iPad, Surface, Ultrabook: Are we there yet?

Re:iPad, Surface, Ultrabook: Are we there yet? by randomfool on Saturday January 05, 2013 @11:31AM (#5013057)

Also no mention of Chromebooks, which contrast the $1200 ultrabooks he mentions.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:iPad, Surface, Ultrabook: Are we there yet? by shanselman on Saturday January 05, 2013 @01:58PM (#5013592)

I have a CR-48 that my mother in law uses for Email. It's a browser, and a slow one. I will mention it but my premise is that touch is essential.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:iPad, Surface, Ultrabook: Are we there yet? by josteink on Sunday January 06, 2013 @07:00AM (#5016097)

I will mention it but my premise is that touch is essential.

Not to come off the wrong way, but in this case I think you are the only one holding on to this definition.

For Chromebooks and Ultrabooks, the promise was to have a light, portable device with good battery time, mainly inteded to provide internet-access. With Ultrabooks, decent requirements for CPU, RAM and storage gets added.

Both has a requirement for being "reasonably cheap" given what is offered (for instance sub $1000 for an Ultrabook)

Intel, the ones "launching" the Ultrabook, has never once mentioned touch when they tried to sell the concept to PC-vendors.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:iPad, Surface, Ultrabook: Are we there yet? by RexRollman on Sunday January 06, 2013 @12:30AM (#5015432)

No, it is not, unless dirty, finger print covered screens is your thing.

[ Parent | on HN ]