|This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Ultrabook article.|
|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
- 1 Redone Intro
- 2 Removal of Release Date/Minimum Thickness, Addition of Ports/Features
- 3 Rules for Adding Products to "List of Ultrabooks"
- 4 Pricing Around $1000 USD
- 5 MacBook Air
- 6 Long Battery Life
- 7 Different Currencies
- 8 Multiple minimum thickness for Asus Zenbook ux21/31
- 9 sorting out for ux21
- 10 References
- 11 WSJ resource
- 12 No antecedent for "They" in sentence 2
- 13 Dual drives
- 14 Touch screens
- 15 Shell
- 16 Two sections called Chief River?
- 17 Removal of dubious comment regarding superiority of MacBook
- 18 Five sections called "Chief River"
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)
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!
- 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)
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).
First Phase (Q4 2011)
- 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)
- 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
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)
As it meets the spec and proceeded the ultrabook, the MacBook Air should at the very least be mentioned in the history section. The MBA clearly ushered in the ultrabook. 184.108.40.206 (talk) 23:13, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
- Yep. Absurd that the article doesn't mention the Macbook Air (well, at least in terms of the obvious inspiration it provided)... Great design often provides the spark that others use to light the flame... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.127.116.11 (talk) 00:38, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
- Why it the Macbook Air still not on the list, this is the best Ultrabook example from the Intel definition. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 18.104.22.168 (talk) 17:52, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
- No, because it's not an Ultrabook, anymore than an Ultrabook is a Macbook Air. These are trademarks, and not generic descriptions. Both are examples of subnotebooks, which is the appropriate article to cover such things. Commenting what people think is "best" has no place either on the article or the talk page - this is not a forum. Mdwh (talk) 20:35, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
Long Battery Life
There is actually something which I did not mention in my edit. "Long" battery life is actually an opinion and not a fact, because to some people 5-8 hours might be short; they could be looking for whole day battery life. 22.214.171.124 (talk) 00:04, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
- Also, these seem to be idle values, under full load even on ultrabooks the battery life can be less than ztwo hours. And you are right, that "5 hours is a long battery life" is an opinion, a whole day (24 hours) is more than any notebook can do, but some of them last for more than 12 hours idle. --MrBurns (talk) 23:55, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
I noticed the pricing of ultrabooks to be of different currencies (euros, usd) which i myself encountered for the first time on wiki articles. Will having different currencies be weird? create some confusion? would it be better to stick to a certain currency? 126.96.36.199 (talk) 02:43, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
Multiple minimum thickness for Asus Zenbook ux21/31
sorting out for ux21
base processor: core i3-2367m 64gb ssd 2gb ram http://www.asus.com/Notebooks/Superior_Mobility/ASUS_ZENBOOK_UX21E/#specifications
- Re-inventing the PC with Ultrabook™. Retailadvantage.intel.com. Retrieved on 2011-09-07.
- COMPUTEX 2011: Sean Malone ABOUT THE FUTURE OF MOBILE SYSTEMS.
- Intel's Maloney Talks Mobile Growth, Industry Opportunities at Computex.
- Intel reportedly releasing reference BOM for ultrabooks
- What is the Ultrabook? nytimes.com
- http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/10/25/us-intel-idUSTRE79O0I720111025 Intel seeks industry effort to lower ultrabook prices ].
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 188.8.131.52 (talk) 00:31, 4 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)
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)
Some new ultrabooks (e.g. Lenovo Yoga) have touch screens. Shouldn´t this be indicated? In a new column? Or under the resolution number?
Two sections called Chief River?
- 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)
Removal of dubious comment regarding superiority of MacBook
There are two statements in this sentence in the History section I think should be removed:
Firstly, the first statement and reference are not related. The reference says the price of ultrabooks was too high for them to sell well, it does NOT mention a price/spec comparison to the MacBook Air. The price/spec of ultrabooks at the time may even have been better than the Macbook's (just not good enough).
Secondly, the second statement:"[...] regarded by many viewers as the best [...]" has no reference at all and seems a bit fanboy-ish to me.
Lastly, the source of statement 1 refers to research by iSuppli but does not give a title or date, nor does the link work. Further, the source author is a stockholder of AAPl. 184.108.40.206 (talk) 16:36, 7 May 2013 (UTC)