Talk:Ultrabook

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Computing / Software / Hardware (Rated C-class, Mid-importance)
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.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Software.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by Computer hardware task force (marked as Mid-importance).
 
WikiProject Electronics (Rated C-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is part of WikiProject Electronics, an attempt to provide a standard approach to writing articles about electronics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. Leave messages at the project talk page
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Technology (Rated C-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Technology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of 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.
Checklist icon
 

MacBook Air[edit]

I believe that though MBA meets requirement for Ultrabook, it should not be counted as one though? After all, it is a MacBook. 175.156.199.110 (talk) 04:38, 7 September 2011 (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. 24.82.139.224 (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 81.159.132.8 (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 77.170.245.115 (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)
If it wasn't for the Air, there wouldn't be Ultrabooks. --2605:E000:1525:51:B4A0:3017:B263:FEAA (talk) 22:23, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Long Battery Life[edit]

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. 175.156.215.110 (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 agree, maybe we can add something like Actual performance may vary considerably based on usage. Zalunardo8 (talk) 10:13, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Shell[edit]

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?[edit]

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)

Removal of dubious comment regarding superiority of MacBook[edit]

There are two statements in this sentence in the History section I think should be removed:

It appeared that many OEMs were unable to offer an Ultrabook at a comparable spec and price to the MacBook Air,[22] and while some Ultrabooks were able to claim individual distinctions such as being the lightest or thinnest, the Air was still regarded by many reviewers as the best all-around Ultrabook.

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. 217.122.183.107 (talk) 16:36, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Five sections called "Chief River"[edit]

The section repeats itself (without repeating the header) 5 times. N0w8st8s (talk) 11:33, 20 August 2013 (UTC)n0w8st8s

Italic title[edit]

Why is the title in italic? Failing to see why in WP:TITLE, WP:ITALIC (or MOS:TM). We don't have that on e.g. IBM PC / IBM PC compatible, Industry Standard Architecture, MacBook Air. Hardware isn't on the list of italicised titles. My removal of the italics was reverted, pls justify. Widefox; talk 05:38, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

The specification is a creative work. ViperSnake151  Talk  06:04, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
Creative? You're kidding right? Like a book or play script? The lead says "(hardware) specification and brand". Ridiculous. Where does it say that in MOS or any other similar articles? Widefox; talk 07:11, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
ViperSnake151, I see it was your edit that changed this from the original bold to bold/italic [1]. In order to reach consensus, opinions welcome. Widefox; talk 12:56, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
While waiting for a reply, the trademark usage ref is [2], and a secondary source for TM style e.g. [3] / [4] i.e. "Ultrabook". ViperSnake151 - as theres no attempt at reaching consensus (so far) and no other opinions (support/objections), I will insert that and reverse the title back to the pre-italic based on a policy based argument described above (as per other hardware standard titles). Widefox; talk 01:24, 7 February 2014 (UTC)