Slashdot Mirror


Ultra-Thin Laptops To Be Next Intel-AMD Battleground

FinalAnkleHealer sends along an IBTimes article proposing that $500 ultra-thin laptops, capable of multitasking and editing multimedia content, could be the next market contested by Intel and AMD. "AMD partnered with Hewlett-Packard Co. in January to launch the Pavilion dv2. Intel launched its rival CULV (Consumer Ultra Low Voltage) chip this month and Acer Inc. and Asustek Computer Inc were among those that demonstrated laptops based on the new technology at the Computex trade show in Taipei. ... With more people gravitating toward mobile and wireless technology, consumers want smaller laptops — and most of those people would prefer doing more than surfing the Web, which the no-frills netbooks now excel at. ... Acer, the first company to introduce a cheap Intel-powered CULV laptop, expects revenue from that segment to account for 15 percent of its total sales by the end of 2009. Asustek, which pioneered the netbook in 2007, plans to launch five consumer-priced ultra-thins this year."

22 of 125 comments (clear)

  1. Ultra-thin? by should_be_linear · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Of all things about notebook (weight, performance, size) thickness is last I care about.

    --
    839*929
    1. Re:Ultra-thin? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

      That's what my wife used to say, but then she got a big fat black Thinkpad.

    2. Re:Ultra-thin? by jonbryce · · Score: 3, Insightful

      And one inch isn't that thin. My Tiger era MacBook is only very slightly more than an inch thick. I'm pretty certain it wasn't the thinest laptop available at the time, and the MacBook Air has been released since then.

    3. Re:Ultra-thin? by Joce640k · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I can't imagine the briefcase that can't hold a 'standard' laptop. I'm with OP - thickness is the least important dimension. I love my Eee PC but I have no idea how thick it is. Maybe I'm not stylish enough to appreciate this concept. To me "thin" just makes me think of bent laptops and cracked screens.

      --
      No sig today...
  2. "capable of multitasking" Really? by MichaelSmith · · Score: 4, Funny

    FinalAnkleHealer sends along an IBTimes article proposing that $500 ultra-thin laptops, capable of multitasking and editing multimedia content, could be the next market contested by Intel and AMD.

    Good to know they are not running MSDOS, DRDOS, CP/M, RSTS, RT-11, Windows95 or MacOS9.

    1. Re:"capable of multitasking" Really? by SharpFang · · Score: 4, Informative

      waitwaitwait.
      Win95 had real, genuine multitasking. It was win3.11 that had the "task switching" tech where the foreground window was running.

      --
      45 5F E1 04 22 CA 29 C4 93 3F 95 05 2B 79 2A B2
    2. Re:"capable of multitasking" Really? by kimvette · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Win95 had "cooperative multitasking" between Win16 programs, and "preemptive multitasking" between Win32 programs.

      However, on a single core/single CPU, I really wouldn't consider either timeslicing mechanism to be "true multitasking" since in reality you are still only running one process simultaneously.

      --
      The Christian Right is Neither (Christian nor right). See: Matthew 23, Matthew 25, Ezekiel 16:48-50
  3. Slimness without performance? by bogaboga · · Score: 4, Informative

    I hope they are promoting slimness with performance. I wonder why today's computing power with 1GHz machines and 1GB memories does not feel snappy at all.

    I remember using computers years ago with Windows 95 that were quite fast on systems with 200MHz CPUs and 64Mb RAM modules.

    I hope they will not forget performance...maybe the ARM systems will deliver on this.

    1. Re:Slimness without performance? by Corporate+Troll · · Score: 3, Informative

      900MHZ, 1GB, 16GB

      I think I know what your problem is: disk I/O. Why? Because between 2005 and 2007, my primary laptop was a second-hand purchased 600MHz P-III with 256Meg RAM and a 4GB harddisk. Got it for 100€ and I immediately added 256Meg to "speed it up". I installed Windows XP SP2 and it ran just fine (Okay, browsing back then was Firefox 1.5.x) One day, the 4Gig started to fill up (4Gig is fine for the OS + Applications, but once you start gathering a bit data....) and I thought "let's replace the disk". I bought the cheapest 2.5" harddisk I could find (which was a 80Gig disk, more than enough for my needs) and..... to my surprise the machine was suddenly feeling much faster. I wouldn't have ever guessed that the bottleneck at this state would be the disk I/O.

      Now, with those specs, you might be talking about a Netbook. I also happen to have an Asus EEE PC 701 4G and with it's 670MHz (can't keep it on 900MHz, even on Debian), 2Gig RAM it does feel slow. Why? I highly suspect that those 4Gig SSD in there aren't all that hot. It runs Debian 5.0 with LXDE, but starting Iceweasel or Icedove takes forever. Once they're running, it's completely fine: they're in RAM and I've got plenty of that.

      I don't expect XP to run better than Debian. The original Xandros was faster though. I don't really know what to do to optimize it.

  4. Ports by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Thickness will be limited by large ports such as VGA, USB annd ethernet, unless they make everything wireless.

    1. Re:Ports by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      There's quite a bit of room before we hit that barrier. Macbook Air is 20mm thick in its thickest place. RJ45, the thickest of the ones you listed is 8mm in the thickest place, meaning a well-engineered socket can be 1cm thick (and a better-engineered one will collapse to half that size when not used). Ethernet is dying in the laptop world too. VGA is dying, HDMI is 4.45mm tall. I think USB at is to stay the longest, with its 5mm plugs.

        Anyway, the first centimeter can be shedded with little/no obstacles from the socket side.

  5. Just more battery life by Crookdotter · · Score: 4, Insightful

    If you can make a thin laptop, just add on a massive battery and make it as thick as a regular one. I don't care how thin it is, but a laptop that can survive normal use on battery for 8 hours would be an amazing thing.

    1. Re:Just more battery life by thijsh · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Seconded!
      Only when you're truly going to innovate make it 24h!
      My big-ass notebook has a battery that is around 5% of the total volume (rough calculation) and it manages 2.5 hours of normal work or 2 hours of more intense usage. When you have a battery that is 50% of the volume of the tiny netbook (and the chipset is much less power hungry than an ordinary notebook) you can easily make the battery life tenfold of what it is today.

    2. Re:Just more battery life by xtracto · · Score: 3, Interesting

      If you can make a thin laptop, just add on a massive battery and make it as thick as a regular one. I don't care how thin it is, but a laptop that can survive normal use on battery for 8 hours would be an amazing thing.

      Depending on what you name "normal use", I think that Eee 1000HE may be enough for you. I have used my for a complete day without needing to plug it to the mains.

      I have been using my Eee for a lot more than web-surfing. I can watch video, play games (http://forum.eeeuser.com/viewtopic.php?id=57479) and even composing/playing music (tuxguitar).

      The *only* thing I may recommend is upgrading to 2GB RAM (from 1 GB RAM available out of the box), but so far, I haven't done this and is not a real problem.

      --
      Ubuntu is an African word meaning 'I can't configure Debian'
    3. Re:Just more battery life by L4t3r4lu5 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I've just pulled the NiMH battery pack out of an HP 6735 laptop; A long and thin job which slips into the back of the laptop, under the monitor hinges. It's around 12" long, 2" circumference (guestimate) and weighs around 350g.

      If I were to put the entire base of the laptop full of those batteries, they alone would weigh 2.8kg. The laptop itself weighs, from the tried and tested "hold it up and think of a bag of sugar" method, 2kg without the battery.

      I think your idea needs refining a little.

      --
      Finally had enough. Come see us over at https://soylentnews.org/
  6. "Consumers want smaller laptops" by Linker3000 · · Score: 3, Funny

    As a happy Acer Aspire One user (running Fedora 11), I'd appreciate a 10" (maybe 12", at a push) version for easier, mobile working, but it's clear that the netbook market was a double-edged sword for the manufacturers because the units were popular, but margins were crap.

    I've slowly watched the decent netbook products migrate towards 12" screens at price points that make me think "I might as well get a low-end laptop for that" and although "ultra thin" would be nice, it's not top of my list. The 'regular' technology in the netbooks/slim laptops is 'fine for me'.

    Fair enough, I am not 'everyone', but how many are willing to pay a premium for ultra-thin cases, batteries etc. when the kit on the market today isn't exactly hernia-inducing? This smells of a marketing angle designed to keep margins up. We're not all like Mac sheeple that will buy it simply because it's shiny and made by Apple/Acer/Asus etc.: http://www.theonion.com/content/video/apple_introduces_revolutionary

    --
    AT&ROFLMAO
  7. fix landscape portrait sync problems by cinnamon+colbert · · Score: 3, Insightful

    rather then worrying about thin, how about the hardware and software people get to gether and have a std for web pages, so we don't have these awful problems of landscape screens and portrait pages (even worse for most pdfs - people edit them in word for portrait display, which never happens on screen, can't adobe make a pdf that auto changes the format of the file to fit screen or print mode ?)

    1. Re:fix landscape portrait sync problems by SharpFang · · Score: 3, Funny

      how about the hardware and software people get to gether and have a std for web pages

      It happened already. It's called MySpace and most pages indeed look like they had some STD.

      --
      45 5F E1 04 22 CA 29 C4 93 3F 95 05 2B 79 2A B2
  8. Battleground? I Doubt It by rsmith-mac · · Score: 3, Insightful

    As much as I love AMD, I would like to know what the submitter was thinking calling it a battleground. It's only a fair fight for AMD so long as Intel's not interested - AMD (and their manufacturing partner née subsidiary) can't match Intel's manufacturing abilities. AMD doesn't have an Ultra Low Voltage chip; Intel has a 1.6GHz Core 2 Duo that runs at 10W, meanwhile it's murky at best for AMD's competing chip line, the Neo. The only specs given out to the press for the new fual core version, which is 18W for the 1.6GHz version, with the chip still being built on the 65nm process which hobbles AMD from the start. Bear in mind that the Neo is Athlon 64 based, which means that it's not clock-for-clock competitive with the Core 2 Duo (you'd need a Phenom II-based core for that). In other words, the Intel chip eats less power and gets more performance at the same time.

    So if Intel's serious about this, it's only a battle so long as they don't decide to crush AMD with products and pricing. Intel is light years ahead of AMD in the mobile space due to their process technology advantage. Even TFA points out that they expect 8 hours out of the Intel CPUs, but only 5 hours out of the AMD CPUs. It's entirely lop-sided in Intel's favor.

    Now TFA does mention AMD will have Congo later this year, but even if that's 45nm (AMD has not commented on that matter), it's unlikely that they'd be able to meet Intel's power envelope. When you look at the desktop chips this stuff is derived from, the Phenom II takes more transistors and as a result power than the Core 2 Duo, and that's only to reach a clock-for-clock parity. Congo wouldn't change this.

  9. Um, snapdragon? by zefrer · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I'm sure Intel would like all of that pie and unfortunately for us, they are willing to do anything to get it. Including strong arming Asus when they showed an Arm based chipset running on Qualcomm's Snapdragon platform (running Android no less). A quick intervention from Intel and Microsoft and Asus was saying that 'the project is on hold' while sharing a stage with a VP from each of Intel and Microsoft.. Story on slashdot a couple days back.

    Oh and these arm based devices can run all-day(apparently), nevermind 8 hours.

    http://gizmodo.com/5273723/asus-demos-snapdragon+based-eee-pc-with-android

  10. Re:Last years ultra-portable is this year's thin.. by jonbryce · · Score: 2, Insightful

    If you want it lighter, but still have a decent sized keyboard and screen, then the only way to do that is to make it thinner.

  11. Re:I do not want a keyboard... by hairyfeet · · Score: 2, Informative

    Actually they tried that once, and since they aren't selling it anymore I have to assume it bombed. A "fold up" keyboard is a bad idea because it gives you one more point of failure. I personally think the 7in and 10in sizes are fine, as long as they give you the option of a USB keyboard/mouse if you so desire.

    That said, I wonder how long it is gonna be before the "laptop everything" fad dies. I have been talking to my customers and their desires for a laptop more than half the time are "because its a laptop" and not that they are actually gonna be mobile with the stupid thing. Considering how proprietary the things are and the lack of expandability I have to figure sooner or later the bottom is gonna drop out when all those that want one "just because" have one. I swear the way some of my customers talk about the things I'm starting to get the feeling these ultra mobile devices are the new thighmasters and will end up chucked in the closet right along with their home gyms when the fad wears off. For those that are doing business or school and always on the go, sure I can see the use. But a good half the people I talk to almost never have the stupid thing even unplugged. What's the point in that?

    --
    ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.