Ultrabooks: Your Opinion?

[charliec]

Hi Everyone,

Apple has been releasing some really great laptops these last few years, the Air I find a very attractive piece of hardware while the Retina display Mac books are great if not a bit pricey. But after all that I'm still a Windows man, and am glad to see innovation by the laptop producers, especially in the Ultrabook category with Windows 8. I have a Sony Vaio Ultrabook and love it to bits!

Big question really, but whats your favorite and least favorite things about Intel's Ultrabook category of devices in general? I am asking this for some university work so would be really grateful for your opinions! Has this definition helped laptop makers catch up with Apple in terms of design, usability, innovation and customer service or has it hindered the laptop industry in general? Is Windows 8 pushing these products in the right direction?

What are your favorite devices where the category has flourished and what are some failure devices that are a bad representation of the Ultrabook brand?

What would you change or improve about Ultrabooks, or are you a happy owner of one? Would you prefer a Win7 or 8 Ultrabook and what about interesting new features like touch screen on laptops?

Thanks very much for your thoughts!

 

[Zodiark1593]

Moar GPU power and quad cores please.

 

[Red Storm]

When ultrabooks become capable gaming machines I will get one immediately. Otherwise I've got no reason to use Windows and am perfectly happy with non-Windows tablets.

 

[ponyo]

Price. Until Ultrabooks are $400-500, it will be niche segment.

I'm more excited about future ARM notebooks with 4G cell tech than current overpriced Ultrabooks.

 

[shortylickens]

Price. Until Ultrabooks are $400-500, it will be niche segment.

I'm more excited about future ARM notebooks with 4G cell tech than current overpriced Ultrabooks.

I jsut got the super thin Toshiba Portege for 500. Use it at school. Works great.

Actually, that was over 4 months ago. What models are you looking at?

 

[Red Storm]

Yeah I've seen ultrabooks priced pretty low. I did see one Asus laptop running Win 8, touchscreen, i3 with 4GB RAM and nice 11" compact form. It didn't have the SSD but for ~$450 you can't really complain.

 

[Roland00Address]

Personally I think these are the big three things I look for in an ultrabook

• I would not consider an ultrabook unless it has an ips or samsung pls screen or similar technology. It needs to be at least 1366x768 but it does not need to be 1080p.
• 5 hour minimum battery in real world scenarios. Acer S7 laptop is an awesome ultrabook but it its getting about 4 hours of battery life in real world scenarios with 40% backlight.
• Needs to have at least a 64gb ssd. The OS needs to be entirely on this ssd not some caching situation. Now I am all for an ssd+hard drive cache but only when the hard drive+cache is drive d, the os needs to be entirely on the ssd.

If you can satisfy all three above bullet points I think the most important point after that is keeping the price low.

Yeah I've seen ultrabooks priced pretty low. I did see one Asus laptop running Win 8, touchscreen, i3 with 4GB RAM and nice 11" compact form. It didn't have the SSD but for ~$450 you can't really complain.

That isn't an ultrabook for it is too thick and it doesn't have an ssd. Ultrabooks need to be under

18 mm for 13.3" and smaller displays
21 mm for 14.0" and larger displays
23 mm for convertible tablets

The height of the x202e/s200e/q200e are all 21.7 mm

Yet this device proves that ultrabooks at a cheaper price point are perfectly possibly. Slime down the height a little add a 64 or 128gb ssd which now can be found for as little as $60 bucks (normal price not on sale) for a 64gb or $90 for a 128gb. 320gb hard drives go for minimum $50 in a retail environment, sure ASUS and the other OEMs can get some sort of volume discount for the hard drives but the time for HD are going away.

When ultrabooks become capable gaming machines I will get one immediately. Otherwise I've got no reason to use Windows and am perfectly happy with non-Windows tablets.

geforce gt640m le (gddr5 version),
geforce gt640m (gddr5 version),
geforce gt645m (gddr5 version),
geforce gt650m (gddr5 version)

are all nice medium end gaming cards (I will not classify them as enthusiast, but they can play every game out their on medium orr high settings at 1366x768 or low to medium on 1080p. They will not play some games on ultra at 1366x768). They have 384 of the new kepler cores, 128 bit bus, and if you get the right version gddr5. They are the same core as the gtx660m but that card runs at 835mhz while the rest of the cards run between 500 to 735 mhz. The advantage of the 640m le to 650m is there tdp is only 45w instead of 75w for the gtx660m due to their lower clock speeds. Because of this you can find these gpus in computers in the 20 to 21mm height ultrabooks instead of needing a much thicker computer such as the y480/580 which is 33 mm tall.

 

[Roland00Address]

Going back to the OP. I really like the intel guidelines here are the guidelines if you do not know it for the 1st, 2nd, and soon to be upcomming 3rd generation ultrabooks to use the ultrabook term.

1st generation ultrabooks
Huron River platform will be using intels 2nd generation core processors (nicknamed sandybridge)
18 mm for 13.3" and smaller displays
21 mm for 14.0" and larger displays
5 hours battery life measured in mobilemark2007
resume from hibernation 7 seconds from S4
some form of ssd or ssd+cache
various software and firmware on the motherboard

2nd generation ultrabooks
Chief River platform will be using intels 3rd generation core processors (nicknamed ivybridge)
Same height requirements, but now with 23 mm for convertible tablets catergory
Same battery life requirements
Same ssd requirements but now the combination must have a minimum speed of 80 MB/s transfer rate (minimum) in certain scenarios
USB 3.0 or Intel Thunderbolt (not really a big deal since if they are using a newer motherboard, the new intel ivybridge will automatically give USB 3.0)

So as you can see the newer ultrabooks are pretty much the same as the old ultrabooks but with a faster chip inside.

3rd generation ultrabooks
Shark Bay platfoorm will be using intels 4th generation core processors (nicknamed haswell)
9 hour battery life
"Responsive Voice Commands"
720p Camera
Wireless Display
2x2 wirless attenna thus you are guaranteed 300mbps if using wifi n
Having the ability to go to sleep yet still accept push/pull data to be always up to date.

-----------------------------------

I like the original guidelines for they were designed to encourage thin, yet good battery life, and responsive with some ssd. They were also flexible enough that oems could make a profit and also allow the device to be be cheaper than apple by having some flexiblity with hybrid drives. Unfortunately in my opinion while these guidelines help created a new "category" of laptop they didn't cause people to buy the device. The reason they failed to do so is

• The ultrabooks are too expensive, yet in the end they were just like normal laptops, just thinner and sometimes light (but not always lighter).
• They didn't have any form of "wow" to sell them. In the end they were just thinner / lighter.

I believe the second generation ultrabook definition was a failure for in the end it was the same guidelines as the previous generation but now it is a little bit faster.

I have hopes for the third generation ultrabook definition for now all ultrabooks have to get "all day battery life", new features such as voice commands and intel wireless display on all models. These new features may possibly introduce the "wow factor" to consumers saying these new laptop is nifty and fresh yet does all the same things as my old one. It is also lighter and thinner and is worth spending $750 on a betterlaptop instead of just spending $400 on a cheap but new laptop.

That said if I were Intel, I would also add the requirements for the screen technologies and a better ssd. I would do this for these technologies are now cheap enough that the oems can add them at a reasonable price (<$50 for the ips screen vs crappy tn screen, <$50 for the bigger ssd). They substantially increase the user experience of the customer, and finally if intel mandates these requirements into the ultrabook requirements the additional cost for these requirements will soon become trival in a period of 12 to 18 months due to higher market demand causing the part manufactures to increase productions of ips screens and ssds and thus allowing volumne purchases.

 

[Red Storm]

My current laptop has a 1080P screen and runs on a GTX 675m. I want those specs in an ultrabook.

 

[DisgruntledVirus]

I want an ultrabook. I'm getting tired of my laptops low resolution when doing work remotely. It's a PITA to RD into my desktop at work that's 1920x1080 on a 1366x768 resolution screen. Scroll bars suck.

 

[Roland00Address]

My current laptop has a 1080P screen and runs on a GTX 675m. I want those specs in an ultrabook.

You need to wait for another die shrink and you will get that.

Your geforce gtx675m (I am assumming you meant m and not mx) is a downclocked 560ti desktop card. It has 384 shaders but these are fermi shaders, built on 40nm.

The geforce gt650m has 384 shaders but these are kepler shaders (built on 28nm). Fermi shaders are faster than kepler shaders for the same base clock due to the fact Fermi shaders were running the shader clock twice as high as the base clock. (This was done to save on die space at the expense of power, kepler does the opposite they rather have more shaders but running them at a slower shader clock to keep power down so they make great laptop chips.) This is why a desktop gtx650 trades blows with a gtx550ti, 384 kepler shaders (desktop 650) are about the same speed as 192 fermi shaders (desktop 550ti)

On TMSC 20nm, nvidia will get about 1.9 density compared to TMSC 28nm, thus they should be able to build your gaming laptop in an ultrabook form factor.

 

[jimmypop]

I have the 11.6" Asus s200e mentioned above. Windows 8 + touch screen took some getting used to, but I absolutely LOVE working on this machine. Speeds a lot of things up to swipe the screen.

I also have a Dell M6600 with nearly max specs and one of the best laptop displays known to man (RGB IPS) and it's simply not as nice an everyday computer.

 

[podspi]

Connected standby is the next wow feature, imho. I know lots of people with laptops, and they burn a lot of battery power with the computer sitting there idling on tables, etc. Having the ability to enter a super-low power-state quickly while still pulling down updates is pretty awesome.

Having experienced this with the Z2760, I am very excited for it to come to all portables. Haswell will be worth the price of admission for that feature alone imho.


Voice recognition is nothing new (welcome back to the 90s), so that is kind of a throw-away requirement imho (all computers can do that). WiDi is something I wouldn't mind taking off, but seeing people talk about in forums it seems there are a lot of issues with high-quality video playback.

 

[TuxDave]

Price. Until Ultrabooks are $400-500, it will be niche segment.

I'm more excited about future ARM notebooks with 4G cell tech than current overpriced Ultrabooks.

$400-500 is a little low. If it was up to $750 I'd be all over it. I just want.

1) 13"+ 1080p
2) Touchscreen
3) Cheaper than a Macbook Air
3) All the normal goodies of ultrabooks (thickness, battery, weight)

 

[s44]

I want a faster Transformer, not another fan-dependent Windows machine.

 

[OBLAMA2009]

macbook pros are almost as thin as macbook airs. i dont know why someone would get an air when they could just get a pro

 

[you2]

You keep talking about windows but I plan on running linux. I ilked the tablet I use but want a 13 inch screen. The mac is interesting but hard to modify and a bit expensive. Also it is pound heavier. If the asus goes on sale i might bite it has decent battery life and very nice screen. I just don't care for samsung's series 5 and series 7 screens. Anyways i'm looking for sub 3 pounds; 13 inch and a min of 5 hours battery life (acers has some nice units at good prices but as mentioned poor battery life). hd400 graphics is plenty for my needs.

 

[notposting]

I think things like mediocre battery life, full port selection (ahhh, let's just skip the SD slot on this $1200 device = NO from me), trackpads that no one at the manufacturer apparently never tried, shitty screens on some models, no one outside of Apple seems to understand the idea of hiding vents to prevent them being blocked, same with magnetic power ports...etc, etc.

Every review I have read leaves me disappointed.

 

[TuxDave]

macbook pros are almost as thin as macbook airs. i dont know why someone would get an air when they could just get a pro

Yeah I would say the new Retina Macbook Pro is sexier than the Air. It's REALLLY nice. Unfortunately the prices are no where close to each other.

 

[darkewaffle]

I want one, but I'm reluctant to drop a grand on something I just want as a secondary machine to take round with me sometimes.

 

[jiffylube1024]

I'm a big fan of Ultrabooks; I think they're a big step in the right direction for laptops to move towards. They will continue to drop in price as technology matures and power envelopes continue to dwindle for new chips, requiring much simpler cooling requirements.

As for the current crop of ultrabooks, it's a mixed bag. I was shopping for a PC Ultrabook for my sister this Christmas, and ultimately settled on the Macbook Air running boot camp. She's going to be overseas, so she needs a laptop where stability is paramount.

I almost decided on the Dell XPS 13 Ultrabook, but, like most PC ultrabooks, the touchpad wasn't great, and the screen was 1366x768.

I'm frustrated that PC manufacturers have so often cheaped out on the screen on Ultrabooks. Apple was smart to make the screen 1440x900 on the Macbook Air; in my opinion 1466x768 is just too low for a 13" laptop. 1440x900 is right on the border of acceptable for me. 1600x900 would be better for a 16:9 laptop. It's also a pain that most PC makers use low-quality TN-film panels for their ultrabooks. ASUS is way ahead of the game with their Zenbook Prime laptops with 1080p IPS panels. I wish ASUS also offered a 1600x900 IPS display. For me, 1080p is not a problem, but for my family, they may not be able to tweak the 1080p display for acceptable font size on all their programs.

I'm also annoyed at Apple at making everything on the Macbook Air non-upgradeable. In their race for "thinness" (a bullshit word, but whatever), they've soldered everything on the motherboard. You have to pay a highway robbery fee to get 8GB of RAM on a Macbook Air, and 4GB isn't enough to comfortably run Parallels Desktop. It's fine for Boot Camp at least.

 

[jiffylube1024]

macbook pros are almost as thin as macbook airs. i dont know why someone would get an air when they could just get a pro

I think the $500 difference between the two models has something to do with the Air's popularity. The Retina MBP gets you 8GB of RAM standard and a higher res screen, but costs 42% more/ 33% more than the MBA in 128GB/256GB configurations, respectively.

Not too many people want to drop 2 grand on a laptop, especially with only 256GB of SSD.

 

[Red Storm]

For mobile on the go computing weight means a lot. That's why I would pick an Air over the Pro for instance.

After thinking about it, in the end I would give up gaming on the go, and so Windows would no longer be a necessity. Give me a new round of Android Transformers.

 

[Suspicious-Teach8788]

macbook pros are almost as thin as macbook airs. i dont know why someone would get an air when they could just get a pro

It's still a big difference. You're using the maximum thickness of the Macbook air in comparison. That teardrop design is still effective because there's a thinner overall appearance of the device. When you see and hold the two, it's very different. Furthermore, there's issues with the Retina display's high resolution being underpowered. I personally think 1680x1050 is a nice compromise, and even the current MBA's 14x9 resolution is sufficient for a 13" screen.

Furthermore, let's not forget cost.

I think ultrabooks are a good direction to go. It's what non power users should get, and if you want serious power, they should be in a MBP form factor. In 2008 I just couldn't justify getting a 1.5" thick laptop when the Macbook Pro 15" was only 1" thick. Anyway, it is a shame that 90% of PC laptops belong in the trash. 1366x768 is really a PITA. I'm not even that happy that Apple's kept the standard MBP 15" at 1440x900 resolution, and the 13" MBP (non retina) at 12x8. the MacBook Air is only halfway respectable with its upgrade last year, but in general we all know Apple likes to lag behind in pushing the latest tech (there are some exceptions here and there). However, for the PC industry to drag its feet on display and release trash after trash, it's really disappointing.

 

[swanysto]

I was looking at Ultrabooks for a long time. I really love some of the sizes. However, it seemed like every ultrabook had some downside for me. I ended up with a regular laptop cause I decided to go for power(i7 and 550m) over size. Here are some of the downsides:

-The screens were pretty poor. Resolution and quality.
-A lot of them were too under-powered for me. An i3 wouldn't do for me, however it is nice if the person buying it only surfs and does normal stuff. I do a lot of photoshop and the like.
-Some had great battery life, but the ones with any kind of power didn't offer much better than a typical laptop.
-Some of them feel cheap.

The macbook air and zenbooks look great, but they were out of my price range. Plus, I can't do iOS cause my work programs are windows only and I don't feel like dual boot or parallels. While I use the laptop a good amount, I couldn't see dropping 1k on it. I spent $650 and got a laptop with 1080 and a video card. It isn't amazing, but it plays my games just fine.