Honestly (and I say this as a card-carrying Apple hater) the Macbook Air is an Ultrabook. The term "ultrabook" is Intel's attempt to push PC vendors in that direction via branding. But the form factor was fundamentally Apple's innovation, and they got there three years early.

But yes: some of the recent ultrabooks looks really nice too, and the upcoming ones look even better. I'll probably buy one once someone gets a 1920x1080 display on a ~13.3" screen (I know there's a Vaio Z that does this, but it's a little old and not thin enough to qualify).

Slightly off topic, but does it annoy anybody else that when TVs "upgraded" to 1920x1080 as de facto standard, computer screens were downgraded from 1920x1200 as a consequence? Why do computers need to be 16:9 all of a sudden??

Laptops are still used as a media device for many, so mimicking the resolution of televisions makes sense in those cases. Personally, I prefer a 16:10 screen because I spend more time programming than watching videos on my laptop, but I'm sure there are plenty that beg to differ.

You can still buy laptops with 16:10 aspect ratio, but I think the people that explicitly prefer it are the minority at this point. I'd say most people don't really care.

> Laptops are still used as a media device for many, so mimicking the resolution of televisions make sense in those cases.

Actually, laptops as media devices is an argument against having the same resolution as televisions.

When one watches a television, one generally operates the television and media source via a remote control, which has dedicated buttons for most functions.

When using a laptop for a media device, one generally does not have a remote control. The controls are usually done as on-screen controls that you manipulate with the pointer.

Hence, for a laptop used as a media device, 16:10 makes more sense than 16:9, because it provides room for the controls outside the video.

Aren't the on screen controls almost always hidden? The only time I could see them actually getting in the way would be while adjusting the volume, but I'm fairly certain most (if not almost all) laptops come with hardware volume buttons nowadays anyways.

Because it allows laptop manufacturers to claim that they have a FOO inch screen while not having to pay for as much screen surface area.

I've heard the excuse that they have to buy LCDs from companies whose primary customers are TV manufacturers. The end result is the same of course, but the laptop manufacturers would have to cut their LCDs in shapes that would result in waste to produce machines with reasonable aspect ratios. (Of course what this means practically is that I'm just not going to buy a new computer, so whatever.)

Everybody says this, but it doesn't make any sense. They don't sell 1080p TVs at small screen sizes. A 15" or 17" 1080p panel is not getting sold to a TV manufacturer.

This. And nothing else.

Why oh why do we measure screen size diagonally and not area or something that actually makes sense.

I truthfully think that the fault for this lies entirely with the consumer. People got used to/ were told that widescreen 16:9 setups were like being in the movie theater, and therefore better. I don't much like this, however I don't speak for the largest demographic of people that actually buy monitors.

I do know that I much prefer gaming and coding on a square display.

> Why do computers need to be 16:9 all of a sudden??

Because most consumers are just users and they don't want to see black bars when they watch a movie.

I think that you mean that most users are just consumers.

I suppose the issue is slightly deeper than "users want to see their movies without letterboxing"

Sure, you could simply slap any resolution in a PC monitor.

But if you keep the aspect rate constant across devices, you can easily change displays. Why? Example: 2nd monitor, and especially the big screen TVs that are being used in place of projectors nowadays.

Funny that the 13' MacBooks (Pro/Air) still have a 1.6 (16:10) ratio, and the 11' has a 16:9 ratio

It cost less for production. I eventually just accepted it.

Yep, I'm right there with you. Luckily Dell's still got 1920x1200 in their UltrSharp line.

It's really only the 2010 Airs onward that are "ultrabooks", and intel had prototypes circulating at tradeshows that were approximately that form factor in the summer, before Apple announced/released that line.[1]

So, it wasn't really Apple's innovation, it was just yet another case of them doing it better and faster.

[1]http://www.engadget.com/2010/06/01/intel-canoe-lake-prototyp...

But that's mostly a semantic game. The early Air obviously doesn't qualify for Intel's branding, being based on a different technology base. But that's just a feature list. Intel can't be credited with inventing the "Ultrabook" on the basis of requiring some maximum thickness, battery life, or CPU brand. Certainly the idea of an ultrathin laptop came from Apple; Intel grabbed it later as a good way to sell CPUs.

Are you really claiming Apple invented the idea of putting the same amount of technology in a smaller package as the underlying tech moves on?

I think you may have to hand in your 'Apple-hater' card.

Of course not. Apple shipped the first ultrathin laptop. And that kind of product turned out a few years later to be really attractive to Intel, who put their own branding and initiative on what was essentially the same idea.

I'm not crediting Apple with anything breathtaking, I'm doing the opposite: pointing out that the "Ultrabook" is really just a clone of the Macbook Air.

It appears that hating something must mean that you produce arguments against it, however irrational. I'm with you, ajross.

"Apple shipped the first ultrathin laptop."

Take a look at the Sony Vaio 505 models released before the air.

I had a fanless 12'' notebook that weighs less than 2 pounds long before the Air: a Dell Latitude X1 (which is really some Samsung notebook whose name I can't remember).

The extensive reviews for the new "ultrabooks" would seem to disagree, at least if you want something that's equally enjoyable to use:

  http://arstechnica.com/gadgets/reviews/2011/12/hitting-all-the-right-marks-acer-aspire-s3-ultrabook-review.ars

That's just one of many, short version:

  * ultrabooks often seem cartoonish and feel cheap
  * not much cheaper than Apple's offerings
  * included software not equivalent
  * battery life not as great

Of course you could argue that some of these things are because Apple is in the unique position of creating the hardware and software, but so what? That's part of the point...

Um... I'm never one to shy away from a good platform flame, but your linked article doesn't say anything like the bullet list you provide. It's not even close; it's actually a very positive review on the whole. What you just posted amounts to pure distortion; you're basically lying your face off. Stop it.

From the article:

* "Body is cartoonish and feels cheap: * "$300 less than the comparable model at $1,299" (from me: compared to the "Apple Tax" on the MacBook Pro, 25% seems almost reasonable) * Bad: "Pre-installed software is abundant, in-your-face"

The article mentions battery life is 6 hours (comparable Air rated at 7 hours), which could be read as "similar" or "not as great".

And the description of the S3 touchpad is more "finally, it's bearable" than "enjoyable to use."

Gonna have to agree with the grandparent on this one. Though it IS a positive review on the whole, that's partly because previous-generation windows thin & lights have been pretty bad. (Recall that the previous-generation Air had its problems as well...)

You're right, I should probably retract the "lying your face off" bit. The points are ... supportable.

Still, cherry picking virtually all the bad points out of what is clearly a very positive review[1] to support a decidedly negative "short version" for an online argument is just terribly dishonest. Please. You two should be ashamed of ourselves. Either make points of your own or stay silent, don't claim that Ars Technica said something they quite clearly didn't.

[1] It amuses me greatly that you try to spin even that. Oh, they're only saying positive things because you know (somehow, from facts not apparent in the article) that they really mean them in a negative context by comparison with a piece of hardware they aren't reviewing. You should consider going into politics.

I wasn't trying to get into a Mac vs. PC argument here. I was strictly pointing out that saying Apple was the only one making thin and light laptops is just plain wrong. That being said, your oversimplified "short version" of the reviews of all ultrabooks reeks of Apple bias, and my own experience with the Asus Zenbook contradicts all of your bullet points (except the included software not equivalent...I'm not sure what the Air comes with).

> Of course you could argue that some of these things are because Apple is in the unique position of creating the hardware and software, but so what? That's part of the point...

Linus uses Linux on his macbook air so that doesn't really matter.

Did he say that? I don't remember reading that, and he didn't mention it in the article. Maybe he's just using the Mac to access his Linux machine remotely? :)

The zenbook is a nice machine, but the term ultrabook has become so diluted as to be near meaningless now. There's 15" laptops with optical drives being marketed as ultrabooks.