Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Intel Core M Enables Lower Cost Ultrabooks; Asus UX305 Tested

Posted by timothy on from the can-never-be-too-cheap-or-too-thin dept.

MojoKid (1002251) writes Asus announced their super-slim Zenbook UX305 during the IFA trade show in Berlin in September. The machine will be available in two models, one with a 1920x1080 IPS display and one with a QHD+ display that boasts a native resolution of 3200x1800. They're both built around Intel's more power-efficient Core M processor, which was designed for ultra-thin and "fanless" form factors. Intel's Core M does seem to offer significant advances both in terms of power consumption and performance, which enables many of the design features found on the 12.3mm thin UX305. The Core M 5Y10 in the Asus Zenbook UX305 is complemented by 8GB of RAM, a 256GB SSD, and this is one of the few ultrabooks to feature a matte display. All told, the machine put up some decent numbers in the benchmarks and battery life was excellent, but what's perhaps most interesting is that this is an "ultrabook" class machine that weighs in at a much more palatable $700 price tag.

70 comments

  1. Oomph. by Etherwalk · · Score: 3, Informative

    this is an "ultrabook" class machine that weighs in at much more palatable $700 price tag.

    (1) Editing error. English requires an indefinite article between "at" and "much."

    (2) Palatable to some. $700 isn't much to spend on a computer by the standards of the upper middle class, but it's still a pretty big chunk of change.

    1. Re:Oomph. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

      (2) Palatable to some. $700 isn't much to spend on a computer by the standards of the upper middle class, but it's still a pretty big chunk of change.

      For what it is, absolutely. You can go to an OEM and buy a base system, sans SSD and RAM, for $1000 that would massively outperform this. Essentially double the price for storage and RAM, and you'll have a decent looking Clevo system. For $700 all you're getting is a battery life that is nine hours or so, probably seven to eight on average. Buy a tablet instead if all you're going to do is browse the interwebs --after all that's the workload constraint to get that battery life on the system reviewed anyway.

    2. Re:Oomph. by hcs_$reboot · · Score: 5, Insightful

      $700 isn't much to spend on a computer by the standards of the upper middle class, but it's still a pretty big chunk of change.

      Ultrathin, latest Core M proc, 8 G memory, 256 G SSD... $700. That's sound a fair price (and it's ASUS-grade quality).

      --
      Slashdot, fix the reply notifications... You won't get away with it...
    3. Re:Oomph. by sound+vision · · Score: 1
      Seems the price has jumped. When I bought my Asus *book (eeepc 1000he) it was $350. So I thought, hey, this new model must be way more capable right? Yet in the article it's stated:

      ...it’s targeting users who want a very portable machine for everyday computing tasks such as browsing the web, editing documents, listening to music, etc, that also crave long battery life and a sleek form factor.

      Golly Gee Willikers, that's exactly why I bought the eeepc. And it still worked for those purposes in 2014. And I'd still be using it in 2015 too if WinXP got updates or there weren't Linux driver issues. (This model did not ship with Linux.) Hell, I did more than web surfing on it - it made a sweet portable SNES emulator, as well as something to watch movies on. I even did some basic video editing on it if you can believe it or not - although admittedly, processing effects and encoding took a while.

      Given the hardware advances in the 6 years since the 1000HE was released, I find it hard to believe Asus can't put out a computer that serves the same purpose for the same amount of money. Or less money.

      Perhaps it's just over-spec'd for the stated purpose. 8 GB and 1920x1080 for web surfing and document editing? My gaming rig runs on 4 GB and 1440x900.

    4. Re:Oomph. by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1

      8 GB and 1920x1080 for web surfing and document editing? My gaming rig runs on 4 GB and 1440x900.

      I wouldn't be surprised if you want a higher resolution for document editing and web surfing than for gaming. Having a good (and, importantly, consistent) frame rate for games matters a lot, but resolution quickly hits diminishing returns. The thing I notice most with the retina display on my laptop and the 4K display on my desk at work is that text is a lot crisper. When you're spending a lot of time reading text, the higher resolution make a big difference. For games, I usually set the resolution to a quarter of native res (half each dimension) and don't notice the linear upscaling.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    5. Re:Oomph. by aliquis · · Score: 1

      The difference is that the netbooks was "cheap and crappy"-laptops whereas ultrabooks is premium ones.

      You can get a laptop for $250 now too.

    6. Re:Oomph. by invictusvoyd · · Score: 1

      Ultrathin, latest Core M proc, 8 G memory, 256 G SSD... $700. That's sound a fair price (and it's ASUS-grade quality).

      reasonably thin .. intel atom dual core (@1.6ghz) 2G memory , 250 G HDD $250 . Thats sounds like a fair price .. an its disposable ! ;)

    7. Re:Oomph. by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      I wouldn't be surprised if you want a higher resolution for document editing and web surfing than for gaming. Having a good (and, importantly, consistent) frame rate for games matters a lot, but resolution quickly hits diminishing returns.

      That depends on what kind of game you're playing, and how much view distance it permits. If it's a flight sim, and it permits very long view distances, then you can basically use as many pixels as you can get. If it's a driving sim, you would like to have quite a lot of pixels, but you don't need quite as many since you're not expecting to see as far. If it's an FPS, you want as many pixels as possible, period, end of story. So unless you're playing strategy games, which artificially fail to make use of the fanciest GPUs anyway by simply not supporting intense-enough graphics options to pin the GPU, or raster shooters or something, you pretty much always want more pixels.

      For games, I usually set the resolution to a quarter of native res (half each dimension) and don't notice the linear upscaling.

      It's not about being able to see artifacting, it's about being able to see stuff at all, or being able to see stuff before your opponents. I remember back in the old old days, when I got my Cornerstone .22 pitch monitor. Sure, frame rate suffered, but if I maxed out the resolution I could see people before they could even see me on big FPS maps. I was just a blurry pixel, but I could see which way they were facing.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    8. Re: Oomph. by dnaumov · · Score: 1, Insightful

      My dad has a saying that's stuck with me over the decades: "I am way too poor to be buying cheap shit". This doesn't apply just to clothes - I own 2 jackets that are EXPENSIVE, except one of them is literally older than me and the other is 16 years old, so the total cost of ownership is way less than buying and replacing every few years. Even though computer values depreciates faster, same rules do apply: if you live in a western country (poor is a relative concept), if you buy a 400$ computer, you are not a "smart spender", you are a retard, because in the hands of a normal user that machine will be barely usable in 3 years time.

    9. Re: Oomph. by Pax681 · · Score: 1

      similar to what my mother still says
      buy quality ... buy once
      buy cheap ... you're a dunce
      and she and your father are spot on.

    10. Re:Oomph. by mrchaotica · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Given the hardware advances in the 6 years since the 1000HE was released, I find it hard to believe Asus can't put out a computer that serves the same purpose for the same amount of money. Or less money.

      I bought an Asus X200CA (12" touchscreen, slow CPU, 4 GB RAM) for about $260 back in October. They do make computers that serve the same purpose for the same amount of money (or less money); it's just that the computer in TFA isn't it.

      --

      "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

    11. Re:Oomph. by i.kazmi · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Since this device does not fit your use case, it does not imply it is useless for everyone out there...While I'm personally much more interested in desktop replacement laptops (which is what I'm currently typing this on), I know several people who are very interested in this class of machines.

      The ~$2000 Clevo laptop would be great for gaming or as a desktop replacement system. It will, however, not be an ultra-portable. What with weighing roughly 4kg and a battery life of around 3 hours when surfing the net or around 1.5 hours when under load, I think most people would prefer not to lug it around with them, a better example would've been a Razer Blade but that seems like overkill if all you're going to do is surf the web or write reports on it.

      As for a tablet, try compiling a report on a tablet, you can pick whichever OS you want. I don't have any experience with pulling my teeth with pliers but I imagine compiling a report on a tablet's touchscreen or on a flimsy keyboard would probably be more painful. It shouldn't be very hard to imagine a scenario where someone might need to compile a report while travelling or is the only use-case of why someone could possibly need an ultra-portable that you can think of is browsing the interwebs?

    12. Re: Oomph. by Dragonslicer · · Score: 2

      This is also known as the Sam Vimes "Boots" Theory of Economic Injustice.

    13. Re: Oomph. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Reminds me of my dads favorite line:
      "get out".

    14. Re: Oomph. by SchroedingersCat · · Score: 1

      Are you implying that buying $2000 computer that will be worth $1000 in 3 years makes you "smart spender" vs someone who bought $400 computer that ended up worthless after 3 years?

    15. Re:Oomph. by pepty · · Score: 2

      For what it is, absolutely. You can go to an OEM and buy a base system, sans SSD and RAM, for $1000 that would massively outperform this.

      You are leaving out two of the most important specs for people who are in the market for this type of machine:

      Dimensions: 12.8 x 8.9 x 0.5 inches

      Weight 2.6 pounds

      Will the OEM system be at or below those numbers? If you are in the market for a 13" laptop instead of a tablet, it's because you want the extra screen size and a keyboard.

    16. Re: Oomph. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Wise enough, but does not apply to computers.

      Using the same computer in 6, much less 16 years, is idiotic.

      Clothes are not subject to moores law.

    17. Re: Oomph. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Buying a $400 laptop every three years means $1200 for nine years.

      Is your $1200 machine going to last you for nine years?

    18. Re: Oomph. by StillAnonymous · · Score: 1

      That's assuming you can even buy quality any more. Try buying a jacket or sweater where the zipper isn't a total piece of failing crap. Sure the jacket's still in great shape, but you can't do it up because the zipper broke. You can replace a zipper, but unless you go to a value store to harvest a really old jacket for the good zipper, you're just going to get another lousy one.

    19. Re: Oomph. by CrashNBrn · · Score: 0

      Anyone that classifies such a large group of people --- anyone buying a $400 computer as a "retard" isn't much above a retard themselves.

      I fully expect my "$400" laptop to last at least 4-5 years. Will soon remove the optical-drive for a SSD, and add an 8GB ram-stick (for 16).

      Of course it's AMD across the board; maybe the OP is referring to $400 Intel machines... they're not worth much beyond decent battery life --- I only get 2-3 hrs, but its pretty rare (for me, at least) to be away from any kind of power-source for more than a few hours.

    20. Re:Oomph. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      (1) Editing error. English requires an indefinite article between "at" and "much."

      Or you can change one letter and make "at" into "as". The arrogant display of your knowledge of English is unnecessary for a common typo.

    21. Re:Oomph. by OrangeTide · · Score: 1

      I've been pretty unhappy with most of those $250 laptops. I eventually end up wanting to replace it after a year. I got a lot more mileage out of a $650 laptop than I ever did out of any of the cheaper laptops I've bought.
      I don't need a lot of processing power, while I'd like to play the latest games on a $250 laptop, I accept that I can't. Mostly I need a command-line, compiler (I'm patient), and text editor. What usually bugs me is I want a web browser that works smoothly and can play videos reliably. I have quite a few laptops I've given up on because of that final requirement.

      --
      “Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
    22. Re: Oomph. by dnaumov · · Score: 1

      Err, this is an imaginary problem. The zipper on my 16 year old jacket broke a year ago. I took it to a repairman who replaced it. It was his problem to source the zipper, not mine. The materials and the job cost me 20â and it was the first time in 16 years I had to spend money on renovating this jacket.

    23. Re: Oomph. by pspahn · · Score: 1

      My desktop is just about right there. I purchased the "core" of the system in 2009 / 2010. I've since upgraded the case, PSU, and have maxed out the RAM.

      This machine still remains more than capable. I don't anticipate buying a new desktop for another couple years.

      --
      Someone flopped a steamer in the gene pool.
    24. Re: Oomph. by OrangeTide · · Score: 1

      If the software on my laptop does what I need it to do today, then why can't it continue to operate for 6 years? (I have a desktop for gaming, because laptops usually kind of suck for gaming. But I'm not really that into gaming)

      My laptop (Acer 1410) is a little over 5 years old now, I use it every day. I tried to replace it once but I was unhappy with the replacement. My little laptop is now on it's third charger, I keep replacing parts that wear out or break. Now I believe the only reason for me to replace it is if it breaks or it is lost. I can do software development on it, I can use SSH and Git. Videos play fine on it (youtube, amazon, netflix, crunchyroll). I did my taxes on it this year. I can't imagine what else it might need.

      --
      “Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
    25. Re: Oomph. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's about weight and form factor.

      If you are always on the move as it is my case, each 100 extra grams really do add up at the end of the day, even if you carry the device in a backpack as I do. Heck, I even manage when and when not to carry the charger.

      Another point is the form factor. When you want do do a presentation on a dinner table, size matters a lot.

      Other than that I completely agree with you on he tablet issue. Tablets are for content display. And casual writing, such as this post I am writing as AC because I don't recall my password and LastPass because it doesn't integrate with my tablet browser :)

    26. Re: Oomph. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      “The reason that the rich were so rich, Vimes reasoned, was because they managed to spend less money.

      Take boots, for example. He earned thirty-eight dollars a month plus allowances. A really good pair of leather boots cost fifty dollars. But an affordable pair of boots, which were sort of OK for a season or two and then leaked like hell when the cardboard gave out, cost about ten dollars. Those were the kind of boots Vimes always bought, and wore until the soles were so thin that he could tell where he was in Ankh-Morpork on a foggy night by the feel of the cobbles.

      But the thing was that good boots lasted for years and years. A man who could afford fifty dollars had a pair of boots that'd still be keeping his feet dry in ten years' time, while the poor man who could only afford cheap boots would have spent a hundred dollars on boots in the same time and would still have wet feet.

      This was the Captain Samuel Vimes 'Boots' theory of socioeconomic unfairness.”

        Terry Pratchett

    27. Re: Oomph. by toddestan · · Score: 1

      Why replace it if works for what I need it for? My laptop is 8 years old, but really I only use a laptop for when I need something I can take with me, otherwise I use my desktop for everything else. Though the desktop itself is three years old, though being easily upgraded, not all the components date back that far (and a few are older than that too, but 3 years ago was the new CPU/mobo/RAM combo).

  2. ASUS still trendy by hcs_$reboot · · Score: 1

    I've been hearing for a few years, from people around, that ASUS makes really good stuff at an affordable price. Maybe it's time to re-check if Mavericks installs ok on VirtualBox.

    --
    Slashdot, fix the reply notifications... You won't get away with it...
    1. Re:ASUS still trendy by operator_error · · Score: 2

      For the last 10 years, I've mainly only purchased ASUS motherboards, netbooks, monitors, and the occasional router. ASUS is truly massive and makes a lot of good stuff for a long time already. During the netbook era it looked like they were gonna hedge heavily on Linux, then Microsoft leaned on them heavily and they reversed course.

      http://www.computerworld.com/a...

      My ASUS EEE 10" netbook is fantastic with Ubuntu & Kodi, still, and I paid about $250 for it ages ago.

    2. Re:ASUS still trendy by operator_error · · Score: 1

      FWIW, Mavericks runs reasonably well (with glitchy sound but I could care less) using VMware on my ASUS motherboards, but Yosemite really eats up resources and is unusable. I wouldn't think about doing this on VirtualBox though, not worth the effort or instability.

    3. Re:ASUS still trendy by gl4ss · · Score: 1

      they're decent.

      my workhorse coding and gaming computers have been asus rog 15"'s for some 5+ years now. some say it's a bit big, but i get two harddrive bays and it fits in backpack ok and in 1100$ range it has decent power.. beats paying double for a dell anyways.

      and a keyboard with numpad and the power bricks work between models and seem to have been standard for 9+ years from what I can tell.

      it's decent for the price. but it's the keyboard really, decent palm rest area - no metal touching your wrists and no fucking 90 degree angles biting into your wrists either. seriously! if you live in thailand you really don't fucking want a metal chassis touching you, using a macbook gets you a sizzling sensation when using most power sockets.. sure it's easy to say to not use those sockets but that's like 90% of sockets in the country!

      --
      world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
    4. Re:ASUS still trendy by Pax681 · · Score: 1

      same here, ASUS is quality. at present i have an ASUS z97 sabertooth mk 1 mobo, ASUS ac68u router, my previous router ASUS again an RT N66U and i have an ASUS EA-N66 Ethernet adapter/wireless extender(i live in a VERY old apartment in Edinburgh's old town built in 1797 and the walls are literally rock solid.. not a hint of plasterboard) to extend the wireless to the back rooms. Also have an ASUS tablet and bought one for my sis at xmas.. they are great quality and they don't piss you around with support/returns

    5. Re:ASUS still trendy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Really sad that they don't offer Linux, I just will not pay money for Windows - especially 8.1.

      I like the hardware on this thing, but don't understand why they don't have DisplayPort. With a notebook of this size, I like to hook up to a high quality monitor when home. Can HDMI go over 1920x1080???

    6. Re:ASUS still trendy by drinkypoo · · Score: 2

      if you live in thailand you really don't fucking want a metal chassis touching you, using a macbook gets you a sizzling sensation when using most power sockets.. sure it's easy to say to not use those sockets but that's like 90% of sockets in the country!

      APC used to make a cute little surge suppressor/isolator that went in between your laptop supply and the wall...

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  3. IPS screen by ssam · · Score: 1

    Nice to see an IPS screen. Still to few laptops with them (and not always easy to tell from spec sheets).

    1. Re:IPS screen by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      to != too

  4. Daily Slashvertisement by luvirini · · Score: 1

    Yey! the new model is better than the old model buy it now!

    Sigh

  5. Not exactly cheap by Kjella · · Score: 3, Insightful

    At $281 for 1K tray pricing, they're not exactly delivering the most bang for the buck. Intel's basically setting their own prices now and has had record quarters lately.

    --
    Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    1. Re:Not exactly cheap by samwichse · · Score: 1

      Yes, this is the world Intel fanboys have been awaiting when they crow about the imminent demise of AMD in every benchmark suite I've seen.

      I buy all AMD no matter what, just to keep the CPU market a market, not a monopoly. Sadly, since their fab spin-off and the downsizing of their R&D department, they probably are in a death spiral now...

      Sam

  6. oooh, new and improved by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    backdoors.

  7. Ultrabook isn't a "class" by Hadlock · · Score: 4, Insightful

    It's a spec. Designed by intel's marketing group. Which is constantly in flux. Their long term goal is to push affordable yet quality laptop design, but at the same time I wouldn't all $700 "palatable" for an Ultrabook. $570-$640 is palatable for an ultrabook. $700 is just a regular laptop price.
     
    And really, should we be praising laptop manufacturers for putting a 1080p screen in a $700 laptop? In 2015? How many pixels does your phone have? How much does it cost off contract. Extrapolate.

    --
    moox. for a new generation.
    1. Re:Ultrabook isn't a "class" by TheRaven64 · · Score: 2

      And really, should we be praising laptop manufacturers for putting a 1080p screen in a $700 laptop? In 2015?

      It is a bit surprising. I have an ASUS TransformerPad TF700, which is pretty close to the ultrabook market segment and came with a 1080p screen. I've had it for a few years and the newer model comes with an even better screen.

      How many pixels does your phone have? How much does it cost off contract. Extrapolate.

      Be a bit careful about that. The process for manufacturing TFTs is subject to the same rules as other semiconductor fabrication processes. If you double the area then you double the probability of an impurity resulting in a stuck pixel (and, these days, consumers don't accept even a small number of stuck pixels). This lowers the yields. As the feature size (i.e. pixel size) goes down the size of impurity that won't cause damage goes down too. This is why we got 225dpi screens on phones cheaply back in 2005, when IBM was still selling a 23" 225dpi screen for around $10K - the yields once you scale them up get painfully low.

      It's also the reason why printers and so on have much nicer screens than they used to: the ones that don't make spec for tablets and phones are sold to consumer electronics vendors very cheaply.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    2. Re:Ultrabook isn't a "class" by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      (and, these days, consumers don't accept even a small number of stuck pixels).

      When have they? This assertion has always puzzled me. I've literally never had a display with ANY stuck pixels when I got it, and the only ones I've ever had stick on me could trivially be cleared up with a pencil.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    3. Re:Ultrabook isn't a "class" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Its' 2500x1600 these days with touch, 8 cores etc.. This is 1080p without touch. It's really a laptop sold at a laptop price, but the only thing new here is the SSD. Intel have certainly improved now in terms of battery, but they're still at a 2012 ARM tablet. The flash instead of a hard drive is a plus, and 256GB is a sort of decent hard drive there.

    4. Re:Ultrabook isn't a "class" by Hadlock · · Score: 1

      I would buy the low yield argument if one of two conditions were met; 1) the technology was developed this century, and 2) fewer than a billion (that's with a 'B' for those if you following along at home) were produced every year. 1080p ought to be the minimum standard in 2011, it's 2015, time for manufacturers to get with the program.

      --
      moox. for a new generation.
    5. Re:Ultrabook isn't a "class" by ray-auch · · Score: 2

      It is a bit surprising. I have an ASUS TransformerPad TF700, which is pretty close to the ultrabook market segment and came with a 1080p screen. I've had it for a few years and the newer model comes with an even better screen.

      And yet as soon as you get into their full-OS transformers the screen res becomes lousy - the TF100TA comes really really close to being all I need on the road (as long as I move dev to cloud based vms - but lugging around a laptop that can run vms is getting old and tiring), but biggest let down is the 1366x768 display. Since I would also like it slightly bigger, I was really looking forward to TF200TA with 11in screen - but they made it 1366x768 again. Really don't see why they think that they have to have high res for Android and lowest possible res for a tablet that can run full Windows / Office.

    6. Re:Ultrabook isn't a "class" by drinkypoo · · Score: 0

      Thank you, drinkypoo. As the elected representative of all of consumers I thank you for raising your voice in this thorny discussion.

      No problem, I'm always glad to help. If you want me to help you understand the terrible feelings of inadequacy which lead you to leave comments like the one above, I'll take a stab at that, too.

      *stab*

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    7. Re:Ultrabook isn't a "class" by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1

      When TFT monitors were new, having a couple of stuck pixels was normal and manufacturers said up-front the number that they considered normal. Typically it was under five, but for some of the cheap panels it was more. Apple had a fairly complex policy (it depended where on the screen they were and stuck-on counted as worse than stuck-off). They would refuse to accept returns for stuck pixels if you had fewer than this number (although, in the UK at least, you could return without giving a reason under consumer protection laws and then get a new one).

      By about 2005, dead pixels were mostly gone from things that made it to consumers, but 2000-2005 there was a gradually decreasing acceptance for them.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    8. Re:Ultrabook isn't a "class" by jaklode · · Score: 1

      Android UI scales better.

    9. Re:Ultrabook isn't a "class" by Solandri · · Score: 2

      It's a spec. Designed by intel's marketing group. Which is constantly in flux. Their long term goal is to push affordable yet quality laptop design, but at the same time I wouldn't all $700 "palatable" for an Ultrabook. $570-$640 is palatable for an ultrabook. $700 is just a regular laptop price.

      Intel came up with the Ultrabook marketing campaign to convince manufacturers to make more expensive laptops with better features (higher resolution, SSD storage, better battery life, thinner, lighter). It makes no sense to expect Ultrabooks to be cheaper than regular laptops.

      Intel didn't start the Ultrabook campaign because they were fed up like those of us who want better-than-low-end specs on our laptops. Intel was in very real danger of being priced out of the market. Netbooks died because the low-end of the regular laptop market dipped below the $400 mark, and in some cases even the $300 mark about 3 years ago. It's extraordinarily difficult to sell a $150 CPU for $299 laptop. Intel needed to raise the average laptop price, or cede increasing market share to cheaper CPUs by AMD and ARM. And the Ultrabook campaign was how they chose to do it.

      I've been buying notebooks for over 2 decades now, with a bias towards lightweight models (I've owned a Thinkpad 701c, Thinkpad 560E, Portege 3440CT, Sony Z122). Prices on ultraportables have steadily dropped from over $3000 (the 701C retailed for nearly $4000), to $1800 by the time I got the Sony Z1 in 2010. Ultrabooks were well over $1000 when they first debuted a few years ago. $700 is more than palatable for an ultrabook - it's fantastic. I've been helping several friends buy laptops since this past November, and aside from some brief sales which ended literally within hours, the cheapest 1080p laptop (non-refurb) has been about $600. For $100 more you get 8GB of RAM and a SSD (and a 256GB one at that, not a lame 128GB one). It'd be a fantastic price even if it weren't ultralight and thin like an ultrabook.

    10. Re:Ultrabook isn't a "class" by ezelkow1 · · Score: 2

      The thing that has pissed me off about the ultrabook push is that since the processors for them are cheaper than non-U processors manufacturers started putting them in almost all laptops, not just ultrabooks. The common consumer is not aware, they have no idea what the U designation on the processor means. For them though it can mean half the performance of a non-U spec'd proc.

      I was attempting to buy a laptop during this transition a few years ago and eventually gave up when I could find only one out there that was still in my price range that wasnt a non-U anymore. Over the period of a month or two every manufacturer transitioned all of their models to U processors, halving the performance but at the same price, same case, same ram, etc just to feed their bottom line. Now I only see non-U's in gaming and higher priced models

    11. Re:Ultrabook isn't a "class" by ray-auch · · Score: 2

      Maybe, but that doesn't explain it. 768 is the _minimum_ vertical res for Windows, and Surface Pro runs at up to 2160 x 1440.

  8. No touch screen by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Lacks a touch screen, uses that touchpad thing for a mouse.

    $700 price tag for a 1920x1080 screen is not bad, if Android tablets didn't exist it would be cheap. But really in this day and age unless you need some Windows app, that happens to work OK on a laptop, why would you get this?

    1. Re:No touch screen by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I have it and it works great, It can play Portal 1 and 2 flawlessly and manages to even run Bioshock infinite.

      This thing is an awesome computer and far more useful than an Android tablet.

  9. HD size by e**(i+pi)-1 · · Score: 1

    Looks nice, a bit like the air. Finally also with decent screen resolution. Harddrive size is a bit on the lower side. Applications get fatter. Can not wait for an air with 1T HD size. "Webstorage" as bundled with that machine is not a solution. In recent weeks, maybe due to weather, bandwidth has decreased considerably and in some coffeeshops, broken or slow internet. This requires to have things locally. Broadband infrastructure in the US is not expected to become better soon (even if the Feb 26 vote should go through at FCC).

  10. more power-efficient Core M processor? by Gravis+Zero · · Score: 1

    pff... call me when you get serious and put an ARMv8 processor in there.

    --
    Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
    1. Re: more power-efficient Core M processor? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't make me laugh with your poor, slow, energy inefficient ARM.

    2. Re:more power-efficient Core M processor? by itzly · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Intel is improving faster with power reduction than ARM is improving with performance increases.

  11. Error in editing error. by duckintheface · · Score: 1

    Actually "the" indefinite article is not required. "The" definite article is also acceptable.

    --
    "He took a duck in the face at 250 knots." -- William Gibson, Pattern Recognition
  12. I'm trying to... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...and failing to find how a notebook with those shit specs is worth $700.

    Can anyone explain it to me? The only upside appears to be an egregiously good display coupled to otherwise shit specs. ~$300(less as they often have "sales" or "promotions" I have an older model 7330 i7-4700MQ/765m ~$1k current are 860m and there should be a refresh soon) more would get you a quad core 13" Sager with a discrete gpu...

    1. Re:I'm trying to... by pepty · · Score: 2

      ...more would get you a quad core 13" Sager with a discrete gpu...

      a several pounds heavier Sager with 1/3 or less of the battery life. Different market segment.

  13. Anorexia rules..... by niftymitch · · Score: 2

    What is it with this rush to thinner and lighter?

    There is a point for many of us where thin is thin enough
    and durability and battery life and even a second disk rule.

    I would love to see less drive to vanishingly thin and fragile
    to a more middle ground of durable, capable and functional.

    The 3200x1800 display does appear inviting.
    But for any power user the keyboard often matters more.

    I happen to have an HP laptop that is nearly 18 years old.
    It has a fine keyboard as laptop keyboards go and more importantly
    the display has a lot of vertical pixels which makes it nice to read
    text and code. Ubuntu keeps it ticking... I think it came with DOS ;)

    Sadly the BIOS has a hard wired white list for WiFi bits so I cannot
    upgrade the WiFi. It is so old that a replacement battery costs
    an arm and a leg and has much less life than I like. It is not silent 0db
    it has a noisy fan, it has a spinning disk.... it weighs in at 6 or 7 lb.

    Darn I just convinced myself to check this one out when it hits the
    local stores.
             

    --
    Truth is stranger than fiction, but it is because Fiction is obliged to stick to possibilities; Truth isn't. Mark Twain.
  14. Who greelights by uassholes · · Score: 1

    these advertisements?

  15. Core M GPU by sonicmerlin · · Score: 1

    In benchmark testing of current devices, the Core M GPUIN is actually significantly slower than the iPad Air 2's GPU, at a much higher TDP. Its CPU is faster though.

  16. (sadpanda) it only has micro HDMI by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    It's a nice laptop, it'd be better if it was sub 1kg and if it had a display-port for external video as opposed to a crappy micro HDMI; Especially given display-port to HDMI conversion is simple.

    Let's be serious, in the world of 4k screens, who wants to buy an interface that won't last the lifetime of the laptop.

    Granted it may be partly Intel's doing, but it's a shame as I won't buy this laptop given the interface. It'll be a Dell XPS 13 with it's mini DisplayPort, or the Apple Macbook Air - if they don't screw the design up.