Poll: Which ultra portable do you prefer? Large and thin or tiny and small?

Discussion in 'Buying Tips and Advice' started by Unspeaked, Dec 4, 2007.

?

Which ultra portable form factor would you prefer?

  1. Similar to the current MacBook, but less than half as thick: .5" x 12.5" x 9" and 2.5 pounds.

    43 vote(s)
    62.3%
  2. Much smaller screen, around 8" widescreen: .75" x 8" x 6" and just under 2 pounds.

    26 vote(s)
    37.7%
  1. Unspeaked macrumors 68020

    Unspeaked

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2003
    Location:
    West Coast
    #1
    Assuming you're in the market for the long rumored Apple ultra portable, which would you prefer?


    Option 1 - A portable with a similar screen size and form factor to the current MacBook, but less than half as thick. Something in the range of .5" x 12.5" x 9" and 2.5 pounds.

    Option 2 - A portable with a much smaller screen, around 8" widescreen. Something in the range of .75" x 8" x 6" and just under 2 pounds.


    Other considerations such as optical drives, ports, processor speed, etc aren't a factor. This poll is based solely on which form factor you'd prefer.
     
  2. Squonk macrumors 65816

    Squonk

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2005
    #2
    I want the screen real estate to be most productive on the run. I'm probably not all that much in the market for an ultraportable to be honest though - a 15" MBP is most likely my next machine.
     
  3. Adokimus macrumors 6502a

    Adokimus

    Joined:
    Jun 2, 2007
    Location:
    Boston, MA
    #3
    unlikely poll options

    I think you're being a little ridiculous with the poll options. Your poll says an 8" screen. Of course no one will pick that option. It would hardly be useful for any extended use. A true ultraportable (that you can actually use) has a 12" or 11" screen, with the exception of machines like the eeePC that use a 7" screen to keep costs down. Even that 7" model has a huge bezel to make room for components and to have the necessary width for a usable keyboard. I personally believe that apple will use a 13" screen MBP to save money (they can order the screens in bulk with the regular macbook). As for a 0.5" thickness, I'll believe it when I see it. I think we'll be lucky to get 0.7" thickness, and that being without a dvd-drive. If it is 0.5", expect an extremely underclocked ultra-low voltage processor, and no graphics card.

    -Ado
     
  4. saltyzoo macrumors 65816

    saltyzoo

    Joined:
    Oct 4, 2007
    #4
    A standard keyboard even for a laptop takes more than 8". No sensible reason to make the screen smaller than what a reasonably sized keyboard would use. JMO
     
  5. Unspeaked thread starter macrumors 68020

    Unspeaked

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2003
    Location:
    West Coast
    #5
    Keep in mind I said around 8".

    I tried not to go in detail about specs, just generalized on the size of the thing because that's the root of the question - do you want something large and thin or something really small with a screen no smaller than 8"s and no larger than 11".

    It was just the general idea of which form factor someone prefers without getting into debates over whether the screen should be 8" or 10" or it should be .5" thick or .75", etc.
     
  6. Adokimus macrumors 6502a

    Adokimus

    Joined:
    Jun 2, 2007
    Location:
    Boston, MA
    #6
    Ok, fair enough. In that case your poll option is around ridiculous.
     
  7. Mr Skills macrumors 6502a

    Mr Skills

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2005
    #7
    The Macbook I am typing this on has a keyboard that is almost exactly the width of the screen. So if they were able to remove most of the bezel it could actually feel a lot smaller, and I think this (13") would be the most likely form-factor if the ultra-portable has a normal keyboard.

    If, on the other hand, they go multi-touch, and make use of those patents that allow you to thumb-type in the corners, it could be smaller...
     
  8. Unspeaked thread starter macrumors 68020

    Unspeaked

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2003
    Location:
    West Coast
    #8
    I didn't realize 7 out of 19 people is considered "no one."


    Would you rather I had 7 options, each an inch apart in screen size?

    I think you're reading way too much into a simple poll...

    :rolleyes:
     
  9. jnc macrumors 68020

    jnc

    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2007
    Location:
    Nunya, Business TX
    #9
    Wouldn't really want anything smaller than 13" so Option 1 I guess.

    Bear in mind a 13" system could be far more compact than a MacBook just by reducing the bezel, the keys would reach the edge like they did with the 12" PowerBook. Don't really care for it being thinner, as long as it's lighter.
     
  10. Adokimus macrumors 6502a

    Adokimus

    Joined:
    Jun 2, 2007
    Location:
    Boston, MA
    #10
    When I made my comment it was 1 out of 11. I voted for the 8 incher just to go against the grain, but it seems that I started the revolution.

    8 inches = still ridiculous
     
  11. shecky Guest

    shecky

    Joined:
    May 24, 2003
    Location:
    Obviously you're not a golfer.
    #11
    according to my girlfriend, its "just right."


    i do think that an 8-10" screen hovers near the "not easy to use" category for anything other than minor tasks. i think a 12-13" screen but really thin enclosure would be pretty interesting.
     
  12. CalBoy macrumors 604

    CalBoy

    Joined:
    May 21, 2007
    #12
    I found the poll options a bit strange, no offense. :eek:

    Honestly, there isn't much of a difference between half an inch and three-quarters of an inch if we're talking about a notebook. Either way you'd need some kind of bag/case to carry it around, and that .25" probably won't mean much.

    I honestly don't mind the size of the macbook too much, it's the glossy screen and weight that bug me. For its size, the macbook is about a pound too heavy. If it was made out of aluminum, I'm sure it could lose a good pound (maybe even more). With some other reductions (maybe no optical drive and a tad smaller battery) the macbook's basic design might be able to bring itself down to ~3.5lbs-and that would be quite portable if you ask me.
     
  13. Unspeaked thread starter macrumors 68020

    Unspeaked

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2003
    Location:
    West Coast
    #13
    None taken!

    Again, the gist of the poll question is "Do you want something about the MacBook's size but a lot thinner and lighter or would you rather go way beyond that and have something a little smaller than the old 12" PowerBook that weighs next to nothing...?"
     
  14. CalBoy macrumors 604

    CalBoy

    Joined:
    May 21, 2007
    #14
    Hmmm....I think that I'd take either, since non exists right now!:p Seriously though, I'd much rather go with the thinner/lighter version of a current macbook (again, with a matte option-PLEASE). I think that ultimately this would be a better notebook since typing can become arduous on smaller notebooks.
     
  15. Unspeaked thread starter macrumors 68020

    Unspeaked

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2003
    Location:
    West Coast
    #15
    Just as a visual aid, I'm thinking Option 2 is something close to this:

    LINK

    Only maybe a little bit larger (8" to 10" screen) and with the usual Apple touches in terms of specs - faster processor, much larger flash drive - and design (and, sadly, price!).

    [​IMG]
     
  16. CalBoy macrumors 604

    CalBoy

    Joined:
    May 21, 2007
    #16
    It doesn't look bad (I'm visually adding the "Apple" design in my head :p). Like I said, I'd be happy with either since Apple really doesn't offer anything at the moment.

    I can wait some more I suppose...:rolleyes:
     
  17. Philberttheduck macrumors 6502a

    Philberttheduck

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2006
    Location:
    HB, CA
    #17
    I'd prefer option two. I'm a fan of ultraportable so I can carry it just about anywhere if I have to work in compact spacing. That and it being that light will almost make me want to carry it anywhere I want. The Eee PC is pretty slick.

    Of course, a 13" thinner model would be pretty sick.
     
  18. MezicanGangxtah macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Jul 21, 2007
    Location:
    Denver,CO
    #18
    I would rather go with 13'' and only if it includes optical drive and no weak-ass processor. As for the "around 8 incher" idea that is a big no-no for me it just wouldnt seem to fit into the current apple line up.
     
  19. jnc macrumors 68020

    jnc

    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2007
    Location:
    Nunya, Business TX
  20. jelloyacket macrumors member

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2007
    Location:
    Pittsburgh, PA
    #20
    Thickness is not as big of a deal for me as weight. If it was an inch thick and weighed a half-pound less than a half-inch thick one, sign me up.

    Also, I don't see how there would be much increase in portability as you got smaller than a sheet of paper (this would equate to a laptop with a 12" widescreen), until you reached the point where it is pocketable. In the middle area there, all you'd gain on downsizing is somewhere around a 8-9" screen you'd be able to comfortably hold it in one hand and work a multi-touch interface with the other hand. It would still not be pocketable. My iPt is about as big as I'd want a pocketable device, though there is room for a slightly larger screen on it.
     
  21. zioxide macrumors 603

    zioxide

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2006
  22. portent macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2004
    #22
    If they just released a 12" PowerBook with an Intel CPU, most people would be quite happy. At least it would give us an upgrade path.

    If they made it a little thinner and lighter at the same time, it'd be a hit.

    If they could give it a PowerBook Duo Dock-type arrangement, they could go ahead and drop every other model. :)

    The 8-inch screen option sounds more like an upgraded iPhone/iPod than a computer.
     
  23. Unspeaked thread starter macrumors 68020

    Unspeaked

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2003
    Location:
    West Coast
    #23
    I think we've reached a point where Apple won't release anything that isn't widescreen any longer, so the form factor would have to change a little from the 12" PowerBook...
     
  24. Unspeaked thread starter macrumors 68020

    Unspeaked

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2003
    Location:
    West Coast
    #24
    If today's rumor is any indication, it looks like we're getting something in between these two options, but closer to Option 1...
     
  25. Unspeaked thread starter macrumors 68020

    Unspeaked

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2003
    Location:
    West Coast
    #25
    Can I just say I called the thickness thing way back when, despite the opposing opinions of several of the posters in the thread?

    :p


    EDIT: In fact, now that I look at the specs on Apple's site, I got it really spot on...

    My guess: .5" x 9" x 12.5" and 2.5 pounds

    MacBook Air: .016-.76" x 8.94" x 12.8" and 3.0 pounds
     

Share This Page