Samsung's Series 9 13.3" Ultrabook For 2012: Thinner And Lighter

[palladin9479]

Samsung better be careful, Apple will sue them for violating their patent on being "thin and sleek". Only Apple's allowed to make cool stuff, or didn't anyone get the memo...

 

[nebun]

these companies really need to include a dvd drive....i am sure that they can make one that's very slim....now can you put over 3million transistors on a CPU?, yet you can't design a ultra slim dvd drive?...i am a little confused here....like it or not i still like to own my software on dvds, if companies are not going to included dvd drives at least they could push software developers to put their content on a thumb drive

 

[DavidC1]

The problem we've had with Intel's Ultrabook initiative is one of consistency. We've seen Ultrabooks we'd be happy to carry around, and others that bore more bulk than we expected. Because those more rotund models employed larger displays, though, they were still able to skate by with Ultrabook branding. That's watering down the concept, we think.

I've heard this being said countlessly, not to mention things that are outright wrong(where Verge claims Intel is diluting Ultrabooks because the Zenbook U500 is one. It actually isn't, because it uses QUAD CORE CPU when Ultrabooks require a ULV platform).

It's about being better in average. You can find a phone that's near 7-inch Tablet in weight and size. You don't hear as many complaints do you? But you know in general a "Phone-class" hardware is smaller than "Tablet-class" hardware.

It's likely that lot of people who will buy even "heavy/big" Ultrabooks come from even bigger 5, 6 or even 7, 8 pound systems. Those that bought relatively thin and light systems will see even thinner and lighter systems like the Aspire S7 with 12mm thickness or Lavie Z with 875g weight.

In conclusion: Unnecessary complaint

 

[Vladislaus]

[citation][nom]nxdnk[/nom]Where's my 16:10 display? Why is this so fucking impossible when MBP's have it?[/citation]
Of course, a 16:9 13.3'' 1600x900 LCD screen like the one installed on the Samsung Series 9 is a lot worse than the 16:10 13.3'' 1280x800 LCD screen on the MacBook Pro, or the 16:10 13.3'' 1440x900 LCD like on the MacBook Air, right?... That's what I thought!...

 

[panini]

I'm really torn between getting this and the Macbook Air. The OS doesn't really matter to me - the specs do. Correct me if I'm wrong, but this is the following breakdown I've found (for $1699)

Samsung Series 9 13.3"
-1600x900
1.8Ghz i7 Turbo to 3.0Ghz
4GB Memory
128GB SSD

Macbook Air 13.3"
-1440x900
2.0Ghz i7 Turbo to 3.2Ghz
8GB Memory
256GB SSD

The only real con I can see for the macbook air is the resolution, but I do like 16:10.
I'm really confused - how can Apple have better specs for the same money?

Oh, and how much does the 15" Series 9 cost? Just want to know if it's worth the jump.

 

[wakerjenny]

Simply great device. It's such a cunning features surely allures. The battery, weight, size and the display are what expected from Samsung. What a smart design as well. And the bucks would be tempted to afford so far.

 

[panini]

[citation][nom]mayankleoboy1[/nom]in the screen quality/brightness benchmark, why u no compare with the new rMBP ?[/citation]

It's out of its league. Better to compare against the Macbook Air (the actual competitor here).

 

[jeyges]

@techcurious: "No, it never got too warm while I used it for 48 hours."

Verge reviewed it recently and found it to be quite warm: http://www.theverge.com/2012/7/16/3160289/samsung-series-9-review-13-inch-mid-2012

"This is my favorite Ultrabook and my only recommendation to clients and friends."

I've found numerous complaints online about Samsung's quality control and incompetent support and customer service - horror stories about people having to send new machines in for repair, then getting them back still malfunctioning.

I'm not an Apple lover and have been looking for a reason to purchase this rather than the MBA, but there have just been too many red flags.

 

[Jasmine Hoffman]

1