PCWorld Forums: Why Ultrabook Laptops Aren't Just Macbook Air Clones - PCWorld Forums

Post your comments for Why Ultrabook Laptops Aren't Just MacBook Air Clones here

The best things about the Windows Ultrabooks is, cost, user replacable options like batteries that doesn't require a licensed surgeon to replace. Availability - Apple just can't match the options of having a bit of choice in the arena. Configurations - As with ALL Windows PC's, you can always find at least one that will offer equal to better configurations vs Apple's offerings and the prices are very competive. Those options likely will be more up to date vs Apple who sells older hardware for an even higher cost (example - C2D still being sold for top dollar hwile every one else was selling 1st gen Core "I" systems). One size fits all selling model, simply doesn't work. In 28 years Apple has sold about 125M Mac's that basically were in most cases were 1-3 items per class vs other PC makers who have a wider variety of options, bec they chose to cater to a wider audience. Explains why HP sells over 12M computers per quarter vs Apple at an average 2M per quarter.

Theer are not clones because Apple surely wasnt the first to make thin/light portable computers and they certainly won't be the last.

What I am happy to see is, PC makers finally stepping up and trying to compete on some equal footing and giving us better looking stuff that they shoulh have been giving us for years and not just taking for granted consumers and just milking the cow over and over.

"Imitation is the most sincerest form of flattery" unknown author

agrippa, on 17 May 2012 - 05:59 AM, said:

A Sony fan I see:
"five years before Apple introduced the MacBook Air--Sony introduced another premium, super-thin laptop: The Vaio X505"

QUADICON, on 17 May 2012 - 05:48 AM, said:

That's true but the good thing Apple has done since they switched to Intel was to put hardware together that worked well together. They don't put high end components mixed in with crappy components so you don't get the benefit of the high end parts, like some other PC makers do but I suppose they can't afford to have one model really be crappy when you charge a premium.

And now for the one feature that beats all--it is ACTUALLY SHIPPING!! Ooops, looks like Apple wins again.

Melanie, for someone who is convinced that "... Ultrabook Laptops Aren't Just MacBook Air Clones", you sure sound preemptively defensive.

Why not simply write an article vaunting the merits of Ultrabooks and not even mention the MacBook Air?

Maybe because headlines with any mention of Apple in them generate more clicks?

Seriously? More ports, non-skid bottoms, different processor speeds... that's all it takes to be innovative?

Your next article should be "Why Melanie Pinola and PCWorld Aren't Just Windows PC Apologists..."

42n81, on 17 May 2012 - 10:15 AM, said:

Really I was just trying to address a common criticism of Ultrabooks in general. The article was sparked by one lady asking the HP design exec if they copied the Air--a question that surely was exasperating.

LordInsidious, on 17 May 2012 - 07:37 AM, said:

I agree. But based on my personal experience, the mixing of components which is especially common with Dell, was on lower end consumer models like the Inspiron line. The Inspiron was basically a consumer version of the XPS. In fact many models in 2005 shared many underpinnings. Dell would usually swap out the Intel WiFi/BT for their own Dell branded options. I had one and I can say it worked just fine. But those subs brought the cost of an XPS down to less than $800. and for that $769 I paid, I still got an ATI dedicated card with 128MB onboard + 128 shared and a resolution of 1650 x 1080 which doesn't appear on any Mac at all. And the screen was a WXVGA with TrueBrite Technology. It is the best Dell laptop I ever owned. The same one I drop down a flight of stairs that only had a couple dents and scratches that I was able to replace for about $50.

What impressed me about the original Air certainly was design and size. I did buy one, but it just didn't give the power I expect for what it cost, so I returned it for my very first Macbook Pro. The only other Apple laptop I have every owned was a PowerBook that has Mac OS8.

Tho I like the look of the latest Air's, they for me are just to flimsy. I think the new Windows Ultrabook may be slight more rigid which means they will likely weight more. But for people who carry a laptop constantly, a few extra grams shouldn't be a huge deal, consider most laptops weight about 5Lbs.

One thing I think has pushed the Air is Apple using the Air to replace the previous plastic 13" Macbook they had. And since those are only avail to schools and the only 13" laptop Apple has is the Air, the sales have increased. But I am sure if Apple was still selling the other model, the 13" Air would sell in lower numbers. Many PC makers may think the increase in Air sales means the item is more popular. That coudl be true on some level, but I think it was simply forcing typical 13" laptop buyers unto buying it simply because its the only option in this size. This is somethin Windows PC makers simply don't do and why they have a significant advantage in this market.

Several PC makers competing for the same consumer attention is what is going todrive the cost down and make the Air look as expensive as the Macbooks are vs their counterparts. Example? No matter how much many ridicule Dell and HP, the Dell XPS and the Hp Envy line of computers which compete against the Mac head on, offer better configs, better pricing, similar weights and styling and all with doubling the cost.

t1u1, on 17 May 2012 - 10:07 AM, said:

Not really. First off the original Air was categorized as a Ultra-Portable. Theer were others in thsi category that were already shipping like someone mentioned the Sony X505.

And Asus and Samsung both have ultrabooks that ahve been avail since last year. And here is an FYI for you - Many criticized Samsung's 9 Series as far as cost. What they didn't look at was this fact. Apple was still selling the Air using Core 2 Dual, while the 9 Series was using Sandy Bridge. So while Apple was pawning off 5 year old hardware at high premium pricing, the 9 Series was ruiing up to date hardware that only made the 9 series about $50 more and well worth it since it wasn't using dated hardware.

The way I see, Apple didn't win anything. All I see Apple gets credit for is getting the others to finally give us what we were suppose to have about 5 years ago.

Technology has driven computer products in a single direction, smaller and faster. It was obvious this would happen at some point, it just took someone to be willign to take the leap forward. That is the only place where Apple wins. History shows tho, being firstmeans very little if all you're going to do is end up last. By next summer most Unltrabook will be half what an Air cost. No one is going to want to pa $999 just to run Windows and with this side of the x86 bridge, they won't have too unless they want too.

Choice will always win, just look around you.

42n81, on 17 May 2012 - 10:15 AM, said:

Of course!!!

Many years using, many years knowing the difference! Pc is dead? Are you nuts! Evolving people! In many directions not only ONE!

Apple is who copying the processor brand is the strange in the mix! That leaves him only with delicate beauty & OS not security for sure! Not administration, nor servers etc... Ahh I forget and great marketing & availability!

Cherry on the cake don´t forget Lenovo X1 Carbon!!

-

This post has been edited by QUADICON: 17 May 2012 - 12:27 PM

agrippa, on 17 May 2012 - 05:59 AM, said:

First off I think we should clear up some facts. The main reason the Ultrabooks aren't Macbook Air clones at all, is because the concept and design existing for several years prior. Must like all of Apple products are copies of someone elese.

Sony had been making a line of Notebooks called the SuperSlim for years and they were very pricy. What the share with the Air is a very slim light-weight design. As I stated tho, they were very pricy. This is the line of laptops that eveolved into the X series. The 505 as someone mention funny looks pretty much like the Air does today. The series dates back as far as 1998 according to Wiki with the X Series coming in in 2009.

This link - http://cnettv.cnet.c...1_53-20832.html, shows a guy using one way back in 2006. So for the poster who spoke about the senserious form of flattery; Sony surely is very flattered Apple likely considered the X505 when they made the Air.

#justsaying

For some, it does not matter how much better an ultrabook is, it does not have that ultra cool name Apple on it.

I had a Sony 'ultra-portable' one back around the early 2000's. 20GB HDD, had to take it apart to upgrade it to have 512MB (max). Super expensive at the time, too. I liked it. It was handy. I bought it leading up to a trip to the UK for work. Of course, I bought a honkin' big battery for it that hanged off its butt like a giant tumor, to give it a 5~6 hour runtime, rather than its default 2~3 hour runtime. It was a lot closer to a 'netbook', really.

I'm sure a select few 'ultra book' specification will be intermittently 'better' than Macbook Air for basic specs. Some of these with 'better' specs may even be cheaper, sometimes.

What it boils down to is the classic 'Pick Two' scenario: Quality, Specs, Cheap

If the rumored 'retina for macbook' availability comes true, I think it will be very tough for most other manufacturers to match that, even if it's a 'premium' feature. A 2560x1440 display on a 15" 'air' form factor would be awfully sweet. It would be interesting to see how long it takes everyone else to catch up.

Other rumors include the whole macbook pro line going to macbook air-like thinness and SSD. Losing the optical drive, and probably any kind of compatibility with standard 2.5" HDDs in favor of squeezing every cubic millimeter they can get. Lots more battery space and two fewer cranky mechanical things to go wrong. Leaving just the SSD to be a potential 'issue' for wear & tear.

Of course, for upcoming Apple refreshes, all 'news' is pure, wild conjecture.

One may as well predict they'll have a unicorn horn until Apple throws back the curtain.

As an Apple user, I don't really care about extra ports (e.g., VGA) that I'll never need. And I'm not comparing lists of features side by side to choose my laptop.

Instead, I want it to just work when I turn it on. I want an integrated, seamless experience between the hardware and software.

Lastly, I don't want it to have loads of bloatware preinstalled from the factory.

Amazingly, most PC users just don't seem to understand this. I've talked to people who say my laptop sucks if it doesn't have a built in CD-ROM drive, for example. To each is own I guess.