Talk:Ultrabook/Archives/2012

WSJ resource
For PCs, Hope in Slim Profile; Thin 'Ultrabook' Laptops Pose Stylish Challenge to MacBook Air at Lower Prices JANUARY 3, 2012 by IAN SHERR and SHARA TIBKEN 97.87.29.188 (talk) 00:31, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Removal of Release Date/Minimum Thickness, Addition of Ports/Features
I propose the removal of the Release Date/Minimum Thickness columns, so that a column contain the available ports/features of each ultrabook can be more easily accessible to readers since these ultrabooks don't have their own pages on Wikipedia. The release date does not really reveal any important information (especially compared to the ports/features), and the minimum thinness isn't an important spec to report anyways. It can be combined into the maximum thickess column. Let it be noted that, many ultrabooks are a uniform height so the minimum/maximum are the same value, that's why the chart has many blank entries. Also, 11 columns in a chart is already a large amount to begin with, so reducing it would be beneficial to any reader.

I will begin shifting the minimum thickess column into the maximum thickness column. I hope to receive some consensus about the removal of the release dates though, before I do that. And hopefully some help on listing the features!

Grapeon777 (talk) 07:20, 19 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I don't think it's necessary to delete any thickness columns; if peripherals is relevant, then lets include it. However, I think there should be some indicator of footprint: the reason for this is not because I personally care so much as it is relevant to these models' existence as Ultrabooks. The idea at the center of the article and list is "what is interesting or special (or not special) about Ultrabooks relative to other laptops" and one of those things (which is demonstrated both by the table and text) is thickness. Now, you have a point in that minimum and maximum thickness is an unwieldy statistic; many ultrabooks are of a uniform thickness, and many manufacturers report a only a single number for one of their models. What we can draw from this is that perhaps the column header should be changed. Not that the column does not provide useful information.


 * "release date does not really reveal any important information... 11 columns in a chart is already a large amount to begin with, so reducing it would be beneficial to any reader." The release date does reveal important information because one of the central questions about Ultrabooks is whether the technology currently exists to provide devices like these practically. While perhaps the specifics are not critical (I could imagine, for example, the month column being removed but the models still divided into tables which are organized by release time.), the general information about whether the timeline promised for the technology by Intel and Industry PR is in reality being met is, I would say, important.


 * In the same way, a "peripherals" column might be relevant (though perhaps less so) because just as there have been questions about Intel and Manufacturer's ability to deliver this kind of device, there have also been questions about the high expectations of this device leading to unintended costs and lost utility in the form of less room for ports. In that sense, it would make sense to have peripherals on this column. I don't believe 11-column tables are unbearably long (it is a belief of mine and I'd love to see some empirical data of how long a table people will use, that would actually be interesting). But you're correct in saying that this tables could easily become sprawling. Here is an example of some columns that might be less relevant:
 * GPU details - Ultrabooks are not marketed much to Gamers or Video Editors (Although there was that Fracase today at CES about Intel's pre-recorded game "demo" and in that sense the true GPU capabilities of Ultrabooks may become a topic of interest and thus deserve space on the article).
 * Operating Systems (We can safely assume that like all of the recent Windows releases, the software will have the drivers to run on earlier computers and thus software is not "tied" to a model)
 * Overclock capabilities, sound cards and speakers, case construction materials, extras like "near field communication" - Although these may be of interest to some users of Ultrabooks, they are issues specific to that group; nor do they tie closely to the stated goals of the Ultrabook line. In fact, I am hesitant to keep the "folding" capability of the Lenovo IdeaPad Yoga on the table (even though I added it) because although it may be relevant to a couple of the people using this page to shop for computers, it's not relevant to the characteristics of interest of Ultrabooks in general.


 * In conclusion, I think it would be reasonable for you to add a peripherals column; it even makes sense, as you suggest, to remove the (somewhat redundant) release date column. As well the column header for the thickness column should be changed. But the other columns, the one that pertain to basic computer performance (whether Ultrabooks can compete with laptop performance) as well as their distinguishing hallmarks of weight and thickness (what makes Ultrabooks unusual) should probably be left there.
 * -- Monk of the highest order (t) 23:23, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

No antecedent for "They" in sentence 2
Perhaps "An ultrabook" instead of "they" and mod the sentence to singular, or "Ultrabooks" and leave it plural? Or go with the proposal to use "they" as singular or plural neurter pronoun. Shajure (talk) 22:13, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Dual drives
To clarify, these are not hybrid drives. A hybrid drive is one drive that contains hard disks and flash memory. The drive's controller uses the flash memory like a large cache, and the operating system treats it as a single drive. The dual drive Ultrabooks contain two completely independant drives. The operating system is pre-configured so that the SSD can only be used for hibernation data (a feature of Windows 7). The HDD operates as the normal system drive. The reason for this is to provide a cheaper Ultrabook that still meets Intel's time requirement for S4 resume. --Juventas (talk) 08:35, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Redone Intro
Hello all, I recently updated the Introduction to make it more concise / informative about the features of ultrabooks (since there is currently no section explaining it). If there's anything you think should be added, please feel free. But let's try to keep it simple since there isn't a lot of history to go over. Grapeon777 (talk) 08:35, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Rules for Adding Products to "List of Ultrabooks"
Please verify that the product meets the requirements for Ultrabook listed under "Hardware Requirements" before adding them to the table. Only list the base price for the product that meets the requirements (non-SSD laptops are not Ultrabooks).

Mandatory*

 * Thin – less than 20 mm (0.8 inch)
 * Lightweight – less than 1.4 kg (3.1 pounds)
 * Use flash-based solid-state drives (SSDs)
 * Use low voltage (17W TDP) Intel Sandy Bridge mobile processors
 * Intel Core i5-2467M (1.6 GHz)
 * Intel Core i5-2557M (1.7 GHz)
 * Intel Core i7-2637M (1.7 GHz)
 * Intel Core i7-2677M (1.8 GHz)

Discretionary

 * Use advanced integrated graphics (Intel HD 3000)
 * Long battery life – 5 to 8+ hours
 * Mainstream pricing – around $1,000
 * No optical drive

'*Products that do not meet these requirements are not Ultrabooks and will be removed. I, Cptcolo, am the original author of this article (see 8-16-2011 Complete Rework in "View History"). I do not work for Intel.


 * First off, remember that being the creator or frequent editor (as I am) of an article doesn't make you any more the boss of it. You're free to be heavily invested in its goals and talk a lot about it, but no one has the final say. Here's my 2 cents: I think this a good opportunity to bring up why we should delineate a computer's conformance or nonconformance to Intel's published goals in general instead of just removing "noncoforming" ones from the list: a term (in this case "Ultrabooks") is defined both prescriptively (by whoever is regarded as an "authority" in the term) and descriptively (how its used). In this case Intel has a rather heavy and regarded prescriptive role by its ability (and carte blanche to conforming manufacturers) to give or take away the trademarked "Ultrabook" label, and so there are multiple "competing" sources of definition: the authority and public usage. To complicate matters, Intel has allowed the manufacturers to apply the Ultrabook label to models despite some deviance from the requirements (perhaps for the purposes of getting many Ultrabooks out to market faster), and so even the authority on what is an Ultrabook is complex and contradicting.


 * Nonetheless, it is clear that the direction of Ultrabooks (and in turn what Ultrabooks are and become) is closely tied to Intel's goals for the direction of Ultrabooks. It is for the same reason that Intel's goals, and manufacturers choice to conform or not to conform to them, are a central focus of article. I would say that manufacturer's adherence can be best and most clearly displayed within the table rather than descriptively. I think we can also say with confidence that computers that do not meet the "Intel Requirements" but are given the term (in usage or by Intel anyway) belong on the page, both in the spirit of understanding the term descriptively and because Intel has allowed them to use the Ultrabook label.


 * To understand the term descriptively: many of these devices, though not fully conforming to the Ultrabook standard, were created with the Ultrabook standard in mind, have been allowed the Ultrabook label by intel, and are understood to be Ultrabooks despite this deviance from industry journalists and commentators. And so, I don't think, even if these devices deviate from Intel's goals (PDF warning) that we're in any position to say "no these are not Ultrabooks." That said, I think it is important for this page to answer "are the releases of Ultrabooks representative of the PR for them" and also "how is the production of Ultrabooks orchestrated, and how will they be orchestrated in the future." Delineating (especially through emphasis) variations from Intel's goals is necessary, though not sufficient, for both of these questions. -- Monk of the highest order (t) 00:11, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Pricing Around $1000 USD
Sean Maloney clearly states in his keynote at Computex 2011 that Ultrabooks will be around $1000, and is what Intel's official literature states ,

The "mainstream price points under US$1,000" comes from Intel's Patrick Darling's Newsroom Post, but is not reflected in other Intel literature.


 * While Patrick Darling's Newsroom Post may be a single source, Maloney's keynote in the middle of 2011 is also a single source (despite the two citations you've placed for it). You have a good point though and I stand corrected that sub-$1000 prices was never an explicit publicly stated goal of Ultrabooks (as seen here (PDF warning)). Yet since then, various media outlets have reported the company's desire and intention to ensure price competition with the Macbook Air   These put to rest any ideas that Intel is satisfied with and actively seeking out an $1000 price point.


 * So thanks for those who provided these references and the person who modified the table to reflect this. While a low price-point for Ultrabooks appears to be something Intel would like to see internally (it's unclear how much of a priority it is), there is not explicitly publicized price point goal. -- Monk of the highest order (t) 23:59, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Touch screens
Some new ultrabooks (e.g. Lenovo Yoga) have touch screens. Shouldn´t this be indicated? In a new column? Or under the resolution number?

Should it be stated how many simultaneous touches are recorded? If a pointed pen can/must be used, or a Wacom pen? OlavN (talk) 13:51, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Shell
Do consider adding a "shell" column as it can be the deciding factor too. (e.g Aluminium, Fibre Glass, plastic etc.) 202.21.158.11 (talk) 07:24, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Two sections called Chief River?
Should the second Chief River section not be called Shark Bay (judging by the title of the rightmost column of the table in the Requirements section)? JanCeuleers (talk) 13:24, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Or does that section still show products that belong to the Chief River generation but have not been released yet? It now strikes me that this is the more likely scenario. Since it confused me, would it be worth spelling this out? (Yes I know this is a wiki and that I can edit it myself, but it's also an encyclopedia and I don't want to add incorrect information to it). JanCeuleers (talk) 13:37, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Does that simplify it? --Juventas (talk) 02:34, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you, it does. JanCeuleers (talk) 17:53, 9 October 2012 (UTC)