Is there anything more shameful than the "ultrabooks?"

[ziggyonice]

So I was reading this article over at AI about how Intel believes their new Ultrabook™ initiative blows the MacBook Air out of the water.

Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but the MacBook Air is basically an Ultrabook, is it not? I know it's not actually part of Intel's trademarked lineup, but an Ultrabook is just a branded name for an ultraportable laptop, right?

In the article, two Intel reps are quoted as saying:

Users want ultra-responsiveness in their devices (you turn it on and it just works, with no interruptions); the ability to take their devices everywhere, with great battery life and connectivity; devices that just look cool and feel great; and products they don't have to worry about when it comes to security.

That sounds... just like a MacBook Air. But when asked about comparing Ultrabooks to the Air, Intel says:

The MacBook Air is a great product, sure... But really, with the Ultrabook, it's about offering all those things in the same device--the great responsiveness, the great battery life--and with an operating system that people have come to love over the years, as well as all the legacy applications that they would like to run.

"Offering all those things in the same device?" I didn't realize the unibody MacBook Air was comprised of several pieces.

And "with an operating system that people have come to love over the years?" Surely they're not talking about Windows. If they are, then these guys are digging their own grave.

Why is Intel trying to combat the MacBook Air when the Air itself falls into the same category? Hell, it basically created the category to begin with! On top of that, Intel chips are what power the MacBook Air.

I don't know, maybe I'm just confused on the differences between the two. Or maybe it's just politics and Intel wants to see more competition in the space Apple has created with the MacBook Air.

tl;dr: Intel says Ultrabooks are better than MacBook Air, but the Air is an "ultrabook" — running the same Intel chips — and is basically what defined the category to begin with.

 

[MorphingDragon]

The difference is marketing, like most computer categories.

 

[entatlrg]

The ultrabook category only exists because of the Air. Apple is the originator, other companies saw the success of the Air and raced to copy it.

Even now, years later there isn't a worthy competitor to the Air. Buy the original ... knock offs suck.

 

[JoeG4]

Really, it's all just marketing. Laptops have come in many shapes and sizes since the beginning! There were "portable computers" like the IBM 5150 portable and those giant folding compaqs, and then there were "portables with batteries" like the mac portable, and then there were laptops like the powerbook and osbourne laptops.

Then we had the 2" thick, 9" screen laptops for the early 90s - that turned into 13", 2" thick laptops in the late 90s - and into 14-15" 1.5" thick laptops during the early 2000s.

Size and shape changes a lot. What defines "ultra portable" depends on what is going around at the time. At the end of the day, the "ultrabook" laptops are DEFINITELY macbook air competitors, only they cannot run OS X. They probably don't have very good trackpads either >>

 

[KnightWRX]

The ultrabook category only exists because of the Vaio. Sony is the originator.

Fixed that there for you. Apple basically saw the Vaio X505 and went from there for the Air.

 

[Mal67]

I see some usb 3 ports on some ultrabooks. I also noticed an ad today for an 11" windows ultrabook with a 64 gig ssd for 990 Australian which sounds like a direct competitor for the similarly configured air.

 

[Melrose]

Except one runs OS X... There is a difference. If all specs are the same (or close enough, or hell even if they're not) you decide based on which platform you like best.

 

[KnightWRX]

Except one runs OS X...

The underlying OS is not as important as the applications you need to use. No one "runs an OS", people use computers to perform tasks and frankly, OS X doesn't really have any exclusivity on which tasks it performs.

 

[Mousse]

The underlying OS is not as important as the applications you need to use. No one "runs an OS", people use computers to perform tasks and frankly, OS X doesn't really have any exclusivity on which tasks it performs.

Yeah, but OS X doesn't require half a dozen tack on anti-malware programs hogging 20% of your computational power. That makes a huge differences. There a few folks like me who don't run any anti-malware programs. I'm my own anti-malware. Then again, I don't run anything mission critical on my Winders PC (got no problem nuking the entire system and clean installing if needed).

OS X is the reason most people us Macs. That's the biggest difference between Macs and PCs.

 

[belvdr]

Yeah, but OS X doesn't require half a dozen tack on anti-malware programs hogging 20% of your computational power. That makes a huge differences.

That certainly isn't what I see on any of my systems.

 

[KnightWRX]

Yeah, but OS X doesn't require half a dozen tack on anti-malware programs hogging 20% of your computational power.

Exageration does not help your argument.

Not to mention if you have Snow Leopard or Lion, you are running anti-malware, X-protect namely.

 

[LorenK]

I was going to say originality, but then someone mentioned that the thin profile was originated by Sony Vaio. Well, then, that leaves success. None of the ultrabooks will be as successful as the Air because the PC market is divided among a number of manufacturers, so they won't be able to sell as many as Apple.

In any event, no practical difference other than operating system, and the Air is probably now lesser spec-ed.

 

[Mac_Max]

I think a lot of Intel's schpeel basically is a nice way (read: trying not to offend apple) to say "We really like the MacBook air but need even more of these ULV chips sold so we're going to get everyone to build them." Hence the whole "OS that everyone has grown to love" bit.

In the end, Sony has done this well for a long time. IBM (pre-Lenovo) also made some very nice thin Thinkpads. If you read Ultrabook reviews on Anandtech, you pretty much see the tend of Sony and Apple making nice ultrabook style machines and everyone else cutting some corner or another (usually the screen). I plan on getting an Air when the next update comes around (I don't need it until September/the beginning of School realistically) because its a solid machine and I like OS X. If OS X wasn't a factor, I'd get the Sony Z Series.

 

[Rogifan]

Fixed that there for you. Apple basically saw the Vaio X505 and went from there for the Air.

If that's the case why are these 'ultrabook' laptops coming out after the Air? The Macbook Air wasn't the first thin laptop (though I would argue it's the most refined product we've seen on the market...sorry Sony), but there's no doubt whatsoever Intel's 'ultrabook' campaign is targeting the Air. And a number of these 'ultrabooks' are Air wannabees. With crappy software and trackpads.

 

[Melrose]

The underlying OS is not as important as the applications you need to use. No one "runs an OS", people use computers to perform tasks and frankly, OS X doesn't really have any exclusivity on which tasks it performs.

I agree, the tasks are largely the same - but there again we have still boiled it down to the key difference: Operating system. Choosing an operating system is based on experience; we use what works for us. If Windows lets you accomplish all those common tasks easily, good. For me, it never has. I'll give you that Windows 7 is a nicely performing and well liked OS, but in my experience it's still easier (for me) to do certain things on my Mac. Can I do the same thing on both? Certainly, but I use what I like and what works better. Like I said, if the machine is otherwise the same then it's OS that makes the difference.

So, the machines are not created equal; Until they all run either one OS or the other across the board it is pointless to argue which is better, or that they all run the same tasks the same way because there are people from both sides of the aisle who have experienced things differently. It stands to reason also because Windows and Mac view the way Apps operate differently; Windows makes the window the App, Mac makes the window the Document (generally speaking, in both cases). This alone has a bearing on workflow.

You personally don't see OS X's superiority because you've either never had trouble with Windows, or you've had equal trouble with OS X - and I'll agree both are, of course, possible.. I've used at least five brands of Windows PCs running every version since 98SE, and in my view OS X is superior. You may have a different experience, but my point stands: The OS is the key differentiator when the machine is specced comparably. All things considered, if a person knows Windows or Mac and all other points are basically the same, he'll choose based on OS.

 

[KnightWRX]

You personally don't see OS X's superiority because you've either never had trouble with Windows

You assume too much. I'm not a Windows user. I adapt to the OS I use and get my tasks done. Otherwise, I'd just be one of those Expose/Spaces whiner that cry over Mission Control all the time.

 

[malman89]

tl;dr: Intel says Ultrabooks are better than MacBook Air, but the Air is an "ultrabook" — running the same Intel chips — and is basically what defined the category to begin with.

The difference is marketing, like most computer categories.

Essentially. It's just a segment of personal computers that has existed for years, but has been a small niche until 2012.

A MacBook Air would qualify as an Ultrabook, but Apple would be the only one to allow such branding of the MBA to occur - and knowing Apple, they won't.

An Ultrabook is just going to give you a sleek, powerful, ultraportable with strong specs at a competitive price point. Most Ultrabooks are/will hit the market with as good to better specs than an MBA at the same price or considerably less.

 

[Melrose]

You assume too much. I'm not a Windows user. I adapt to the OS I use and get my tasks done. Otherwise, I'd just be one of those Expose/Spaces whiner that cry over Mission Control all the time.

I made my assumption based on your earlier reply, reasoning that the only reason anyone would say both Windows and OS X are the same is because you've had a similar experience on both. I'm sure you agree it's really not a far fetched conclusion. As a matter of fact, I was trying to give you the benefit of the doubt.

 

[burne]

Most Ultrabooks are/will hit the market with as good to better specs than an MBA at the same price or considerably less.

So far reality doesn't seem to agree with you. The few 'ultrabooks' on the market are either as expensive and inferior or more expensive and superior in one or two aspects. Only one or two aspects.

Take Dell's XPS 13. Fairly equal at first glance, faster CPU, more RAM, but bad display, lower resolution, dim and TN, not IPS, and horrible battery-life. Take Asus Zenbook UX31E. Higher resolution, slighty cheaper, but bad keyboard and touchpad and 'just' five hours battery-life.

Matching Apple turns out to be very hard. No *phone, *pad or *book matches the attention to detail Apple has shown in all aspects. Jobs might have been a real assh*le to deal with, his products are sofar unbeatable if you want to match any and all features.

 

[smoledman]

All ultrabooks suck because their trackpads are terrible. They are less functional in terms of gestures and responsiveness. Apple has many patents on the glass trackpad and their algorithms for finger tracking are peerless. That's why the Apple trackpad experience is magical and everyone else's sucks.

 

[KnightWRX]

I made my assumption based on your earlier reply, reasoning that the only reason anyone would say both Windows and OS X are the same is because you've had a similar experience on both. I'm sure you agree it's really not a far fetched conclusion. As a matter of fact, I was trying to give you the benefit of the doubt.

I never mentioned Windows. You did.

----------

If that's the case why are these 'ultrabook' laptops coming out after the Air?

Why did the Air come out after the X505 ? Right back at you...

 

[Melrose]

I never mentioned Windows. You did.

Exactly. I was making a comparison between the two most popular operating systems; you said the OS didn't matter - you can hardly expect a comparison between Mac and Windows to not happen.

But I'm assuming again. You say there's no difference for performing certain tasks on whatever OS someone uses, and call me out for making reference to your (assumed) use of Windows. Which operating systems were you referring to in your comparison? Linux? Chromium?

: )

But this is just getting off topic. I'm done with it.

 

[NewbieCanada]

The MacBook Air is a great product, sure... But really, with the Ultrabook, it's about offering all those things in the same device--the great responsiveness, the great battery life--and with an operating system that people have come to love over the years,

Seems pretty clear to me that what he's saying is that an Ultrabook is a MacBook Air with Windows.

And indeed, it could be, except every manufacturer has done something or another thing to distinguish themselves from the competition and/or lower costs. But if they put Windows, HDMI, USB 3.0 and a couple of different keys on a MBA, you'd have a best-in-class Ultrabook.

 

[smoledman]

Probably going to have to wait until Windows 8 to see better trackpad algorithms.

 

[*LTD*]

Apple: better designed hardware. Runs OS X.

Same things that usually distinguish Macs from the competition.

And keep in mind, once the unit is powered on, it's the OS that you'll be dealing with primarily until you're done.

This leads us into User Experience considerations. And Macs + OS X need no introduction in that area.