Asus: Ultrabooks Won't Threaten Tablet Market

[exfileme]

Asus says there's room for tablets and ultrabooks to co-exist. Meanwhile, HP and Dell are gearing up to offer ultrabooks of their own.

Asus: Ultrabooks Won't Threaten Tablet Market : Read more

 

[Jerky_san]

Ivy Bridge will also reportedly enable ultrabooks with 13.3-inch displays to sport a hefty resolution of 2560 x 1440, or rather, "retina quality." You can barely find a 15' with 1080p and can they REALLY support that res with intel gpus

 

[briansct]

oops looks like the pic is an Acer laptop not the Asus!

 

[halcyon]

The whole ultrabook idea could be really neat if they can keep the performance respectable and the costs reasonable.

 

[rosen380]

"Ivy Bridge will also reportedly enable ultrabooks with 13.3-inch displays to sport a hefty resolution of 2560 x 1440, or rather, 'retina quality.'"

By my math, the retina display clocks in at 326 pixels per inch and a 13.3" at 2560x1440, "only" 221... so not quite "retina quality".

To match the PPI of an iPhone on a 13.3" display, you'd need 3776x2124 [assuming I did all of my math right ].

 

[halcyon]

Well, given that Apple can't seem to make a retina display more the 3.5" (is that why we don't have an iPhone w/a 4" display?) I don't see a 13+" "retina"-quality display coming too soon.

 

[soccerdocks]

"To match the PPI of an iPhone on a 13.3" display, you'd need 3776x2124"

I didn't check your math, but you don't need the same PPI for an ultrabook as you do for a phone. Ultrabooks will typically be viewed from farther distances so the PPI can be less while still being just as detailed as the eye.

 

[halcyon]

[citation][nom]soccerdocks[/nom]"To match the PPI of an iPhone on a 13.3" display, you'd need 3776x2124"I didn't check your math, but you don't need the same PPI for an ultrabook as you do for a phone. Ultrabooks will typically be viewed from farther distances so the PPI can be less while still being just as detailed as the eye.[/citation]


...but it'd be nice if the PPI wasn't less...for crystal-clear images.

 

[jdwii]

Know one wants one of these makes no since this is so dumb. The hardware you get for the money is not worth it.

 

[zak_mckraken]

zak_mckraken: Ultrabooks Won't Threaten Anything

 

[halcyon]

[citation][nom]jdwii[/nom]Know one wants one of these makes no since this is so dumb. The hardware you get for the money is not worth it.[/citation]

I think you're very wrong. There's a lot of business executives that would be all over something like this, just like they're all over the MacBook Air for the same reason. ...how much the device costs is not their chief consideration, if a consideration at all.

 

[Coastaltuba]

The iPad was not innovative. Surely Tom's should of known that Windows had a touch tablet out in 2006.

 

[Coastaltuba]

[citation][nom]jdwii[/nom]Know one wants one of these makes no since this is so dumb. The hardware you get for the money is not worth it.[/citation]

You're illiterate.

 

[amk-aka-Phantom]

Well, given that Apple can't seem to make a retina display more the 3.5" (is that why we don't have an iPhone w/a 4" display?) I don't see a 13+" "retina"-quality display coming too soon.

LOL, since when is Apple a leader when it comes to new tech?

 

[eddieroolz]

Heck I'll throw away ANY tablet if I can buy an ultrabook with 2560X1440 display...as long as it isn't $4000.

 

[halcyon]

[citation][nom]amk-aka-phantom[/nom]LOL, since when is Apple a leader when it comes to new tech?[/citation]

I'm not sure about this, so please forgive me if I'm wrong. ...but was there another cell phone manufacturer with a ppi density the same as, or higher than, the iPhone 4? While I do wish it was larger I enjoy the display quality of the iPhone 4.

 

[amk-aka-Phantom]

I'm not sure about this, so please forgive me if I'm wrong. ...but was there another cell phone manufacturer with a ppi density the same as, or higher than, the iPhone 4? While I do wish it was larger I enjoy the display quality of the iPhone 4.

It's a gimmick, for hell's sake! I compared this "quality" to any other good phone's display around and there's no visual difference SGS 2 screen >>> iPhone screen

 

[rosen380]

[citation][nom]soccerdocks[/nom]I didn't check your math, but...[/citation]

Good point, and thanks for not embarrassing me by checking my math

 

[halcyon]

It's a gimmick, for hell's sake! I compared this "quality" to any other good phone's display around and there's no visual difference SGS 2 screen >>> iPhone screen

The screen on the HTC Evo I had must have been especially poor.

 

[amk-aka-Phantom]

The screen on the HTC Evo I had must have been especially poor.

Yep.

 

[halcyon]

...jumping off topic a little here...

I guess I don't spend enough time using my phone to see why a phone would need to have a dual-core CPU processor. ...but I'm told iOS5 needs it more than iOS4. ...besides that Siri [strike]gimmick[/strike] feature I'll be interested to know what else needs it. My iP4 doesn't seem all that slow. ...but if a dc CPU is going to make web-browsing much faster...yea!

Is it games that require all this processing speed on phones or just the OS?

 

[amk-aka-Phantom]

...jumping off topic a little here...

I guess I don't spend enough time using my phone to see why a phone would need to have a dual-core CPU processor. ...but I'm told iOS5 needs it more than iOS4. ...besides that Siri [strike]gimmick[/strike] feature I'll be interested to know what else needs it. My iP4 doesn't seem all that slow. ...but if a dc CPU is going to make web-browsing much faster...yea!

Is it games that require all this processing speed on phones or just the OS?

I actually don't know. Android software is mostly Java, so that requires a tiny bit more power... I guess a dual core would help with HD videos and Flash but wait... no Flash on the iPhone

But seriously, I'm more after features and connectivity rather than raw CPU power. WTF am I gonna use it for, play Angry Birds and NFS on my phone? :lol: I always evaluated phones by the amount of functions they have and not the processing power. Phone is like a multitool; there're all kinds of very useful apps out there, and most of them won't need a beefy CPU.

EDIT: "CPU processor" = "central processing unit processor"... did you just create a processor that processes CPUs?

 

[halcyon]

EDIT: "CPU processor" = "central processing unit processor"... did you just create a processor that processes CPUs?

I stepped into that.

 

[Guest]

1) I think Samsung make Apple's mobile screens so I guess that determines their resolution?
2) Can we please for once have a modern computer with a wide gamut display? To me being able to see colours as they were intended is just as important as resolution, if not more so.

An ultrabook with rapid startup, decent RAM, 64-bit Windows 8, a screen of 1200 or more pixels and capable of displaying 100% of sRGB - I'd part with the best part of a grand for that!

 

[halcyon]

[citation][nom]ChrisUK[/nom]1) I think Samsung make Apple's mobile screens so I guess that determines their resolution?2) Can we please for once have a modern computer with a wide gamut display? To me being able to see colours as they were intended is just as important as resolution, if not more so.An ultrabook with rapid startup, decent RAM, 64-bit Windows 8, a screen of 1200 or more pixels and capable of displaying 100% of sRGB - I'd part with the best part of a grand for that![/citation]

I don't think we'll see it for a while, but Apple is getting closer. The The 13" MacBook Air's 1400x900 display is rated well. It'd undoubtedly cost more to make a screen that could display 100% sRGB...and they'd probably not put such in an Ultrabook for ~$1K.

Halfway through posting this I looked this up and was very surprised at how well the Apple laptops did, especially the MacBook Air. My 2011 15" MBP didn't do great, but didn't do bad, especially comparatively.