The Notebook Review forums were hosted by TechTarget, who shut down them down on January 31, 2022. This static read-only archive was pulled by NBR forum users between January 20 and January 31, 2022, in an effort to make sure that the valuable technical information that had been posted on the forums is preserved. For current discussions, many NBR forum users moved over to NotebookTalk.net after the shutdown.
Problems? See this thread at archive.org.

    What do you think of this?

    Discussion in 'Hardware Components and Aftermarket Upgrades' started by JKleiss, Oct 9, 2011.

  1. JKleiss

    JKleiss Notebook Evangelist

    Reputations:
    261
    Messages:
    660
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    30
  2. funky monk

    funky monk Notebook Deity

    Reputations:
    233
    Messages:
    1,485
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    55
    Looks like a terrible idea. I can think of way too many problems.

    1. You'd lose the different bit of it
    2. It'd be uneconomical
    3. There isn't enough space for the components, let alone anything with significant power

    .....
     
  3. tilleroftheearth

    tilleroftheearth Wisdom listens quietly...

    Reputations:
    5,398
    Messages:
    12,692
    Likes Received:
    2,717
    Trophy Points:
    631
    The problem I see is that one size does not fit all.

    This idea correctly/incorrectly assumes that we need multiple devices.

    Assumes that a 15" screen size is sufficient for all.

    Assumes that we would want all that stuff with us at all times (for the most versatility) but incorrectly assumes that we would only want to use one bit or another.

    The '1TB SSD' seems forward thinking at this time, but 1TB of anything (even a music player for me) is grossly inadequate capacity-wise for many content creators (photo, video, music, etc.) and/or people that have many clients (or, many (content) clients that are concurrently active.

    As usual, a 'single' device to rule them all is still far into the future - this idea would have been 'great' in 1995 - in 2011/12 it falls far short of what I can even imagine to need in the near future (it certainly can't be fulfilled from one device - even one device that fragments into many).

    'Great' would be GB+ speed wireless internet connections (everywhere, with no data limits) with a 'dumb' 1 month/1 pound battery powered terminal of my choice (11", 15" 17" or whatever) that connects to my personal 'cloud' and runs whatever I choose on my heavyduty hardware at the other end of that connection. Throw in something like Siri on such as system/setup and we are approaching 'great' - but you would still need a phone (even miniturized to the point of a current bluetooth headset w/Siri, of course).

    What the photoshopped proposed 'great' idea is is simply taking current/last years tech and making it 'pretty' - not 'great'.

    Leave 'pretty' to Apple - I want the real 'great': a system that is flexible not by how I can simply physically configure it, but by how I can imagine to use it at any particular point in time.

    With a personal cloud (that I have complete control over), an O/S or system that does the grunt work on that cloud hardware (allowing me to make it as powerful or as economical as I want...) and a range of 'terminals' that let me target my specific needs (17" device with a colour accurate and high resolution display up to 2560x1600, for example), and the bandwidth to realize that kind of power wirelessly, everywhere and economically, then we can stop photoshopping 'perfect' ideas based on old tech and ideas.

    As usual, the specific devices are not going to bring these changes (by themselves), it's the (network) backbone that will dictate if they arrive or not.

    And people are now used to/want/demand to do everything wirelessly.

    Where is that 'great'? (We've been hearing about it for years...).