PCWorld Forums: Ultraslim Ultrabook Laptops Get Cheaper - PCWorld Forums

Post your comments for Ultraslim Ultrabook Laptops Get Cheaper here

4-5 lbs is not ultraportable. Intel's really desperate if it permits this kind of brand dilution with Ultrabooks.

Gnostradamus, on 13 June 2012 - 07:49 PM, said:

Personally, I don`t spend my entire day walking around with a laptop in my hands. You may, but I don`t. 4-5 pounds (which is very stupidly American by the way)is pretty light if you bring it to a public library, a park, your office, home, etc. You should also USE it rather than just carry it around like a purse. think about why it should be lighter. It has good hardware (...well, decent hardware)and that`s a good size laptop for what you get inside.

THE U.S. USES THE STUPID IMPERIAL MEASUREMENT SYSTEM AND THEREFORE TAINTS MUCH OF THE REST OF THE WORLD WITH IT! Even in Canada, due to the U.S., laptop weight is measured in pounds and construction supplies are measured in feet and inches.

IF ANYONE LIKES THE IMPERIAL SYSTEM, THEN FEEL FREE TO REPLY TO THIS MESSAGE WITH YOUR EXPLANATION OF HOW THAT SYSTEM MAKES SENSE!
Metric makes sense because it is based on the number 10. That`s how you easily convert between different measurements.

I have no idea what the imperial system is based on! Or how the length of a foot or yard or mile was decided.

Do any of these "new" Ultrabooks have screen heights greater than 768 pixels like a lot of the 10-inch Android tablets at 800 (and some going more than that)? I am fed up with anything over 9 inches that is not at least 800 high. A case in point is my shiny new "business class" work-supplied HP 2560p with 12.5" 1366x768 screen - I am not watching videos for work! I am looking at lots of LONG documents, web pages, and unix terminal screens - taller is better. This was an "upgrade" from a Dell Latitude D630 with 14-inch 1280x800 screen, which was much more suitable for work usage (aside from its other issues with bulk/weight, and crippled SATA drive slowness).

I have a nice "old" Fujitsu Lifebook P1620 with 8.9-inch screen at 1280x768, which is appropriate for that size screen. There is no excuse for anything bigger having less than 800 pixel height. Too many web sites are "hostile" to such short screens. That is what killed my interest in netbooks with their stunted 600-high screens esp vs my P1620 available on eBay for well under $200 with tablet-convertible touchscreen and other advantages.

greertroy, on 14 June 2012 - 04:07 AM, said:

LOL! You spent your time crying about weights & measures when the article is about portable computers?!

greertroy, on 14 June 2012 - 04:07 AM, said:

1) Your keyboard is broken. Your Caps Lock key seems to be stuck. No one reads comments in all-caps.
2) I've heard there is a mathematical way of converting weights from one units system to another. If you research this and brush up on your calculating skills you may find a way of converting pounds to Kg, etc. Try it out. I've heard such conversions can be performed, many times, in a day or less.

lamorpa, on 14 June 2012 - 06:23 AM, said:

Let's see if I read it correctly:

1) No one reads in all-cap (me included)
2) I actually DID read it, and here is the answer to your question.

OK, got it

greertroy, on 14 June 2012 - 04:07 AM, said:

To my knowledge the Imperial System was based on the old British System of weights and measurements. The foot was based on the length of some King's foot. In new math it would be called base 12. The metric system is base 10. Easier to understand and more widely used. But both are arbitrary. As is the measurement of time.

greertroy, on 14 June 2012 - 04:07 AM, said:

Google has a unit converter. It's kinda tricky to get to come up, you have to word your conversions just right. If you want to try it though, search for "4 lbs in kg". 4 pounds happen to equal 1.814 kilograms.

The Imperial measures for length or based on the human body. A Foot is the length of your foot, obviously, or the distance between your elbow and your wrist. There are 3 feet in a yard, and 1760 yards in a mile. If you really want to learn more about it, I suggest using Wikipedia to research it.