Talk:Ultra-mobile PC

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Computing / Hardware (Rated C-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by Computer hardware task force.

Readability: perhaps think about considering it?[edit]

As background to the following, I've spent the evening surfing Wikipedia looking up PDA and UPMC stuff and what I'm about to say is common to a lot of the related articles. Now, I know the importance of being well informed on your subject being something of a geek myself but, and I say this with the utmost of respect, can we not try and write articles that are readable as well as correct? Seriously people, read a book! Hell, go mad, read a few! See how it's done! Let loose and maybe link a few sentences together here and there!

Yes, we're writing an encyclopaedia here, facts and correctness are of the utmost importance, but as someone who's read the article in it's current form I say this: being correct is no use if people's brains turn to mush trying to follow it. It's possible to be right and be readable; indeed, as authors of information that's intended to be easily digestible by people who don't already understand a given subject, I'd say that both should be equally important to us... 01:28, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Not a UMPC[edit]

By definition, the sony UX series currently is not in the category of umpc, as it has a 5" screen among other things that disqualify it.

  • I am kind of torn about which devices we should classify as UMPC.

Microsoft's official hardware specifications are:

  1. Windows XP Tablet PC Edition 2005 OS
  2. Approximately 7” diagonal display (or smaller)
  3. Minimum 800 x 480 resolution
  4. Approximately 2 pounds
  5. Integrated touch panel
  6. WiFi- and Bluetooth-enabled

--Bjornstar 04:33, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Bjornstar, the 5 inch screen doesn't disqualify it. It says 7 inches or smaller.

However, the iPhone is not a UMPC by that definition. Even if we strike things like Windows from the definition, there are a number things that might disqualify it. It's not clear yet whether or not the OS X running on the iPhone is a full OS like the UMPC / Tablets or a stripped down one like the Windows Mobile devices. Even if it is a full OS, it's still not clear whether or not all the functionality is enabled. For example, can a user install applications on the iPhone without resorting to Javascript Widgety whatnot? 00:59, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

If it doesn't have an X86 or X64 Processor its not a UMPC by definition, The fact that UMPC's are not just any 5" - 7" device seems to be lost in the article. ARM devices like an IPad are not UMPC's attach a QWERTY and they don't magically become a laptops.

Bottom line If it doesn't have an X86/X64 CPU its not a UMPC; (talk) 02:12, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Discussion for Merge with DialKeys[edit]

Hi there,

Put this at the top, as it's an active discussion.

Basically, should DialKeys and Ultra-Mobile PC be merged, or not?

Personally, I think they should. Matt 16:25, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Also Can we get the term "micro pc" go to this article? ~ bbglas007 (talk) 00:51, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Ultra Mobile PC is not Origami!![edit]

Dear wikipedians. UMPC is not just only Origami. It is also Sony Vaio U and OQO. I suggest that there should be Ultra Mobile PC page on Wikipedia, that will desribe this platform and then links to Origami, OQO and other pages.

  • Does anyone want to add the website It's extremely important. Go to that website click enter, work, brand theatre, and then you know what to do. It confirms that this is the "Ultra-mobile PC" that microsoft has been working on. It isn't any of those things that it says it might be(xbox portable, response to ipod, etc.), it's simply an ulta mobile tablet pc.
  • I'm not sure that the article should be so firm in its convictions. Anyone else think that the language should be changed to make it more speculative until MS actually releases the product?
    • Well go ahead and edit it to what you think is one's stopping you.
      • I don't think that attitude is very helpful. I agree with the grandparent poster -- the language was not very speculative, although I don't think it's a problem any longer. But please do contribute by editing what already exists or adding new content to the article! It's always helpful to have another pair of balanced eyes to evaluate the content.

Origami Project Week 2[edit]

Go to the site and watch the Week 2 flash video. More info is coming out on 03.09.06. Who knows, maybe Microsoft is going to confirm a few things today, or maybe not. I don't know. --CanesOL79 05:02, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

I saw that, too. If they were going to fully unveil the "Origami" today, then there wouldn't be a "week 3" it would say "insert words"etc,etc. I wonder what they're going to do?

Final Specifications[edit]

Do we really know that it will ship in black and beige and all the other fuss this article says? I thought Microsoft made it clear the video was over a year old...--Cumbiagermen 11:07, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Nowhere the article says the specs are final. I think it is made clear the features mentioned are speculative, but probable. --Soumyasch 11:16, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
At launch, it will be available in at least two colors - beige and black, and will feature a docking station. The docking station will feature a portable keyboard. It is not clear whether the docking station will come standard or if it will be sold separately. I think that implies the specs are final. --Cumbiagermen 23:51, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
Done. Reworded that part. --Soumyasch 18:50, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

These specs are a joke. Please look at the sony ux series and samsung q1u. The screen, proc and price are not indicitive of the current state of the art. Source Code[edit]

  • I'm glad I wasn't the only one to know that. I was just screwing around and checked the source code and saw that. I thought it was a joke by Microsoft, but apparently not. Keep up the good work, Wikipedians! --CanesOL79 02:05, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Thanks -- It's positive feedback that makes it worth the effort to contribute!

Touch Presure Sensitivity[edit]

Barring some recent breakthrough in touch screen technology that the manufacturers are keeping from us in the industry pressure sensitivity accessible to software on the unit would require a stylus with a tip that measures touch pressure and the RF circuitry to send that information to the unit. The use of a software program that looks similar to one that supports but does not require a pressure sensitive stylus does not overcome the technical problems.--Nicklinn 20:07, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Or... it's a resistive touchscreen (which someone should put in the article, but I can't be bothered right now). (Yes I know it's an old comment) bjmurph talk‽ 06:17, 22 August 2006 (UTC)


It is also rumoured that the Origami will be a rival of both the iPod and the BlackBerry, although this has not yet been officialy confirmed.

Should this line be kept in the text? It is quite clear now that Origami will not be a competitor to portable media player (like iPod) nor just a communication handset (like BlckBerry) but a fully features mobile PC. So I don't think the statement is valid, and should be removed. --Soumyasch 05:15, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Origami Picture[edit]

There is a picture of the Origami (or something) on Can it be put up on the page? I am new here I don't know all the ins and outs yet. Link: [[1]] I guess it won't matter since the press release is in 2 days.--Doom Child 23:22, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

That origami isn't related to Microsoft's. It was a concept for a phone.

Oh ok. I guess theirs might be that tablet thing then.--Doom Child 11:54, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

DVD or CD?[edit]

How are you going to input programs via DVD, Mini-DVD or CD? MarioV 18:57, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

USB -- 19:51, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

What's New?[edit]

What Microsoft forgot, was that ultra-mobile PCs were around five years ago, and failed miserably. Tablet PCs got a little better reputation, but in the long run, simply didn't have the potential to compete against mainstream laptops. So, how's this device any different? Well, it's really not! The PC promises to deliver a 'staggering' speed of 1GHz on a shitty Celeron M processor, a whopping 256mb of RAM, and the same version of Windows XP Tablet PC Edition that has been billed on many computers over the past half a decade. And with a hefty pricetag of $600+, I failt to see how this computer offers a stunning or even remotely competetive corner on the mobile market. -- 19:52, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. The articles are meant to be unbiased and have no POV. The talk pages are here so that editors can discuss ways to improve the articles not for pointless speclulation and/or trolling. Please keep all future posts to do with improving the article and troll someplace else. Citizen erased 21:04, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

What you must remember is that this kind of UMPC is the first, as with the older versions humans did not have the same tech as we have now o_O. UMPCs are so small, so it is actually a marvel how it can pack so much stuff in that tiny place in the first place -_- The pointer outer 02:15, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Hype Campaign[edit]

It wasn't a launch campaign or advertising campaign. It was a HYPE campaign. Why do people keep renaming it? The timing and vague details that "leaked" out up to the CeBit release were designed to create media awareness and excitement. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thoughtfix (talkcontribs) 16:46, 22 March 2006 (EDT)

Hype is a very loaded word in this situation, especially because the campaign wasn't exaggerating the capabilities of the UMPC very much. "Launch" is a less-pejorative term. æle 21:01, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
There aren't any products on the market but the pre-CeBit market discussion generated probably the most successful pre-announcement media/rumor frenzy. As we see from Apple's business, the "what's next?" excitement is a driving force in the consumer electronics game.
I also strongly disagree that the pre-release buzz wasn't exaggerated. References: [2] [3] [4]
The "Project Origami blog" revealed that this campaign was deliberate and showed the timeline. They call it a "buzz campaign" - probably because they're afraid of the word "hype" too. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thoughtfix (talkcontribs) 13:11, 24 March 2006 (EDT)
The "hype" covered in those articles seems to have been speculation on the part of the press, not any official statements by Microsoft. The Digital Kitchen video was apparently intended for internal use only by Microsoft, though whether or not the leak was intentional is another matter. æle 23:02, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
I agree with æle. What MS did was launch the viral marketing campaign, but it was the media who hyped it up. MS never even disclosed what the thing was or what it was supposed to do. Everything was speculated by the audience. So I feel Hype Campaign is an incorrect term for Launch Campaign --Soumyasch 05:54, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
That video [5] can go either way. While "Origami" is not an actual public product name (rather an internal project code) it lands credence to the idea that it was supposed to be "internal only," the production value and length of the demo clearly indicates that the video was meant to appeal to consumers. I don't think the definition of hype is inaccurate even if the exaggeration was on the part of the media. As it stands, the abilities of the device as shown in the video are beyond those of currently announced devices and demonstrations at CeBIT --Thoughtfix 20:59, 26 March 2006 (UTC)


The article called "Samsung Q1" and this one are basically the same thing, but wiht the other having less info but a bigger picture. Shouldn't they be merged? The pointer outer 02:11, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't think so. UMPCs are a class of PCs of which Q1 is just one model. So it is natural that there should be some overlap. But the articles should exist distinctly, with the UMPC page describing the concepts and baseline features, while actual device pages listing their full feature set as well as their pros and cons. --Soumyasch

Where are the other devices?[edit]

I'm pretty sure that 4 other UMPCs have been announced...There's one from Founder, TabletKiosk, PBJ, and i'm pretty sure there's one more...Someone please add these! It will make it a much better article. :)

I agree to a point. There are many new models appearing in the market place but I think this article should remain generic. That said, it would be a good idea to highlight nascent technologies that enhance the UMPC's capabilities.

Significant changes[edit]

I've taken out several sections of the article and reworded others. The biggest change is the removal of the "Limitations" section, reproduced in its entirety below.

Ruggedness: Being touted as an anytime/anyplace personal companion, the device is exposed to the same kinds of risks as a mobile phone and is likely undergo similar abuse, requiring repair or replacement within the first 18 months. Customers realizing this key factor demand sub-$500 prices for such short-lifespan mobile devices.
Pricing: The intended prices of models slated for launch in 2006 are well above the sub-$1000 target range. Simultaneously some brand new, fully functional, entry-level notebooks are available for under $500.
Availability: Only two major vendors and two minor ones have announced production plans, without any specific launch dates as of yet. Territories in which the products are to be distributed are also unclear.
Battery Life: Currently available charge densities of batteries restrict usage time into the vicinity of 2hrs. People constantly on the move rarely appreciate carrying an AC charger and plugging in a few times daily. Kinetic chargers that tap energy from the users motion (walking) are available and might be sold additionally.
Portability: The size and weight is still too much to fit common clothing, requiring a rather large belt-strapped pouch when not in use. Unlike their wearable cousins, both hands are usually needed to operate a UMPC, reducing usage scenarios even further.
Usability: HMD support and trainable voice/writing recognition are lacking. An appropriately customized operating system is absent. The included edition of Windows occupies ~1GB, contains ~10 thousand files, and ~100 services; a great deal of which are not relevant to the vast majority of mobile computing use cases.
Modularity: Standards based modular expansion has long been the hallmark of the PC industry, extending product life well into the future through inexpensive upgrades. In order for Ultra-Mobiles to live up to their name, they might address size by separating core from battery/storage/display, provide a practical way to wear the separated components (ammo belt), use faster ports (PCI-Express external cable), and provide enough of them for users to avail a variety of extensions covering positioning, imaging, and future wireless infrastructure.

The cited limitations are likely just opinions, especially since UMPCs are completely new and few, if any, have access to one on a regular basis. We will hear about any major problems from the public.

In addition, the "References" and "External links" sections have been pared down to the links provided by Microsoft and Intel because (1) the references are not actually referenced from within the article (WP:CITE) and (2) quite a few of the external links seem like attempts at self-promotion. These sections really need to be monitored carefully, clearly labeled (especially references; see {{citenews}}), and discussed on this talk page. I have removed the following sites:


External links

Finally, I have moved the article to "Ultra-Mobile PC" because Microsoft uses the hyphen. æle 22:17, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

I think that "Limitations" section should be reinserted, all those limitations still apply as of July 2006, they're not opinions. Battery life, specifically, is a serious issue.

Confusing statements[edit]

Founder is Elitegroup Computer Systems (ECS) H70 rebranded. TabletKiosk manufacturers the V-700.

I took out these lines becaue the meaning implied by these is unclear. Please rephrase these before putting them back in. --Soumyasch 05:50, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Yahoo reference broken[edit]

Please fix the yahoo link, it is broken. i couldnt find a substitute

umpc niche?[edit]

Perhaps we should mention the 'classic' dispute over umpc not being small enough for your pocket yet not being large enough to be powerful or comfortable, etc etc


Both the Samsung Q1 & Samsung Q1b are now available at all North America Best Buy stores, Fry's Electronics, and CompUSA stores for US$1099 & US$899 respectively.

Is this actually true? I wasn't able to find the lower price on any of the three stores. Where do these prices come from? 22:48, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Low-Voltage Pentium[edit]

"Current UMPCs feature the Windows XP Tablet PC Edition 2005 operating system and low-voltage Intel Pentium or VIA C7-M processors in the 1 GHz range."

About the Intel processor found in UMPC's: - The correct name of those processors is Celeron M ULV 353 or the Pentium M ULV 723. - Both of those processors are ULV (Ultra Low Voltage) models and not "Low Voltage" models which have much higher power consumption.

Yeah, the processors and chipsets are really the key to low power in these devices, and should have more (and better) coverage in this article. I added a comment on Stealy and Silverthorne (full disclosure: i referenced my own blog entry on it; if anybody feels that was inappropriate, take it out (i did have press credentials at the MPF in question, so i felt it was legit to self-ref)). --Psm 03:58, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

"While the OQO model 01 was actually launched well before the Ultra-Mobile PC craze began, it should be included in any discussion of the UMPC."

- The OQO 01 and the Sony UX series can't be considered an UMPC, as Micrsoft didn't licensed it's Windows XP Tablet Edition software for them. What defines the UMPC is not the only the portability. - Also, objectively there is no "Ultra-Mobile PC craze", since those are not main stream products shipped in millions of units.

I thought we were keeping promotional links off the page?[edit] 12:10, 1 June 2007 (UTC)Steve Paine.

Fair use rationale for Image:Origamitpi.jpg[edit]

Nuvola apps important.svg

Image:Origamitpi.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 05:46, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Origamitpi.jpg[edit]

Nuvola apps important.svg

Image:Origamitpi.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 19:31, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

UMPC general/microsoft[edit]

I have always thought UMPC as a general term referring to devices larger than pda and smaller than subnotebook, but the article clearly is biased to 'offical' microsoft specs. imho article should clearly define when it speaks of microsoft device and when generally —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 13:42, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

True in my eyes a Ultra Mobile PC is a just a real PC that is meant to be used in situations where a normal laptop is not suitable, a situation where the user is "Ultra Mobile", not sitting down with it on its lap (hence "laptop"), or using it as a desktop system but walking around with it. Fox example an engineer walking around on a construction site would use a "UMPC", not a laptop or a PDA. So it does not have to be a Windows based system, nor does it -have- to use a touchscreen, if there are other solutions available that make it useable under "ultra mobile" conditions. I think hat Microsoft just tried to tie the idea of a ultra mobile PC to their windows version, using a marketing hype campaign. But Ultra Mobile PC's have their use, whether windows/touch-screen based or not. Mahjongg (talk) 14:18, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
I understand the difference between an UMPC and a subnotebook like the Eee PC. But what's the difference between an UMPC and a PDA? They're both computers that you can use while carrying them. --Damian Yerrick (talk | stalk) 22:23, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
PDAs have never been considered full replacements for Personal Computers, they are called "Personal Digital Assitants" to reflect that. They do not use a PC OS, but a special tiny operating system like Palm OS instead. In contrast, UMPC's, Netbooks, subnotebook, (or whatever is the going name for these systems) are tiny but full function PC's that run the same OS (windows or Linux) as normal desktop PC's and laptops. Mahjongg (talk) 00:00, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

This article contradicts itself[edit]

It treats UMPC both as a generic term for an ultraportable/subnotebook computer and for Microsoft's UMPC (i.e. Project Origami) and refers to the EeePC, which is an ultraportable subnotebook but not a UMPC. It should use one or the other - (talk) 16:21, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

True, the EEE PC is NOT a UMPC IMHO but a subnotebook, but the new everex CloudBook IS a ULPC, because its useable in the same way as a tablet PC, i.e. while standing and walking around. Also I think the article should treat Project Origami ultra mobile PC's as just one possible way of implementing a "ultra mobile PC", and there should either be an article specifically for Project Origami based UMPC's, or somebody should come up with a more generic term for this class of systems in between PDA's and laptops. Mahjongg (talk) 14:24, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Project Origami should probably be its own article or a sub-section. i sure remember a lot of hipe about it 2 years ago or so. now UMPC does not necessarily equal Project Origami. the spec table is also weird. is there really guidelines for those specs? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 04:07, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
True, I see an edit war in the future between those who want to keep the term UMPC exclusively to "origami" devices, and those who think that the term "Ultra Mobile PC" is a generic term for a certain class of devices. Mahjongg (talk) 11:49, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
I think I hear shots fired. --AndrewHowse (talk) 18:04, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
Yes, but I think THIS [6] was a declaration of war, sort of. Mahjongg (talk) 23:58, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
I think your changes helped to distinguish between the MS execution and the more-general concept. I have no special expertise in the subject area, but if a moderately-experienced editor could help, then please feel free to let me know. --AndrewHowse (talk) 01:11, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
I appreciate your offer, but I think that drastic steps are needed, as in Wikipedia:Be bold, I am thinking about simply renaming this article to "project origami", and start a new article "Ultra-mobile PC", either that or copy most of the contents of this article to a new "project origami" article. After that I want to write up a new Ultra-mobile PC article with information about the origin of the name, but that it is now also used for any PC in a hand held format that allows using it while being fully mobile, With that I mean you can use it while walking around, and you do not need to sit down and put the computer on a table, or in your lap, as is the case with a laptop. This seems to me to be the distinguishing factor, that you can carry it around with you, and can use it while doing so. Some computers now sold as "UMPCs" are less qualified, like the EEE PC, but I consider that a "border case". The basic idea is that there are two terms "UMPC", the "marketing term" as used By Microsoft in an attempt to make a whole category of computers "theirs", with specifications that demand the use of a form of windows, and what (IMHO) really started the market, the ultra cheap ultra mobile PC's (that are also marketed as UMPC's see for example [7]). Some of them might be better described as netbooks, but for example the CloudBook was really designed with the basic idea of an UMPC, to carry around in one hand, while typing with the other hands (made possible by the gap between the display and the base), or you can by holding it with two hands use both thumbs to control the mouse cursor. It also demonstrates you do not need to have a touchscreen to be a valid Ultra-mobile PC. And, like many of these new ultra-mobiles it shows you do not need to use Windows, but that most tasks expected of a system like this can be done on a Linux based system.
So IMHO there are two "kinds" of "UMPCs", and the article should make that clear, and link to a separate "project origami" and perhaps to the "netbook" article for more details of the two different versions. But this is a bold change, and I want to check for consensus before doing it. So what do YOU think? is this a good idea? Mahjongg (talk) 11:02, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
I was going to agree with you until I saw the new hatnote to ULPC which in turn redirects to subnotebook, and now I'm not sure what the right taxonymy is. For sure, the "project origami" part can be identifed. I just don't know if there's a meaningful distinction between subnotebooks and the wider sense of UMPC. It might be that UMPC is too controversial a term, and that it's best avoided as a category name. --AndrewHowse (talk) 14:30, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
That simply was I typo, I meant UMPC, NOT ULPC.Mahjongg (talk) 04:11, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
Never heard of ULPCs, I think the term can be safely ignored, but at least one of the new low cost Ultra light/Ultra portable/Ultra cheap laptop replacements, the CloudBook calls itself an UMPC, so the term is in use already for non origami ultra mobile PC's. Mahjongg (talk) 16:08, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
"ULPC" is Microsoft's specification for those notebook computers which qualify for a discounted Windows XP Licence. It already redirects to subnotebook. (talk) 20:16, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
Previous to that, ULPC was used by the tech media to refer to low-cost subnotebooks (primarily the Asus EEE). AFAIK Microsoft doesn't use the term ULPC, it uses ULCPC. Diego (talk) 16:45, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Benchmark - HP LX200[edit]

The Benchmark against all so called Ultra Mobile PCs will have to be measured is still the HP LX200. Weight about 200g, Operating System MS-DOS 5.0, no start-up time, powered by 2xAA Batteries, Battery Life measured in days and weeks instead of hours, full range of applications from calendar to database, IR-Port, Serial Port, PC-Card Slot. Limitations: Lid Hinge broken, speed, no backlight, no color, no touch screen, not compatible with Windows applications anymore, except the text files; But with todays technology many limitations should be easy to overcome. Weight, Battery Life and Functionality make this system still the top choice for Ultra-Portable Devices. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 12:35, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Or else the Cambridge_Z88 ?! Mahjongg (talk) 14:42, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

UMPC vs subnotebook[edit]

I'm not sure where this confusion comes from. Do we have some examples of the use of "UMPC" in reference to subnotebook computers, outside of this article? UMPC still seems to specifically refer to the Origami platform as far as the news media, manufacturers, and retailers are concerned. (talk) 11:06, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Many of the manufacturers of systems that are now sold as UMPC's ignore the "specifications" drawn up by Microsoft for what, (according to Microsoft) a (project Origami) UMPC should be. Most important (for Microsoft) they ignore that it should use Windows XP Tablet PC Edition, or any other Microsoft product. Instead they often use Linux.
Interestingly, many of these systems are presented in the press with all kinds of names, sometimes they are indeed called UMPC's, but sometimes they are called subnotebooks, some are called netbooks, and a plethora of other names,like nanobook are also used. It seems the market has not decided yet how to call these low cost systems, of which the ASUS Eee PC was the first.
But for example Everex clearly calls it's system a "Ultra Mobile PC", and has added special features to use the system while holding it in you hand(s). But other of these systems are also often referenced to as UMPC's. [8] Mahjongg (talk) 23:44, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
Err, I'm not sure, but I suspect CloudbookUMPC isn't an Everex blog. Everex's own website calls the device an "ultraportable". I'm not really convinced on the strength of your references here.
"Nanobook" is the name of a reference notebook design by VIA (and if you like, a term for all notebooks based on that reference) and UMPC has its own well-defined meaning via Project Origami. "Netbook" and "Mobile Internet Device" are terms coined by Intel with specific but broadly-applicable definitions, and "ultraportable" is the only real ill-defined colloquialism of the bunch. There's no doubt that some people use the terms interchangably, but we're trying to write an encyclopedia here. We can't have five articles which all cover small notebooks in general. The terms "ultraportable" and "subnotebook" are uncontroversial, so we keep the specific article there. The articles on UMPCs, the Netbook, Nanobook, and MID have to be specific to stop overlapping. By all means, include a note to the effect that "The term UMPC is also sometimes used to refer to subnotebook computers. (talk) 09:16, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Also, "ULPC" and "UMPC" are entirely different things. The former refers to the price of the notebook ("ultra-low cost PC"). (talk) 09:27, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
See also WP:NEO. We should not be attempting to change the definition of UMPC by popular vote - the references define UMPC very clearly. (talk) 09:29, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Okay, you can argue the term UMPC, or the term "ultra mobile", is a neologism, but in that case I would argue that this term should not be used at all, and that the article should be renamed "Project origami". Please remember that UMPC is simply a abbreviation for "Ultra mobile PC". Which is a descriptive term, not a name. Further more there is no "definition" of UMPC, only a terminology (ultra Mobile PC) used by a single manufacturer for a category of products. The "definition" you speak of is for machines built to "project origami" specifications. Also, its true that Everex lately seems to shy away of using the abbreviation, but in the past they did not, and the numerous blogs and website that use the term UMPC still reflect that. Everex does still describe their system as " the ultra-mobile Everex PC ", and use headers like "Experience the Ultimate in Mobility" to advertise their system, so what is the difference between "the ultra-mobile Everex PC " and the "the everex ultra-mobile PC", or "the everex UMPC". [9]. Mahjongg (talk) 12:23, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Article scope and definition[edit]

Should the article refer to the UMPC platform specifically, or inexpensive/small portable computers (e.g. ULPC or subnotebook or ultraportable) in general?

I do not think -that- is the actual question. The actual question is whether the term UMPC should be exclusively used for UMPC's that adhere to a standard that Microsoft has written up, and that says an UMPC should be based on Windows, and have a touchscreen, OR that an UMPC should be any ultra portable computer, no matter which OS it uses, and what it uses as an input device, to enable it to be ultra portable.
Perhaps we need to define what "ultraportable" -means-. My interpretation is that it's not only portable in the sense that it's small and light enough for it to carry it around, (that is more the definition of a subnotebook), but that it is also portable enough that you can -use- it while you carry it. That is why the touchscreen was added in the first place, because other input devices could not be used while holding it in your hand. But maybe other interpretations of the term "ultraportable" are possible. The new term ULPC (ultra low cost PC), also seems to be a marketing term thought up by Microsoft, it seems to want to impose the meaning of "cheap and weak" onto such hardware, It is generally used when discussing Microsofts decision to try to impose arbitrary limitations on the hardware specification used for netbooks onto their manufacturers. I think its use should be discouraged. Mahjongg (talk) 11:08, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
We're not here to encourage, discourage, define or redefine though. We're here to state the facts. (talk) 12:17, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
I fully Agree, question is, what are the facts? Is the fact that these systems are commonly called UMPC's? In fact that isn't the case, so in fact we shouldn't use the term to describe such systems. Fact is Microsoft came up with a term, and a definition for it. Fact is the market uses the term, but ignores the definition. Mahjongg (talk) 12:28, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
This is going wildly off-topic, but suffice to say, I'm not interested in promoting the term ULPC. The question is, should UMPC be used in reference to small laptops, or should it only be in reference to the UMPC platform? (talk) 15:57, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
It depends, not all small laptops are "ultra mobile". The question one should ask oneself is, what makes a computer an "ultramobile PC", or else is it just a marketing name? Looking at what the original (origami) ultramobiles differentiated (in their use) from other portable systems and laptops I came to the conclusion that what made them different from laptops is that they can be used in a different way. I'm not talking about the technology used to reach that way, but what differentiates them functionally from for example a laptop, that warrants the term "ultra mobile" over just "mobile". A laptop is "mobile" in the sense that you can carry it to the place where you want to use it, but then you need to put it down (on your lap, or on a table), and then you are basically using it as if it was a desktop system. Not so with these new "ultra mobile" systems. Not only can you transport them to the place where you want to use them, but you can actually -use- them -while- transporting them. So a small laptop you can use while transporting it (carrying it around) can be described as "ultra portable", or "ultra mobile" if you will, while a normal laptop is just a "portable computer" you can place in your lap to use it. Not all the "small laptops" we are talking about here can also be used while carrying, and in my conception they therefore are not "ultra portable" systems. But -some- are, the most notable example is the CloudBook, that clearly has design features that makes using it wile carrying it. The gap between the display and the base unit is there so you can put your fingers in bit, to support it in such a way that typing on the system with your other hand is possible, and also it has its trackpad placed in such a way that you can use your right-and left thumb to use it while holding the device in both hands. Newer CloudBooks are announced that will have a more traditional touch screen. So my answer is that some of these systems can be classified as "ultra mobile", wile others are not. Mahjongg (talk) 18:17, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
Well, that's exactly my point. We have no specific definition for "ultraportable", "subnotebook", or even "ULPC" (beyond MS's stingy limitations on what they'll allow for cheap XP), so those are all bundled into the same article because they're clearly related to a similar sort of product. UMPC has a clear definition via Microsoft, so we should keep those this article clear from the general morass of teeny computers. And that definition does not include things like the CloudBook - "you can use it while walking around" isn't the specification! (talk) 20:15, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
Fine, just one thing, you are ignoring that the market is using UMPC for systems that are clearly not based on any Microsoft specification, so clearly there are two uses for UMPC. Mahjongg (talk) 01:10, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
Sure, and that usage is pointed out at the top of the all-in-one article for ultraportable, ULPC, subnotebook etc. etc. already! It's on the top of this article too! The use of "UMPC" as a generic term for small portable computers is already reflected, so what's your problem here? Do you just have a bug up your ass about your preferred term having its origins in Microsoft, or what? (talk) 14:09, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
Actually, yes I do have a problem with the fact that a single company can claim the term "ultra mobile", and define it in such a way that manufacturers that want to make a similar device can't use this term because the company somehow "owns" its definition. Its similar to claiming that you can't call a computer for personal use a "Personal computer" unless it uses Windows, and is designed according to Microsoft specifications! This current article itself now does not explain anymore that the term "ultra mobile PC", or UMPC is currently also in common use for systems that are not at all designed according to Microsoft specifications. But I won't try to fight the windmills, I hope others will sort out this mess. Mahjongg (talk) 14:48, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Microsoft originally coined the term "ultra-mobile PC", though. The specific usage predates the general. And, er, have you read the first line of the article? "This article is about a specific small form-factor PC. For the generic class of low-cost small PCs, see Subnotebook." (talk) 17:01, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
I know that Microsoft coined the name, but coining the name does not mean that it has exclusive right to use the term, and your last sentence is exactly what is wrong with the article, it assigns the term completely to Microsofts definition, and disregards other uses, by saying in so many words "If you came here to read about UMPC's other than Microsoft defined ones you are at the wrong place, go away". Mahjongg (talk) 12:00, 6 June 2008 (UTC)


Please remove the origami-pic, its a pointless image in this article I believe. Also include a picture of a subnotebook (eg the Eee PC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 06:34, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Bullcrap information[edit]

First the beginning topic of Project Orgami that stated the specification was made by Microsoft, you need a clear citation such of Technical Documentation Datasheet or a website community association that support it. You guys are totally making something up which is entirely not true, the Project Orgami is similarily the same as Nvidia ESA, AMD LIVE and AMD GAME which are a certification not a specification. Likewise they didn't came up the term like Intel MIDs which was never proven, even if Intel official website says they came up the term it is not enough, ones Corporation, LLC, company...etc doesn't represent an significant part of history as to the guy who came up with a certain term. (e.g. by that, an easy example would be proverbs, chinese idoms that derive from historical stories usually record down from historian.

Also stating that it is use by tablet PC isn't true, Macbook Air and Samsung X360 notebooks are considered UMPC which doesn't uses a pen (or stylus) nor does it uses a touchscreen as stated in article. Clearly there needs to be a clearification in the rewrittening of this article. Macbook Air + Samsung X360 ref --Ramu50 (talk) 05:09, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

I apologize that I forgot to explain it a bit further that Project Origami itself is less of a certification, rather than an idealistic project or a practice guidelines that aims to produce the best of the UMPC. As stated before I think other may find offensive. --Ramu50 (talk) 02:07, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I think you guys should stop writing the article being so focus on Project Origami. I hate to say it, but it really too much like advertising. This article isn't Project Origami it is UMPC. The Project Origami is only a conceptual ideal design project initiated by several company, as this isn't an industrial size project like The Semantic Web, Information Systems, AJAX...etc and thus could be describe as a partnership or even a conceputal practice. Conceputal practice can describe GNU GPL, FSF, OSF...etc having different aspect of legal and open source topics. Though I know there is a great deal of confusion of MIDs, Nettops, netbooks, OLPC, tablet PC, compact devices (e.g. Window CE, Android) and other mobile orientated products but I think if you guys want a clearification of supporting Project Origami, template will be more successful in achieving rather than stating everything, sounding too bias. --Ramu50 (talk) 22:53, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

A 13.3" Macbook is NOT an UMPC[edit]

Nowhere near. Why is it pictured? Kubel (talk) 04:43, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

UMPC, the latest round in little PCs[edit]

There have been several previous generations of having a full function PC packed into the smallest possible package. First came the CP/M luggables like the Osborne and Kaypro. Next were IBM compatible luggables from IBM and Compaq and others. Then early laptops (and the Mac 'portable') hit the scene. The laptop 'family tree' branched into desktop replacements- heavy models that packed in ever increasing power and features without changing much in weight, and lines that went with incremental technology improvements while shrinking the overall size. The first really tiny full function PCs were the ones from HP and the Atari Portfolio.

Eventually power and tiny size met up in the 'palmtop' or subnotebook sized systems like the Toshiba Libretto line and some lesser known brands such as Palmax. Today's 'netbooks' are more powerful systems that fit in between the palmtops and the smaller 'big' laptops.

A UMPC is pretty much the tablet PC version of a palmtop. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bizzybody (talkcontribs) 02:09, 25 February 2009 (UTC)


Could the Virtual Cogs VCMX212 be used as a umpc (has optional lcd display and can run full linux; uMON Linux —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:27, 6 March 2009 (UTC)


I suggest this article to be deleted. Too many tags for too long.--Kozuch (talk) 23:41, 7 May 2009 (UTC)


Can we admit this has failed yet? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:47, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Revision or Deletion[edit]

This article appears to read as though MicroSoft invented this class of computing,... which is clearly a false-hood. In fact no mention is made of other devices such as the PepperPad 2, launched in 2004, or the PepperPad 3, launched in 2006, or numerous other devices released around the same time-frames. Instead, the article reads as though it was a MicroSoft marketing piece, re-writing history as they saw fit. The article should be completely re-written without bias or deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JasePow1968 (talkcontribs) 05:58, 16 January 2011 (UTC)


The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Moved; this is clearly a common noun and WP policy calls for lower case in the title. R'n'B (call me Russ) 20:52, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Ultra-Mobile PCUltra-mobile PCRelisted. fuzzy510 (talk) 07:25, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

  • common noun, not proper noun, see Espoo (talk) 23:06, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
  • It's the name of the Microsoft product and nothing else; that sounds like a proper name to me - and they spell it with an M. I don't plan to discuss this; but perhaps somebody should. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:27, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
  • You apparently didn't look at the link provided. It's not a Microsoft product - it's a type of PC that MS provides software for, and it should be lowercase such as other PC types such as laptop, tablet PC, etc. And Microsoft does not uppercase it. (With an ultra-mobile PC with Windows Vista, you can experience your world from virtually any location—at the touch of a finger.) --Espoo (talk) 10:53, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
  • It was UMPC when Intel and Microsoft originally named it; is the official link and that DOES uppercase the M, as do contemporary articles —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:31, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
    That still doesn't make it a proper noun. And Wikipedia's manual of style specifically says to avoid uppercase when not necessary. Just because Microsoft sometimes uppercases it does not mean we need to follow that (bad) habit, which even Microsoft doesn't always follow. Many people and companies believe the explanations of all acronyms and initialisms should be uppercased even when these are not proper nouns (though this violates the general rule on uppercasing in English), but WP's MOS specifically says not to. --Espoo (talk) 21:53, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Support to Ultra-mobile PC or maybe Ultra-mobile personal computer; does not appear to be a proper noun. –CWenger (talk) 18:00, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Specify this is UMPC from the Microsoft/Intel definition[edit]

Although there are many touch and tablet computing devices both older and newer than UMPC, UMPC was a specific class of devices defined by Intel and Microsoft; the specific devices that meet the criteria should be classed as UMPCs and competitive products that don't fit under the classification should be treated as different entities. That's not an opinion on the value or precedence of the definition, just that it was a specific project between Microsoft and Intel and broadening it to cover all touch devices or narrowing it to specific Origami featues doesn't reflect the situation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:27, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Concur. I haven't looked yet in-depth at the article as to whether the specification is said to be sourced from Microsoft and Intel, but all other similar devices that don't meet the spec are called Mobile Internet Devices (MID), just to differentiate them from UMPC-s. -Mardus (talk) 03:31, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Blacklisted Links Found on the Main Page[edit]

Cyberbot II has detected that page contains external links that have either been globally or locally blacklisted. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed, or are highly innappropriate for Wikipedia. This, however, doesn't necessarily mean it's spam, or not a good link. If the link is a good link, you may wish to request whitelisting by going to the request page for whitelisting. If you feel the link being caught by the blacklist is a false positive, or no longer needed on the blacklist, you may request the regex be removed or altered at the blacklist request page. If the link is blacklisted globally and you feel the above applies you may request to whitelist it using the before mentioned request page, or request it's removal, or alteration, at the request page on meta. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. The whitelisting process can take its time so once a request has been filled out, you may set the invisible parameter on the tag to true. Please be aware that the bot will replace removed tags, and will remove misplaced tags regularly.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:

    Triggered by \bno-ip\. on the global blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.—cyberbot II NotifyOnline 17:57, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

 Resolved This issue has been resolved, and I have therefore removed the tag, if not already done. No further action is necessary.—cyberbot II NotifyOnline 06:01, 12 December 2013 (UTC)