Just click on this link to find out.

Ultra-portables are located to the bottom of the page. :D enjoy!

http://www.pcworld.com/reviews/article/0,aid,117418,00.asp

ibm - 5.6
toshiba -7.1
tr -3.1(tho they have it as 4.0..?)
jvc - 3.9
hp - 7.1

you tell me if they are in the same class..? perhaps the jvc..

Since when is a 5.6lb and a 7.1lb notebook an “ultraportable”?  :evil:

Also, the weight of the Sony TR is 3.11lbs the last time I checked. Even with the enhanced battery it’s still less than 4lbs. I hate how these supposed “respected” publications can get so many facts wrong and be so out of touch with the realities of the market.

They need to also separate tablets from regular portables…even if they’re convertible…or create a separate convertible category. Even ultraportables are not so cut and dry anymore. You have the ones that are single spindle (i.e. need an external optical drive) while there are others that are dual spindle. The criteria for review is totally different when looking at different spindle’d systems.

Sheesh! The ignorance kills me.

I don’t know how they compare it to 12” notebooks…anyway.

Erik

We’ve seen these types of articles in the past.  I am not surprised.  Any consumer who really does their research will make the right choice.  Unfortunately, magazine articles are more and more becoming biased.  Someone is getting paid (financial or otherwise).

Ok. So what does everyone here consider to be an ultraportable? Please discuss.

For me, an ultraportable is defined by a couple of things.

1. No more than 4lbs. (although I’ll make exceptions if it’s less than 4.5lbs).
2. 12” LCD screen or smaller
3. 1.5” thick or smaller
4. 3-4 hours of battery life standard
5. Option to have optical disk drive or not
6. Reasonable amounts of expansion (i.e. ports)

That’s one of the weird things about the Type S…it kinda blurs the lines of the ultraportable and portable.

The only people I know who respect ZDnet and its associated publications don’t work with the actual equipment/software. My boss for example has a bad habit of reading eweek, network world and the other free trade pubs. Needless to say, I need to talk him down from stupid ideas much of the time… 

-  12” or smaller
-  Weight must be in the 3’s or lower.

I would not consider the ‘S’ series to be in the Ultraportable class.  Not even close, IMHO.

[quote author=“gr00vy0ne”]Ok. So what does everyone here consider to be an ultraportable? Please discuss.

For me, an ultraportable is defined by a couple of things.

1. No more than 4lbs. (although I’ll make exceptions if it’s less than 4.5lbs).
2. 12” LCD screen or smaller
3. 1.5” thick or smaller
4. 3-4 hours of battery life standard
5. Option to have optical disk drive or not
6. Reasonable amounts of expansion (i.e. ports)

That’s one of the weird things about the Type S…it kinda blurs the lines of the ultraportable and portable.

Way too big for me. 10”, thickness isn’t a factor…weight, yes, below 5lbs. Battery…around 4 would be nice.

To me its the size itself, not thickness that matters. A 12” screen is just too big for me to lug around everywhere….but I really want the x505.

I had an 8” before the TR, I still think the TR is a bit big.

Erik

Well, I wouldn’t say not even close…but it’s definitely not an ultraportable and nor is it a traditional all purpose notebook. It’s a new breed…and we’ll probably see a lot more in the near future.

[quote author=“tifosiv122”][quote author=“gr00vy0ne”]Ok. So what does everyone here consider to be an ultraportable? Please discuss.

For me, an ultraportable is defined by a couple of things.

1. No more than 4lbs. (although I’ll make exceptions if it’s less than 4.5lbs).
2. 12” LCD screen or smaller
3. 1.5” thick or smaller
4. 3-4 hours of battery life standard
5. Option to have optical disk drive or not
6. Reasonable amounts of expansion (i.e. ports)

Are we going to lose you Erik.  You really think the TR is kinda big?  I think the screen is just right.  I know that there is a jvc out there with a pretty small footprint and screen.  I just don’t think that is a big enough screen to use for what I need.

For any case let us know what you plan or thinking. 

That’s one of the weird things about the Type S…it kinda blurs the lines of the ultraportable and portable.

Way too big for me. 10”, thickness isn’t a factor…weight, yes, below 5lbs. Battery…around 4 would be nice.

To me its the size itself, not thickness that matters. A 12” screen is just too big for me to lug around everywhere….but I really want the x505.

I had an 8” before the TR, I still think the TR is a bit big.

Erik

Here it is Erik.  I am sure you already checked this out and have made your opinoin. 

http://techdigestuk.typepad.com/tech_digest/2003/12/jvcs_ultraporta.html

[quote author=“tifosiv122”]Way too big for me. 10”, thickness isn’t a factor…weight, yes, below 5lbs. Battery…around 4 would be nice.

To me its the size itself, not thickness that matters. A 12” screen is just too big for me to lug around everywhere….but I really want the x505.

I had an 8” before the TR, I still think the TR is a bit big.

Erik

Actually, I think 12” isn’t too big. Current designs waste a lot of space on the bezel part surrounding the screen. I imagine future designs almost having no bezel (probably branded “invisible edges” or something like that) giving you the bigger screen but in a smaller or similar sized form factor.

I do think thickness is a factor to a certain degree. I think you probably wouldn’t want anything from 1.5-2” thick as it would be bulky and less wieldy.

It’s a hybrid. For me, even the TR is pushing the weight/size boundaries.  I’m hoping for some kind of new ultraportable pen type computer, with a slot loading drive of some sort along with an even thinner LCD. But that’s wishing.

~nox

Well, if we ever get OLED screens, the designs should allow for much thinner screens as the screens won’t require the same kind of masking technology that all LCDs use now. They’ll be more vibrant and we’ll finally have pure blacks. Another couple of years until they’re mass market…but they’re coming.

Nox and Groovy, I agree with your points.  And can’t wait to see the new technology.  It would be nice to have about the same footprint of the TR thiner and a screen without the masking maybe around like a 12 ish widescreen.