Linked by Thom Holwerda on Wed 9th May 2012 18:16 UTC
Hardware, Embedded Systems Speaking of HP, the company replied to a question if they copied Apple for their latest ultrabook, the Envy Spectre XT. "There are similarities in a way, not due to Apple but due to the way technologies developed. Apple may like to think that they own silver, but they don't. In no way did HP try to mimic Apple. In life there are a lot of similarities." It's an ultrabook, a category of laptops defined by Intel. Coincidentally, Intel also developed the internals of the MacBook Air. These products are looking relatively similar because their internals have been designed by the same damn company. Get over it.
Thread beginning with comment 517486
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Member since:

Rather than claim that thinner laptops/netbooks/etc are the result of insightful thinking, it makes much more sense to just admit they're byproducts of the technology available.

Had smaller/lighter/cheaper/faster/etc digital components been available in 80s, then many of today's innovative products would have been invented back then instead. I'll probably be accused of saying this in hindsight, but honestly now who believes Compaq's 20kg portable monstrosity of a computer from the 80s wouldn't have been redesigned for a much smaller/lighter form factor if they had access to today's technology and infrastructure. It's not like people back then couldn't conceive of such things, just look at scifi.

Please give credit to the technology and infrastructure engineers who made it all possible.

Edited 2012-05-09 20:43 UTC

Reply Score: 3

smashIt Member since:

Please give credit to the technology and infrastructure engineers who made it all possible.

people often forget that the SoC-era didn't start for the pc that long ago

back in the 90' when toshiba build the librettos there wasn't even a level 2 cache integrated into the cpu, it was soldered on/pluged into the mainboard

I've made a picture of a pentium mobile module with 166MHz:
it's 100x65mm and only holds cpu, cache, and one of 2 chipset-chips

Reply Parent Score: 2

zima Member since:

It's not like people back then couldn't conceive of such things, just look at scifi.

More than that: there were products, working examples of form factors quite a bit smaller/lighter than "Compaq's 20kg portable monstrosity of a computer from the 80s" and quite similar to present laptops - clearly we already had a good idea of how we want a portable computer to look like, that we want it smaller/lighter/thinner. (the design actually made in the 70s, nice magnesium case) & (kinda related to what's discussed - but note visible differences)

Reply Parent Score: 2

Alfman Member since:


Ah yes, I'm too young to actually know about those, but interesting links!

Maybe some day we'll have commodity computer hardware/parts in the form of "LEGOs". They'd be tiny, self contained, and stackable. They'd be interconnected using busses that run along the physical interlocks with no external wiring.

battery back module.
SoC module.
wifi module.
display module.
push-button module.
remote-control module.
usb port module.

Other modules would serve purely physical purposes:
Hand grip module,
Flip screen module.

Ideas like this are very cool, but it really takes $/connections/engineering/fabrication resources to make it actually happen. Personally I don't have the financial means to pursue it, just paying to maintain a lower-middle class lifestyle for my family is financially distressing. When someone with the necessary resources comes along and has the same idea, they'll be the one to get credit for the idea. Eventually as moores law brings costs down to the point where I can actually afford to pursue my idea with some buddies, we (and others like us) would be the ones accused of "copying" and "theft". Life is ironic.

[off topic]
Maybe I should just publish a list of people's ideas even though they're not feasible today to deliberately debunk patent trolling in the future by companies like apple and microsoft. The trouble is, this type of "idea registry" would eventually have the exact same scalability overhead and systematic failures as the current patent system. We shouldn't have to spend any effort defending ourselves from a broken patent system in the first place. [/gripe]

Edited 2012-05-09 23:56 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2