Comments on: Intel CEO keen on 'ultra-thins' as alternative to Netbooks

Intel CEO Paul Otellini says ultra-thin laptops will give users what they're missing in Netbooks.

[dgutf]

Not sure how they are going to market a $699 ultra-thin as a competitor for a $300 netbook, but good luck nonetheless.

[freemarket--2008]

It's called telling people what they want--instead of asking them--and listening.

[codynews]

Some people want "laptop" performance in "Netbook" sizes. That's the market Intel is talking about. I love my netbook but yeah, it's pretty dang slow.

I wouldn't mind paying more for a good amount of performance in that same (or slightly larger) formfactor. It would make it fully usable as a primary machine

[magicmaster]

That's a big misconception the Intel CEO holds. Netbooks are designed to be cheap, small, and runs a variety of low-end applications, not as an extreme gamer machine. If one wants to play games, go buy notebooks.

[badger718]

Intel apparently wants to push these ultrathins because they produce a higher margin for Intel. Thus the badmouthing of netbooks as being "slow" and under-powered, etc. I own a netbook (a System76 Starling) and have found that it performs very satisfactorily. It is snappy when I run multiple applications at the same time. I have edited photos on it, have burned CDs on it, I've browsed the Web, used it for word processing, played music and taken pictures with the Web cam. The netbook performed these tasks flawlessly. The only application that runs somewhat sluggishly is Google Earth, which is quite a demanding program. And my netbook has only 1 GB RAM. Netbooks may not produce the margins that Intel would like, but they are very much up to the tasks that most consumers are interested in and it's hard to beat the price!

[badger718]

Forgot to mention that I also watched movies (using a USB-connected external DVD drive) on my Starling netbook and the movies played just fine.

[assman]

That analyst doesn't know what he's talking about if he says Windows 7 runs well on a netbook. Win 7 requires graphics acceleration in order to get the full functionality of many the new features and UI improvements. MSFT is also going to sell a stripped-down version of Seven for netbooks so it won't be the same experience as with a more traditional laptop.

Regardless, the Intel team is playing a losing game if they're trying to get people to pay twice as much for a machine that is larger but more powerful. Some people just want very small cheap laptops that they can bring anywhere.. for that you can't beat a netbook. Sure it would be difficult to do real serious work on it, but for casual use I'm it's great. (haven't used one myself.. I'm on a 17-in. laptop at the moment heh)

[empirestatebuddy]

I agree. The whole allure of the netbook is that they're small, light & cheap... but bigger than a smartphone.

[williamfs]

Ultrathin is obviously the way to go.
This was always the reason why I ruled out netbooks and got myself a MacBook Air.

The MBA (and some other ultrathins) weights the same as a netbook but has an infinitely better format. I don't think there is any advantage in netbook's being narrower because I wouldnt carry them in my pocket anyway but would carry them in the same shoulder bag or backpack where that can fit the MBA. Actually even in the bag the thin and wide format is better than the awkward narrow and chuncky one of the netbooks.

My MBA has a 13inch screen that is nice and wide as so is the full size keyboard. I can actually do work for extended periods confortably on the MBA. I doubt that would be the case in a netbook.

If I had a netbook I would end up avoiding it for word processing, or any other productive activity and would end up using it only for web browsing and emailing -- and that is something that any good smartphone will do fine these days.

[3tire]

Why are you guys arguing the merits of your choice as if its the ONLY right choice? Seems typical of adolescent males to assume the superiority of their decision and rationalize the heck out of it by belittling any other choice.
If a netbook works for you great. If a notebook fits you better great. It doesn't mean everyone who chooses otherwise made a bad decision. If Civic works for you, does that mean everyone who bought a Tacoma pickup is an idiot? Maybe they need to haul dirt?

[madeinttown]

^ you win

[mathcreative]

are yu sure that not speaking of the rationalizations that got them to buy the product.

[TexasTechie0504]

Ultrathin is not the way to go. Intel wants consumers to buy them because it produces a higher profit margin as compared to the netbook, which means you're actually getting less with an ultrathin than with a netbook.
Furthermore, Ultrathins can be further overpriced all in the name of "style" which is stupid(*cough* mac book air *cough*), because a pretty case does nothing to help computer performance. Also, many Ultrathins are the same diagonal size as mainstream and budget laptops, so they cover the same foot print. The only difference is thickness which isn't that great, so if you're carrying a bag that can hold an Ultrathin, than most likely it can hold a mainstream/budget with an extra inch and pound which can get you the same power or more for less money.
Netbooks on the other hand have a smaller foot print so it can actually fit in smaller bags.

[EvilUrgency]

Otellini said "When people try to do 3D games on these things (Netbooks) or try to run their office applications on them, they tend to think it's a bit slow and that isn't just the processor, it's the entire architecture,"

The 3D games part is just hilarious because Intel can't make a decent integrated graphics chipset to save it's life. On top of that intel has shunned the Mac Book Air's Nvidia graphics as well as the new Nvidia Ion platform despite thier own dismal graphics.

I would preffer Intel would stick to what thier good at making CPUs not telling the world how to use them.

[TCVG29C]

Intel is going through an identity crisis. Now they have to denounce their
own products to prevent cannibilization. If Intel can't make their Atom and
chipset perform the way customers want, others will do it. They should stick
to what they do best with higher-performance, high-power x86 solutions and
let others that know what they are doing and won't limit the use of their devices
to certain product categories and screen sizes address markets they can't.
I am also sick of hearing these stories about Intel playing games with their customers
and charging more if they use another chipset device with their CPU. Why do
all these companies in Taiwan want to do business with them! In the end, I think Intel
will pull out of a market again - the hype around Atom is not warranted; just
future promises that comes with all kinds of games that hurt their own customers.
I don't know who would commit to an Intel smartphone solution also (if it ever does become viable in the first place), why would a copmany
subject themselves to their ways, investing in all the required software, when in the end
they will leave manufacturers holding the bag. It just doesn't sound like a smart idea
to invest in a monopoly that has not proven itself successful yet in these other markets.

[NWLB]

I play The Lord of the Rings Online using my Acer Aspire One. Low end graphics, but the game works. I didn't buy a $699 before because it cost too much. I bought one Netbook for myself and a second for my wife, and we are both happy. Netbooks are an owners culture as much as a market segment.

[PC72]

this seems to be missing the point. until ultra-thins are 2 lbs and $250, they won't be netbook killers. i say this as i work all day because of 8 hour battery life on my samsung nc10, ploughing away on microsoft XP/office 2003. works just fine, thanks.

[Bill_I]

I feel like an ancient fossil running W2K on an old HP6730, P1 / 633 with a Sony E200 Trinitron monitor. However, its very stable and does everything I need. --- Its fun to watch the convergence of cell-phone gadget-laden gizmos with the over-priced and overheating notebooks to arrive at a netbook solution that is all most of us will need for simple tasks. --- We are approaching the time when a netbook will be about the same as a $10 telephone, plug in two wires and call anywhere in the world.

[badger718]

These statements by Intel and others that you can't do "productive work" or use office applications on a netbook are ridiculous. Office applications run very well on my netbook and I have done plenty of "productive work" on it. In my experience, the main challenge the netbook presents is getting used to the smaller keyboard--but you do get used to it. As several have said on this blog, netbooks are attractive because they're small and light and cheap. Ultrathins that are several hundred dollars more expensive may meet the needs of some, but for many, they certainly don't replace the advantages of the netbook.

[Forked_Tongue]

Agreed, 3d gaming isn't going to be considered productive work by most people. In fact it's sometimes nice to connect my netbook to my hidef TV and use the wireless trackball keyboard and get work done in this fashion. What Intel doesn't want the masses to know is that 90% of them would be highly satisfied with the Nvidia Ion Atom dual-core platform with 4GB of ram, sure it doesn't leave jack for profits for Intel and Amd doesn't really want to shout about their marginal offers would be enough for most people as well. In fact we can scare the hell out of Intel, the Nvidia platform I mentioned you can add a quick ssd drive to it and for the same net price people would prefer that platform than the equivalent price platform Intel is trying to push and it'll be more responsive for the general everyday user. That zotac Nvidia Ion motherboard is always sold out on newegg, I would love to see the Vista or Win7 "Windows Experience Index" of that system vs the Intel offering of the same price vs what Intel only solution is, we know the Intel solution will be weak in the gpu arena.

[Freeradical79]

I still don't get netbooks.

I do get ultrathin 13" notebooks with dual core processors running at 2GHz and 2-4GB Ram, a 160GB+ HD and an up-to-date and fully functional operating system.

I'm pretty sure Intel are scratching their heads wondering why people want to blow $400 on pieces of computing junk that a smartphone outperforms. Is an extra $200 for something you're going to be stuck with for a couple of years really that much of an issue?