Intel Details New Ultrabook Reference Designs 186
MojoKid writes "Earlier this year, Intel unveiled its plan to redefine the concept of a PC around an ultra thin-and-light chassis reminiscent of the Macbook Air and with a standard CPU TDP of just 15W. Intel has unveiled the reference specs for ultra-notebook products they're calling 'Ultrabooks.' The cheaper ultra-notebook model will be 21mm thick with a BOM (bill of materials) between $475-650. A second, thinner model (18mm thick) will have a BOM between $493-710. Unlike netbooks, Ultrabooks will target the full range of consumer notebooks with screen sizes ranging from 11-17 inches. Reports are surfacing that the new systems will eschew the use of module-based components in favor of directly soldering certain components to the motherboard. Other findings indicated that Intel and its partners have researched alternatives to an aluminum-based chassis with materials like fiberglass expected to dominate the segment."
Re:laptop - netbook - ultrabook (Score:4, Informative)
laptop - dvd drive = netbook
that i don't agree with, netbook in my idea is a sub class of laptop that has enough processing power to consume but not enough to effectively create.
aka you can browse the web and watch video - but really comping,encoding, or in general heavy work just isn't going to be exceptable.
to me
laptop - dvd drive = most "ultra light" laptop/notebooks
you can get an i7 in a 2.2lbs x220, there is no optical drive, and it surly isn't a "netbook"
Re:It's sad actually (Score:2, Informative)
For the price an Apple computer costs it SHOULD be good quality. Sadly just because something looks good quality doesn't mean it is. It's not hard to find a litany of faults which have affected MacBook computers over the years. Expanding batteries, cracked casings, yellowing casing, overheating CPUs, warping, MagSafe shorting and fires etc. It's not surprising in some respect because Apple do push the limits of industrial design. But what looks nice does not always equate into good build quality or reliability either.
By any quantitative survey done, Apple's failure rate is no worse, and often better, than any other company in the industry
http://www.pcworld.com/article/211402/reliability_and_service_laptops.html [pcworld.com]
http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2384243,00.asp [pcmag.com]
You can Google up "hp laptop crack..." or "dell screen..." and watch the autocomplete and you'll find the same things. Computers all fail in the same ways, big surprise. The question is how often.
If your failure rate is 15% and you sell ten million computers a year, you'll have 1,500,000 angry users on the Internet complaining. (Also, Apple gives all its computers the same name. So "macbook cracking" generates a lot more hits than "hp1337asdfqwerrtyuiop cracking")