Intel has started its media war on the tablet, pointing out that the keyboardless netbook has not got the brain power to tie its own shoelaces, if it had shoes that is.
In a report with the catchy title "Ultra Excited for Ultrabook" Intel has been setting out its stall as to why tablets were never the game changer that Apple claimed and why the world really needs a keyboard.
Penned by Intel's technical marketing engineer Shirley Chen, the report said that tablets have introduced some great features that support some of these use cases with longer battery life and touch capabilities in order to provide a more "enriched experience".
But the screens are too small, local storage is minuscule and restrictive, and tablets lack performance compared to that of a traditional PC.
Laptops, however, are too big for many and place power and performance above user experience, which both hardware and software play a part in.
Intel thinks that Ultrabook systems marry thin and light with the best in performance, responsiveness, security and battery life and filling the gap between desktops or laptops and the tablet.
Intel claims that its Ultrabook is reinventing the computer again, even if Apple claims that it reinvented it first with its MacBook Air.
He said that the world will see Ultrabooks systems appearing in three phases. The first phase is already here and you might have missed it. This is when Chipzilla introduced its Ultra—Low Voltage Second Generation Intel Core processors
Phase two involves the use of Ivy Bridge processors which will appear in the first half of 2012. The final lot will use Haswell chips, which will be even more power conscious than the others, Chen said.
While there is little in the report that we did not already know, it does indicate that Intel is starting to push its Ultrabook plans and it is quiet happy to step on tablets to do it. If Intel gets its way, then Ultrabooks will be to tablets what tablets were to netbooks. However, we suspect that the Ultrabooks will be a lot more useful than tablets ever were.
I use the "Ultrabook" when I need a "real computer", and the "Tablet" for more casual uses such as web browsing, email, light gaming, etc etc, though I've used the "Tablet" for a Webex meeting too (which exceeded my expectations), so it's also useful for light business use, though it is definitely a device more for consumption than creation.
Yes, I could've used the "Ultrabook" for everything, but it's just not as convenient sometimes as my "Tablet". By the same token, I could've used my desktop PC instead of the "Ultrabook" for everything, but don't because it isn't always as convenient either!
The point is different tools for different jobs, something that Intel seems to have missed in its bid to big up "Ultrabooks" and put down "Tablets".
Does int-el sell chips suitable for "ultrabooks"? Somewhat.
Ergo, int-el will push "ultrabooks" and denigate tablets.
User "needs" are what int-el defines them to be, silly human! To think that you have free choice in the matter!
See: An Ultrabook's screen must be everthing a tablet wet dreams. Maybe a 3-piece.
The idea is, I could never afford these things if I had to buy them separately, once in a lifetime, but with an Ultrabook banged in, I'm liked to punt and hack with the likes of these Tabloidesians, a feat of no small pretensions, and definitly not running in a backpack only when rough sleeping..
Does AMD sell chips suitable for "ultrabooks"? No.
Ergo, AMD will push their crap and denigrate everyone.
User "needs" are exactly what drive Intel and its partners to innovate, and AMD to copy it.
Does AMD sell chips suitable for "ultrabooks"? No.
Ergo, AMD will push their crap and denigrate everyone.
User "needs" are exactly what drive Intel and its partners to innovate, and AMD to copy it.
Intel paid Dell billions of dollars for exclusivity when Dell was considered the big kahuna. Of course, Intel revoked billions in bribes when Dell started using a few non-Intel chips.
So... Is Intel punishing Apple for some reason? ARM? AMD?
Steve said that Intel's graphics "suck" in his biography. Maybe Steve pissed off Otellini by putting an ARM/Nvidia or AMD fusion chip in the Air?
Fusion can handle 3-monitors. Sandy Bridge can't. If I were Apple or Steve, I'd have gone AMD long ago. Nobody needs a steaming hot x86 Intel chip anymore.