Why is the Sony SA not considered an ultraportable?

Is it too heavy and not thin enough (although i'd say its pretty darn thin for what it can do)? Is it because it has a decent GPU and can actually play games? Or because it starts off with a HDD and not a SSD as standard?

EDIT: Could the moderators please change my title from ultraportable to ultrabook if can be done.

 

it is considered an ultraportable.

maybe you are mistaking it with the ultrabook concept

 

Oh yh, my bad, that's what I meant

 

^in order to qualify as an "ultrabook" there are quite a few requirements. Z-height is one, the SA fails. Resume from hibernate time - fails. Hibernate on battery time - fails. etc. etc. Still - you have a better PC IMO.

 

The best way to determine if a computer is an "ultrabook" (a made-up name by Intel, trying to stave off ARM-based notebooks, which will likely be coming on stream in 2012) is: does it deviate from an MBA in any way, other than brand name and OS? If it does, it's not an Ultrabook. Intel went and immediately obsoleted the category by insisting that it cost less than $1,000. That's why you get junk like the Acer A3 and even the mostly lovely Asus "Zenbook" line, which skimps on keyboard backlite and quality to keep the price down. The worst think about otherwise-tempting Ultrabooks, IMO, is that they have to be so thin that they don't have enough ports. One begins to wonder why not just get a kick- tablet with an excellent USB/Bluetooth keyboard and call it an Ultrabook, for way less than $1,000. Nice try, but of limited real utility as a category, IMO.

 

The only remotely appealing points of an Ultrabook are it runs windows, and... egh... it runs windows programs?

 

Does it really matter? Let it be called ultra, mega hyper portable..... or even not, who cares Things are getting smaller and lighter - buy what you need and can afford. What was considered "mega light" years ago is now called "desktop replacement"

 

No it doesn't matter, I just wanted to see what makes an ultrabook and why the SA is an ultraportable. I just thought it seems thin and light enough but thanks for the replies, I see now.

I also don't understand the point in them really, either get a tablet or something like an SA, unless you have money to blow
I suppose if you don't play ANY games and just need to surf and use MO/need to type alot then they are good for you, better than tablets but there's no point in paying more money for one if you can get something better for less (my parents friend bought a Macbook Air for more money than my Sony SA - why? I have no idea)

 

There is a lot going on nowadays that I do not understand too...

Starting with tablets - I love how discussion about tablets with people who do have one or would buy one goes always the same way: "Oh it is so cool and touch screen and bla bla" - "So how do you type with both hands?" - "Well... you need to hold it... OR you can buy one of these special stands and use both your hands" - "Aha... so I need to buy one separately on top of the 400 bucks? And how do I type more efficiently on a touch screen?" - "Well you can't.... BUT you can buy one of these cool external keyboards and attach it" - "Aha... so I need to invest in a keyboard on top of the 400 bucks for tablet and the extra stand? Don't you think this combination looks like something the mankind invented many years ago.... say a "LAPTOP" or "NOTEBOOK" which you can even buy much cheaper and is all in one?" - "Ahhh.... yes actually..... but look how cool it is and the touch screen..."

And the thing with ultra-mega-duper-duper-hyper-myper portables is the same - you just buy what you need and can afford - that's it To me personally anything below 13 inch is too small... and everything above 14" - too big. Call it anyhow you want

 

You are crazy?


Nah

Though the tablet form factor is useful for some things, like youtube in bed, I'd guess? Oh wait... my SA is light enough I don't care . But I still have an ASUS transformer (the KB dock makes it rather useful, lol) and an iPad 2 (call me stupid), which isn't as useful...

 

Haha, very true but I think tablets can be useful, I see alot of people using them at my uni (however I still think my SA rules! but the tablets are easier to carry around)

And my bro built his super duper computer last year which is absolutly awsome! And he uses it for work and games, etc but when he goes home from work and wants to do a little surfing while watching TV, he simply can't with his PC because they are in different rooms so he just bought a tablet instead. He didn't need to buy a laptop/ultraportable/ultrabook or whatever! because it would simply be useless, the PC rules and can do much more so the tablet is perfect for what he wants, much better and not as distracting from the TV. You could say why didn't he just get a laptop in the first place? Because at the time, he didn't want something to carry round and the screens are too small, plus he had the room for a PC (a dedicated study room) and when he wanted something other than the PC he didn't want a crappy lappy, just a good tablet and not an ultrabook.

However unless you have extreme wants/needs I think a laptop/ultraportable is perfect. Ultrabooks are kinda useless in my opinion, for a little more or in some cases the same price you can get a good laptop/ultraportable.

 

Not sure I see much logic in the above - if anything it is contradictory

"He didn't need to buy a laptop/ultraportable/ultrabook or whatever! because it would simply be useless, the PC rules and can do much more so the tablet is perfect for what he wants"

You seriously call a tablet "more useful" than a laptop or say netbook? How is surfing with one hand underneath the damn thing easier and more convenient, I'll never know And this for the price of a not so badly equipped laptop!!

"Because at the time, he didn't want something to carry round and the screens are too small,"

You mean a tablet has a bigger screen than a netbook!?? How is that !?

This is exactly my point - Tablets are cheaper than powerful PCs.... but they are also quite powerless, which makes them only useful for browsing, reading and light applications. At the same time netbooks do just the same for half the price of a tablets, where you have a keyboard, connectivity options, a "stand" to let you use both your hands and a hard casing when closed, which you also need to buy extra for a tablet!

The pretty much ONLY applications for tablets I see is as entertainment unit in airplanes - especially in the economy you lack space to open a netbook or laptop and need something for light tasks, movies, reading that is quickly switched on and off - the perfect requirements for a tablet!! But that's all. And unless you fly that often, it is not worth the money in my eyes.

But this is just me and not really the topic of this thread

 

There's no meaningful distinction between "ultrabooks" and "ultraportables" beyond the definition Intel has given the former (ULV processor + SSD + <$1000 price tag). For example, the Vaio SA is only a half-pound heavier than the HP Folio 13 Ultrabook. They're very comparable machines in practice. But the Folio meets Intel's requirements, so it's an "ultrabook," whereas the Vaio SA does not, so it's an "ultraportable."

 

Besides, the SA smashes them in performance alone, and get's around the same with battery life. The screen is only bested by one, the UX31, though that has a bit to do with the matte coating Sony chose (which does have a tendancy of reducing contrast). The SA/SB/SC (never had the SB, though, only the other two) were a lot lighter than I expected, too.

 

No, i'm saying that in his case, a laptop would be useless as he already has a PC and just needed something small and light, i'm not just stating that generally laptops are useless, its that he doesn't want a big a big screen to get in the way of watching a TV which is what the ultrabook would be doing (thus making them useless)

Again as I stated in my original point about tablets in this topic - he just wanted to surf the internet while watching TV (and didn't want a screen that would get in the way of watching a TV - he could use his PC if he wanted a bigger screen) - please actually read my post.

I was merely stating that a tablet is more useful than an ultrabook, thus meaning that there is no point to an ultrabook - either get a tablet or a laptop/ultraportable.

 

I don't see this at all. An ultrabook has a full computer OS, a keyboard, and a trackpad. It's good for content creation AND content consumption. A tablet is really only good for content consumption.

Anything you can do on a tablet, you can do on an ultrabook, but you can also type a paper on it. How on earth is the tablet more useful?

 

Because if you're going to shell out for an ultrabook, then you might as well get a ultraportable/laptop for the same price or more. I'd rather get a tablet and an ultraportable laptop that can do just about everything than a ultrabook that can't play games due to the GPU, plus the rubbish screen resolution, etc.

 

That doesn't mean that a tablet is more practical than an ultrabook, which is the assertion I asked you to defend. In terms of practicality, ultraportable > ultrabook > tablet. NOT ultraportable > tablet > ultrabook, which is what you asserted.

What? You can't get an ultraportable AND a tablet for the price of an ultrabook. Not at all. The HP Folio 13 (my favorite ultrabook so far) costs $899. The Tablet S and iPad both start at $499. What ultraportable laptop with a gaming-friendly dedicated GPU are you going to get for $400? The Vaio SA, the only ultraportable with a gaming-friendly GPU, starts at $999.

 

When did I ever say that you can get an ultraportable and a tablet for the same price of an ultrabook!?

Plus, for $100 more you can get better resolution screen and a great GPU (for the 13.3" market), hmm, I know which one I would get.

And I would say that a tablet is more practical, as Gracy123 stated, tablets are 'only useful for browsing, reading and light applications' so say people already have a PC, laptop or ultaportable, it would be more practical for them to get a small tablet if they just wanted to surf then to get a bulkier, more expensive ultrabook.

 

The SA is not an ultraportable. It's a "thin & light" in popular parlance. I'd say "ultraportable" begins at just under the weight of a 13-inch Air. At least that's my interpretation.