Except for the fact that its JVC, not sure i’d buy a computer with their name on it, and that it maxes out at 768MB, that is my ideal PC.
I am getting used to the TRs size, but I would like smaller. That tiny Sony without a keyboard, u70 or whatever, won’t cut it either…still needs to be a traditional form factor for me.
I agree thickness does matter, but I am assuming if its a sub-notebook it wont be that thick. I dont need it to be razor thin, is what i’m saying.
[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.
I mostly agree. However my quick list looks like this.
Useable keyboard
I’ll go with the 12” LCD but that’s pushing it.
Four pounds is pushing it.
Same with thickness & battery with the caveat that a 1.5” thick 12” LCD unit is way too big.
Built-in or internal expansion for WiFi, BT, modem, lan etc.
Firewire, USB and PCMCIA
Where it breaks down for me is the optical drive.
It it’s a full function PC with optical drive it’s an ultraportable
If it’s a full function PC only with accessories, it needs a new nomenclature, perhaps we should revisit ultralight.
[quote author=“gr00vy0ne”]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.
yes! and woven so thin as to fit into your sleeve of your smoking jacket. saw a demo from japan.
oh, and what the heck does this mean (that PC rag performance report was not helpful):
WorldBench 5
Fair: 52 (Windows XP Professional)
Back in the day, most notebooks had 12” screens…why? Because LCDs were crazy expensive, batteries sucked, and the notebooks were heavy enough as it is.
As time went on 15” screens became available to more expensive lines. Again, as time went on 15” became standard. Yet again we see 17” and beyond showing up on notebooks.
However, the fact that 15” is the standard does not make 12” sub in any way. 12” is just like we had 8 years ago and it wasn’t sub back then.
I am going to stick with my 10 or below, even though 10 is pushing it, but I refuse to accept the 12 as a benchmark for sub notebooks.
I’m surprised that you’re so stuck on the screen size thing and that 12” could not possibly be put in the subnotebook arena. I look at a subnotebook like the original SR7K (which i had). It’s dimensions were 10.2” x 8.2"x 1.18” and 2.98lbs qualifying it as a subnotebook (and smaller than the TR). If you take those dimensions on a piece of paper you will see that it’s entire possible to fit a 12” LCD on that device given today’s technology and still have room leftover. It would require a thin bezel and no latch (which Sony has pretty much done away with) but it is entirely possible.
So, my argument is that you cannot simply rule out “subnotebook/ultraportable” status simply based on screen size.
A 12” LCD based notebook of yesterday does in no way have anything to do with a 12” LCD based notebook of today. You can’t compare the two. The ebay item has over 2 inches of wasted bezel. Here’s my ebay item for my argument. It’s 10” (although some models were 11.3”) but it weighs 2.9kg or nearly 6.4lbs. Subnotebook? Probably not.
That said, I still maintain that no more than 12” LCD is one of the factors for subnotebook status. You can’t take it alone but must factor in overall dimensions of the notebook, weight, usability and functionality as well.
When you’re talking screen size, aspect ratio factors in. A 12” widescreen would push my limits width-wise.
With the exeption of an integrated optical drive, I think there’s generall agreement on the necessary feature set. It should offer broad connection options, integrated or internal.
Of the two remaining factors, dimension and weight, I think dimension is most defining. I’ll take a slight weight penalty if it’s compact.
May I suggest that the upper limit for an ultraportable is the ability to fit into a standard 8.5” x 11” file folder and not over 1.5” thick?
I think if you can fit a fully functional notebook in the size that’s smaller than a sheet of paper (US 8.5” x 11”) then it definitely needs to be considered in subnotebook status regardless of the screen size. This assumes it doesn’t weigh more than 4lbs (or no more than 3lbs for “ultralight” status). :wink:
I think if you can fit a fully functional notebook in the size that’s smaller than a sheet of paper (US 8.5” x 11”) then it definitely needs to be considered in subnotebook status regardless of the screen size. This assumes it doesn’t weigh more than 4lbs (or no more than 3lbs for “ultralight” status). :wink:
Now if we could convince the reviewers to draw those liines, we’d get some decent apples to apples (pun intended) reviews.
Yeah, ultralight has been overworked. Still, we do need something to differentiate between integrated desktop functionality and stripped for speed/weight.
The size of the screen I wouldn’t consider much of an issue. If you look at the IBM and Toshiba screens, you see the bezel around the screen is tiny. If you moved the speakers of the TR to a different position and the Vol and Zoom buttons somewhere else, you could probably fit a diagnollay 12” screen on it. To say that 12” is too large for a subnotebook is absurd in my opinion.
I’m surprised that you’re so stuck on the screen size thing and that 12” could not possibly be put in the subnotebook arena. I look at a subnotebook like the original SR7K (which i had). It’s dimensions were 10.2” x 8.2"x 1.18” and 2.98lbs qualifying it as a subnotebook (and smaller than the TR). If you take those dimensions on a piece of paper you will see that it’s entire possible to fit a 12” LCD on that device given today’s technology and still have room leftover. It would require a thin bezel and no latch (which Sony has pretty much done away with) but it is entirely possible.
So, my argument is that you cannot simply rule out “subnotebook/ultraportable” status simply based on screen size.
A 12” LCD based notebook of yesterday does in no way have anything to do with a 12” LCD based notebook of today. You can’t compare the two. The ebay item has over 2 inches of wasted bezel. Here’s my ebay item for my argument. It’s 10” (although some models were 11.3”) but it weighs 2.9kg or nearly 6.4lbs. Subnotebook? Probably not.
That said, I still maintain that no more than 12” LCD is one of the factors for subnotebook status. You can’t take it alone but must factor in overall dimensions of the notebook, weight, usability and functionality as well.
As I said before I think 10 is pushing it as well…now you know why. I agree that 12 with a thick case is different then 12 with no bezel, but I still don’t consider them sub notebook sized. The one you are talking about, SR7K, has a 12” and is smaller then the TR or just thinner?
If it is smaller then I will retract my statement and make certain 12” sub, but most, normal.
The SR7K had a 10.4” screen and was slightly smaller than the TR overall…but my point was that it could accomodate a 12” LCD in the same form factor based on today’s technologies.
I think everyone here has a different notion of what subnotebook really means. In general, subnotebooks are defined as any notebooks that are smaller than regular notebooks. Yes, it’s vague and probably purposely so. Most definitions I’ve seen say anywhere from 2 to 4+lbs.
Within the subnotebook genre you have different classifications.
Ultraportables - I see these as the fully functional notebooks…i.e. have an optical drive and the mostly used ports built into the system so you don’t have to use some sort of docking station to use it. Ultralights* - I see these as the really thin and light units that don’t have an optical drive. Handhelds - These are the smaller sized models and may include the Vulcan and OQO type systems.
There may be more but I think most things can be classified in those three categories. I didn’t include tablets as they are in their own genre altogether.
