Touch ultrabooks, is there any point?

According to the chief ideologist of the new generation of PC-laptops, Intel company: "Together with the release of Windows 8, about 40 models of touch ultrabooks will be released."

This means that at the end of this year, we will see a bunch of hybrid devices, either tablets or laptops. But let's think about whether they are needed, these sensory ultrabooks? In general, is it possible to combine such different devices in one?

1. Position of Intel and Microsoft

Let's start with Microsoft, with the announcement of Windows 8, the company's top managers have made it clear that Microsoft is moving towards the unification of all its operating systems. That is, the company from Redmond is trying to implement in one operating system all the good that is in tablets, laptops, and even smartphones.

Just like 10 years ago with the release of Windows Mobile, Microsoft is going to transfer a single interface to different types of devices. The only difference is that if Windows Mobile copied the interface of the desktop version, then Windows XP, today, Windows 8 copies the interface first introduced in Windows Phone 7. How quickly did the development vector change, did it? )

The situation is very ambiguous, Microsoft is well aware that they snapped the tablet segment and want, albeit belatedly, to enter this market. To do this, Metro UI was created - a new shell designed for convenient “finger control”. The new interface is not bad, and it runs fast on tablets. But bad luck, Windows 8 for tablets and for desktop systems will not differ visually. That is, Metro UI - the basis of the new OS, developed for the sensor, will be transferred to ordinary, stationary, non-touch PCs.

The step is very bold, because the last time, such a transfer of “muscular Windows” to “touch-stylus Windows” turned out to be a failure for Microsoft and the iPhone’s output once again proved this failure. Although the company says that Windows 8 is a new generation of OS, a rewritten version, etc. But, in the “eight” there is still an old desktop, an old system of folders and drives, and what can we say about those thousands of “mouse programs”. Metro UI - although it has its own, optimized applications, and a new management ideology, it is still the “cupcake” of the eight, and not a holiday cake.

Windows 8 is an intermediate link that should show whether the idea of ​​communism deserves a single interface on all devices with the right to life. If yes, then in Windows 9 there will be no explorer and daddies at all. And if not, then Microsoft screwed up again.

Personally, I used Windows 8 for about 2 weeks, and you know, all these weeks I was overcome by the thought of a very not rationally spent time. To control the Metro UI, you have to make a lot of unnecessary clicks from the mouse, and as a result, spend time managing the system, and not working. The same actions in the "seven" are faster. As a result, I refused Metro UI and used the “old interface”, thank God, it was left almost untouched.

Let's continue with Intel, like Microsoft, the processor giant has cracked the output of tablets, more precisely, the output of a smartphone, and, more precisely, the output of energy-efficient devices. From the very beginning of "computer engineering", the glands worked from the outlet. Accordingly, manufacturers of "stones" did not try to save on electricity, there was a performance race.

But with the advent of laptops, the first ones who wanted independence from wires, at least for a couple of hours, were users. Intel certainly listened to this niche of humanoid buyers, but there were no particularly noticeable leaps in the life span of laptops.

The development of mankind does not stand still and the first PDAs, then smartphones, began to appear on the market. They were quite tiny compared to the same laptops, and basically had completely different processors, which, due to a different architecture, were not compatible with desktop versions of the OS.

The share of such devices was insignificantly small, and such “products” did not shine with productivity, and again iPhone became a turning point. Let not the first generation, iPhone 3Gs showed that the smartphone can easily handle complex three-dimensional graphics, while working for more than a day. Manufacturers of Android devices picked up the whole thing, and off we go.

As a result, today Intel cannot provide an adequate response to energy-efficient ARM development processors, and in the long run it may be left with nothing.“Eight”, after all, hardware from smartphones and tablets supports, albeit with reservations.

Therefore, this whole epic with the “new” ultrabooks is just a rubber product, the task of which is to take time and prevent PC manufacturers from trying to work with ARM architecture in their products. Although, of course, the power of the "mobile" hardware is weaker than that of Intel, but you can create some hybrid solutions.

2. Apple's

position The position of the Apple Company is as simple as possible and is characterized by the following quote: “Touch noubook or ultrabook is the same as combining a toaster with a refrigerator, it’s an interesting thing, but hardly anyone will buy it.

But if it’s more serious, then we recall the year 2010. Everyone was waiting for a tablet from Apple, of course with MacOS at the core. (by the way, they were waiting for this)Units could assume that the word "computer" can be called a device with a telephone processor and operating system (then just renamed iPhoneOS to iOS). Steve Jobs showed the whole world the Apple development vector, a vector that clearly divides devices into two types: sensory and non-sensory.

The division also follows the functional component. In the ideology of Apple, iPhone and iPad are devices from which content is consumed. They are designed to be as simple, lightweight and long lasting as possible. And products with the word Mac at the heart are devices on which this content is created.

There are many more people who consume than people who create. Because of what, tablets and smartphones are becoming so popular. All the functionality of the operating system, which Microsoft is proud of, and the performance that Intel is proud of simply disappear, in front of the same Angry Birds toy. An ordinary user does not need a professional operating system and powerful hardware for everyday tasks, he needs a bunch of animation in the “menu” and more than 10 hours of battery life.

In my opinion, Apple's approach is more correct than that of Microsoft. But you must not forget about Google with its Android. The position of which is even simpler - I’ll stick something else into any hole where I’m not. To be continued…

Also popular now: