[LordInsidious]

QUADICON, on 17 May 2012 - 12:05 PM, said:

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

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

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.

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.

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.

Good points here, I also had a great Dell laptop in '02 (can't remember what kind) but it wasn't the cheap line. Unfortunately for Dell and HP they get judged on there cheap lines because, well they're cheap, the only people who should buy their cheap lines is enterprise users with the enterprise support agreement because they will need it. It sucks when components fail which will happen when you buy a 100 laptops and a 100 desktops no matter who the manufacturer is but it gets mitigated when the service people show up within a day with replacement parts and swap them out in a couple of hours.

[LiveBrianD]

Evildave, on 17 May 2012 - 12:50 PM, said:

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.

Honestly, I wouldn't be at all surprised if the retina macbook display rumors end up being true. The thing is, Windows and programs don't have great dpi scaling support, and you have to use the same dpi setting for all monitors. For instance, I set my Win7 computer to 200% dpi, moved away from the screen a bit, and found that while the taskbar and start menu scale just fine and wordpad scaled well (and everything appears downright sharp, given how my eyes focus on it that way), at that dpi, IE and Explorer don't entirely scale well (they're fine at 125% though, for example - the main issue is some of the icons not scaling properly at 200%), Chrome rendered at 100% and then blew it up, making it all blurry, and Firefox didn't really scale at all. I use a dpi setting of 113% on my 11.6" 1366x768 netbook, and notice this all the time - at that custom dpi, word doesn't scale entirely well (instead of making the icons bigger, it simply adds more space in between them), the icons in live mail are blurry, firefox and chrome don't scale at all (note: Chrome renders at 100% dpi, 100% size, if you use XP style scaling - since I'm not increasing the dpi that much, it works well enough), etc. They definitely have a ways to go before it can take off, and I certainly think it will take a while for other manufacturers to catch up to Apple.

[bear90039]

How useful will touchscreen really be? It's one thing on a tablet. Taking your hands off the keyboard to grab the mouse is nuisance enough. Now imagine having to lift your arm up all the way to the screen to make adjustments? ESPECIALLY for those who like to show off with 27" or 30" display. Why have a gorgeous display if you can't keep fingerprints off it?
If you can make such a better product than Apple, why ascetically copy the MBA. Sure Apple has no patent on silver, but why make yours to look exactly like the lesser MBP?
I was worried about Apple removing the optical drive in all it's new computers. Then I asked myself when is the last time I used my optical drive? My answer was honestly 2009, so I replaced it with another HDD.
Want to be better than someone else, do something different.
How often do You use all the extra plugs on your ultrabook? Ethernet portability?Really? It all adds to the weight and if you have to replace the motherboard one day, damn that's gonna hurt. - cost-wise.
Who was the first to remove the floppy disc drive as an option? Who followed suit? In 2 or 3 years I think very few makers will automatically put optical drives in any computers. Most people don't purchase CDs or DVDs anymore. You can download them on your Android or iPhone.
We live in a progressive world for the most part. VGA I guess there are a few still powering up.
Anyway, that will be 2 cents.

[Evildave]

The software issue is something I hadn't thought of. But now you mention it, it's probably not SO big a deal. I recall many the confounding hour of 'fun' after changing font settings to adjust for 'teensy' text, and having various UIs blow up in windoze. Mostly these were caused by bugs in third party UIs that worked 'with' the standard controls, but didn't expect or adapt to any other font size (inadequate testing). But a few of the bugs weren't (i.e. appearing in Microsoft's own dialogs).

Most likely the hardware is not insurmountable. Within a year, some of them could certainly be shipping 'retina' equivalent high rez displays on their notebooks, with or without enough GPU/CPU/RAM to handle it. All those poor dupes who get into the hardware configurator and ask for the high rez display, without a GPU that's at least 4x as fast.

The software problem would most likely hit the 'compatibility' with older XP software more. Imagine the dialogs mixed with images, popping up at eye-popping postage-stamp size, with big text wrapping all over it. Though some sort of GDI or driver mode 'patch' to render at double resolution from original inputs might be done. So an OEM could 'fix' this, outside of a change to Windows, with changes to the GDI end of drivers, and down-sample (scale) the output to external monitors to fit. Then they could 'update' with a new driver when Microsoft straightens out the compatibility issues.

There's always that adventurous 'can do' attitude that allows PC users to live with buggy crap that never works right, and call it a 'success', too. They'll look right at the bugs and decide 'it's fine'. The quality that they're used to sets so low bar, they'll accept anything.

As I type this on my #2 90 degree rotated 27" NEC 2560x1440 monitor, next to my 2560x1440 27" iMac, I'm reminded how astounded I always am at the number of people who'll buy a 'big' monitor that's only around 1080p. Even some people I thought should have known better. But then again, maybe it's how Windows and various graphics cards 'handle' (or more precisely: Don't Handle) those monitors that makes them stick to such a low resolution.

[bear90039]

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

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.

I think you are are mistaken. Got everything backed up on Floppies I see. Apple has been using second gen I3 I5 & I7 since last year. I don't think I3 is an option anymore. They will probably be selling 3rd generation by next month along with Retina displays on everything. Nobody uses those yet except Apple. Why is that? How many PC makers currently use Thunderbolt? Exactly one. By the end off next year everybody will. Apple along with Intel invented it. "As with ALL Windows PCs..." How about that Compaq running Windows Millennium." how were your options. I'm guessing as narrow as your mind.

[Evildave]

BTW, another small correction: If it's a super-thin and light ultrabook, I doubt the battery will be replaceable on many of them (eventually, ANY) without 'surgery'.

One of the things Apple did to GET those MBA machines so thin was to get rid of 'modules' with their own chassis and mechanical connections and mechanical latches, etc. All things that add weight and bulk.

A light and thin ultrabook with a field replaceable battery is a pipe-dream.

For instance, here's a nice 'How To' video for replacing a Dell XPS 13 battery. Your first clue here is that there is a HOW TO video, just like for a Macbook.


Intel wants to 'standardize' ultrabook batteries. That's probably a 'good thing'. The 'standard' is for exactly the sort of thing you have to take the computer apart to get at.
http://liliputing.co...ell-design.html

On the good side, this will cut costs, and make battery replacement a bit less problematic among a hundred makers of 'ultrabooks'. On the bad side, so many more 'ultrabooks' will be made with the same chipset and the same internal battery that few manufacturers that stick to Intel's 'standards' will be able to differentiate their products much by performance.

[artzy65]

bear90039, on 17 May 2012 - 03:33 PM, said:

Most people don't purchase CDs or DVDs anymore. You can download them on your Android or iPhone.
We live in a progressive world for the most part.

Well, then I guess 'most people' don't have important files to back up. Okay, back up on a storage drive... g'ahead. But cross your fingers that such a drive never fails (most hardware fails eventually... you know that, right?). I'm a designer and have about 200 CDs/DVDs worth of graphic files. Although I also have all those files on a external storage drive (and also on a couple of old, unused Macs), I'd be really nervous if I didn't have those disc backups.

Re not needing extra ports, having the option to hook up a display is a really nice feature on my old (2005) 1.67MHz 15.1" G4 AL Powerbook.

This post has been edited by artzy65: 17 May 2012 - 07:08 PM

[Evildave]

Um, have used external USB drives for backup, for decades: They work.

CD/DVD media has some storage issues. Keep them in a controlled environment, or they'll end up unreadable. In high humidity, fungus eats 'em. Left in daylight by a window, they can literally be erased by that. They're about as likely as anything else to be mishandled/damaged, or to have manufacturing defects. If you buy the cheapest of the cheap in bulk, you're playing with fire for their longevity. Some media you have now might already be unreadable.

An article about longevity research for CDR/DVDR/etc. media...
http://www.loc.gov/p..._longevity.html

An article about on disk failure.
http://static.google...sk_failures.pdf

But above all, when you have HUNDREDS of gigabytes to back up, an external hard disk drive is convenient and FAST. You aren't shoving disk after disk into the computer, with long, long waits in between. NAS is even more convenient.

Don't trust the hard drive? Back it up onto two completely different hard drives. It will still be quicker than backing up to DVD media. In fact, with an incremental backup, the external hard disk can usually be a mirror of the original faster than you could write even one DVD. It's a lot easier to carry one external hard disk to grandma's house for off-site backup than the equivalent stack of DVDRs.

They'll be about as reliable as ANY PC HARD DRIVE, and stand up to conditions that an equivalent drive in a computer would operate in. Assuming you don't abuse it, drop it, etc. They're cheap, too. $99 for a terabyte of backup, in its own USB box? How many DVDRs is that? $130 for a couple TB, and you could use 'em 'naked' in a toaster dock, even cheaper.

How long will the drive last? If it's only occasionally plugged in, it will last a lot longer than the span of time before I buy another, bigger one. Light use means long, long life. I give away 'old' hard disks at a rate significantly higher than I dispose of them for unreliability.

[waldojim]

bear90039, on 17 May 2012 - 03:49 PM, said:

I think you are are mistaken. Got everything backed up on Floppies I see. Apple has been using second gen I3 I5 & I7 since last year. I don't think I3 is an option anymore. They will probably be selling 3rd generation by next month along with Retina displays on everything. Nobody uses those yet except Apple. Why is that? How many PC makers currently use Thunderbolt? Exactly one. By the end off next year everybody will. Apple along with Intel invented it. "As with ALL Windows PCs..." How about that Compaq running Windows Millennium." how were your options. I'm guessing as narrow as your mind.

Apple won't be on Ivy until next year, when they roll out the 2013 lineup.

[waldojim]

Evildave, on 17 May 2012 - 07:49 PM, said:

Um, have used external USB drives for backup, for decades: They work.

Funny, if others use that line, you claim foul. It isn't your experience that counts, its the statistics.

Sound familiar yet?

[waldojim]

Evildave, on 17 May 2012 - 07:49 PM, said:

Don't trust the hard drive? Back it up onto two completely different hard drives. It will still be quicker than backing up to DVD media. In fact, with an incremental backup, the external hard disk can usually be a mirror of the original faster than you could write even one DVD. It's a lot easier to carry one external hard disk to grandma's house for off-site backup than the equivalent stack of DVDRs.

They'll be about as reliable as ANY PC HARD DRIVE, and stand up to conditions that an equivalent drive in a computer would operate in. Assuming you don't abuse it, drop it, etc. They're cheap, too. $99 for a terabyte of backup, in its own USB box? How many DVDRs is that? $130 for a couple TB, and you could use 'em 'naked' in a toaster dock, even cheaper.

How long will the drive last? If it's only occasionally plugged in, it will last a lot longer than the span of time before I buy another, bigger one. Light use means long, long life. I give away 'old' hard disks at a rate significantly higher than I dispose of them for unreliability.

I don't buy that line of crap for a minute. MOST of those have a ONE year warranty for a reason. The average lifespan I have seen with Externals has been 18-24months. Average (reliable) lifespan of an internal HD - 4-5 years.

[LordInsidious]

bear90039, on 17 May 2012 - 03:33 PM, said:

How useful will touchscreen really be? It's one thing on a tablet. Taking your hands off the keyboard to grab the mouse is nuisance enough. Now imagine having to lift your arm up all the way to the screen to make adjustments? ESPECIALLY for those who like to show off with 27" or 30" display. Why have a gorgeous display if you can't keep fingerprints off it?

Why do you have to use touch screen? I believe that's part of MS point, use touch if you want, use keyboard if you want use what ever input options are available if you want. I don't see why more options is a bad thing.

[compnovo]

LordInsidious, on 18 May 2012 - 08:17 AM, said:

bear90039, on 17 May 2012 - 03:33 PM, said:

How useful will touchscreen really be? It's one thing on a tablet. Taking your hands off the keyboard to grab the mouse is nuisance enough. Now imagine having to lift your arm up all the way to the screen to make adjustments? ESPECIALLY for those who like to show off with 27" or 30" display. Why have a gorgeous display if you can't keep fingerprints off it?

Why do you have to use touch screen? I believe that's part of MS point, use touch if you want, use keyboard if you want use what ever input options are available if you want. I don't see why more options is a bad thing.

I think it's a good thing. I'm hoping ASUS puts out a Transformer with Win8 on it so that I can use the touch screen when it's undocked and the keyboard/mouse when docked (or any combination that strikes my fancy at the time).

[Evildave]

Yes, Waldojim, you've repeatedly made it clear that you ONLY trust your own 'magical' RAID array, and that you don't want to back up anything, 'cuz no backup is good enough to satisfy you, other than relying on your motherboard's RAID handling inside your computer chassis for ALL of your storage, and trusting it never, ever, ever to go wrong.

We don't have to rely on my personal experience. Backup to external hard disk is the de-facto standard for the world. Be it NAS (like Time Capsule) or external USB/Firewire/eSATA/Thunderbird/etc., this is the solution. Even the 'cloud' backups are to hard drive.

With a billion PCs out there, a 'one in a million' chance happens a thousand times a day.

If you don't want to backup anything yourself, that's your own stupidity.

But to actively discourage other people from backing up? That's criminal.

[waldojim]

Evildave, on 18 May 2012 - 11:17 AM, said:

Yes, Waldojim, you've repeatedly made it clear that you ONLY trust your own 'magical' RAID array, and that you don't want to back up anything, 'cuz no backup is good enough to satisfy you, other than relying on your motherboard's RAID handling inside your computer chassis for ALL of your storage, and trusting it never, ever, ever to go wrong.

We don't have to rely on my personal experience. Backup to external hard disk is the de-facto standard for the world. Be it NAS (like Time Capsule) or external USB/Firewire/eSATA/Thunderbird/etc., this is the solution. Even the 'cloud' backups are to hard drive.

With a billion PCs out there, a 'one in a million' chance happens a thousand times a day.

If you don't want to backup anything yourself, that's your own stupidity.

But to actively discourage other people from backing up? That's criminal.

I trust what works in my home. You trust what works in yours. There is a difference. You are a control freak that cannot live with the fact that someone handles their machines in a manner differently than you.

Also, the comment made was that your a full of crap. Externals have proven themselves to be considerably less reliable than internal drives.

This post has been edited by waldojim: 18 May 2012 - 11:33 AM

[Evildave]

Nope, I have suffered the pain of losing significant data before. Around 1991 or so. THE LAST TIME, at least for me.

And I've witnessed it ENDLESSLY on other people's computers. None of which were backed up.

I don't want to see anyone else suffer that fate. Not even you.

Back it up.

[KPOM]

Let's face it. Apple made the ultraportable popular. There were others before them (Sony Vaio X505 and even some Toshiba Libretto models in the 1990s), but they were largely expensive niche devices. Apple was the first company to make the ultraportable its mainstream notebook and price it accordingly ($999 is mainstream by Apple standards). Once they took the leap, other manufacturers started doing what they could have and probably should have been doing years ago. Instead, HP, Dell et. al insisted for the past decade that consumers didn't want ultraportables and ignored a potentially lucrative market.

[BKX029]

gfinms, on 17 May 2012 - 12:49 PM, said:

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

And conversely, for some it doesn't matter how good a notebook is as long as it has Apple's logo on it..

[Evildave]

The problem for 'innovation' in Windows notebooks, is they listened to the loudest desktop/gamer geeks, who appeared to have disposable income.

So they learned that 'PC users' want a totally configurable notebook, powerful just like their desktop, with a big monitor and lots of GPU grunt to drive it.

Be everything a desktop is, compete with desktops. No mention of battery or weight. After all, you can get an aluminum framed backpack and carry the load on your hips!

Bulky, heavy, clunky, modular, battery runtime like a desktop UPS... became the 'norm'. Often operating at temperatures where you couldn't actually use the 'laptop' in your lap. The very signature of power! Burn marks on your thighs!

And then Microsoft did their 'Cheaper than Macs' ad campaign. With the 'real girl' (actress) who didn't walk into a Mac store before settling for a crappy notebook. But it was definitely cheaper.

http://gizmodo.com/5...shes-an-actress

So then they had to be bulky, heavy, clunky, modular, and have no battery runtime... AND BE SUPER CHEAP! Well, fortunately, building everything like crap is what most PC manufacturers do the best!


It took someone to say, "Hey, what if we ignored these tossers and made a lightweight, thin, streamlined computer that you could use for more than two hours away from an AC outlet?"

Though really, netbooks predated the MBA, so it probably went like: "Hey, how about we make a netbook that doesn't suck @$$?"

The Windows PC users scoff. They claim it's 'underpowered'. It can't play all their favorite games! SSD will never work! There's not enough of it to run Windows BLOATWARE! It isn't riddled with enough ports! No optical tray??? SIN!

But the ever-increasing sales, positive reviews, and user satisfaction speak for its self.

So now the rest of the notebook industry is catching on, and being spurred by Intel, who wants to cash in on the technology that APPLE SINGLE-HANDEDLY FORCED THEM TO DEVELOP.
http://www.pcworld.c...onsumption.html

[waldojim]

Evildave, on 19 May 2012 - 10:19 AM, said:

The problem for 'innovation' in Windows notebooks, is they listened to the loudest desktop/gamer geeks, who appeared to have disposable income.

So they learned that 'PC users' want a totally configurable notebook, powerful just like their desktop, with a big monitor and lots of GPU grunt to drive it.

Be everything a desktop is, compete with desktops. No mention of battery or weight. After all, you can get an aluminum framed backpack and carry the load on your hips!

Bulky, heavy, clunky, modular, battery runtime like a desktop UPS... became the 'norm'. Often operating at temperatures where you couldn't actually use the 'laptop' in your lap. The very signature of power! Burn marks on your thighs!

And then Microsoft did their 'Cheaper than Macs' ad campaign. With the 'real girl' (actress) who didn't walk into a Mac store before settling for a crappy notebook. But it was definitely cheaper.

So then they had to be bulky, heavy, clunky, modular, and have no battery runtime... AND BE SUPER CHEAP! Well, fortunately, building everything like crap is what most PC manufacturers do the best!


It took someone to say, "Hey, what if we ignored these tossers and made a lightweight, thin, streamlined computer that you could use for more than two hours away from an AC outlet?"

Though really, netbooks predated the MBA, so it probably went like: "Hey, how about we make a netbook that doesn't suck @$$?"

The Windows PC users scoff. They claim it's 'underpowered'. It can't play all their favorite games! SSD will never work! There's not enough of it to run Windows BLOATWARE! It isn't riddled with enough ports! No optical tray??? SIN!

But the ever-increasing sales, positive reviews, and user satisfaction speak for its self.

So now the rest of the notebook industry is catching on, and being spurred by Intel, who wants to cash in on the technology that APPLE SINGLE-HANDEDLY FORCED THEM TO DEVELOP.
http://www.pcworld.c...onsumption.html

I would like to point out, that until VERY recently, notebooks were never a replacement for gaming machines. The best of them having been years behind their desktop counterparts. It wasn't until the likes of Alienware that laptops were even viable as gaming machines.

For the most part, the modularity was a business requirement. Making it easy for a corporate environment to swap out parts quickly as needed.

As for PC's copying Apple... eh, it isn't lasting long. Manufacturers have already figured out that it takes more than an aluminum case to make a quality machine, and people know this. As a result, they are going right back to plastic junk. This phase will be over before it ever gets really started.