you really think that the majority of portable-computer owners actually carry around their machines to get real work done? (Notice I said "majority".)