You first pointed to the Intel spec by which the first MBA has and when I pointed out that this could essentially mean that the MBA is the first Ultrabook, you then expand it to ultrabook, the concept,
Wait. When did I expand it to ultrabook, "the concept"? I've always referred to Ultrabook which means I've always referred to the spec.
To understand where the Ultrabook is now is to understand where it came from. So take this into perspective:
Three years after the first MacBook Air, Intel sets out the first Ultrabook spec using the features of the relevant MacBook Airs out in the market in 2011. Its first spec wasn't as strict or as specifically defined as the latest one today, so it could have qualified a great number of notebooks including those that probably weren't marketed as one. Obviously, since MacBook Airs were the basis for the first spec, they qualified as long as they fit the specifics.
Along came Ivy Bridge a year later, and this time Intel wanted to whip the market to shape. The previous period was marred by various experiments with the Ultrabook concept. They added criteria for secondary storages, battery life, connectivity and an upgrade to packaged Intel-only technologies (before the whole critical security fiasco). Some of the new criteria still qualified MacBook Airs (because these specific criteria still based off of MBA features), but only Pros qualified for all of the new criteria, including the software part.
Alas, we are now at the Haswell generation. In fact, we are the twilight of the Broadwell generation. Intel has had three years to observe the trend of the Ultrabook market. They are now confident they can move forward without looking back on MacBook Air. They set out specifications that disqualify a number of old Ultrabooks from the spec and create more stringent criteria for previously existing categories. They did this to push evolution of the spec forward. However, in doing so, they managed to disqualify the entire MacBook line.
And despite Intel's hopes that the new MacBooks might adhere to the spec, they did not, and the 2014 models still aren't Ultrabooks because Apple is still hesitant to put touchscreen panels.
So as you can see, MacBooks were Ultrabooks. But they are not Ultrabooks now. If they adhere to the spec, they will become Ultrabooks, and if they continue fitting future specs, they will remain Ultrabooks.
But that isn't today.
I personally know a handful of people in school who were looking for ultrabooks
Just because 3 billion people claim the wrong thing as truth doesn't make it right.
Truth be told, if you ask people on the thread directly what they're looking for in an ultrabook, they'll give you use cases which would fall under ultraportables, not the specific items on the Ultrabook specsheet. To the layman, an ultrabook *is* an ultraportable and vice versa.
As for your first point, they give requirements that fall into ultraportables because Ultrabooks can be ultraportables. There's nothing wrong with that.
Additionally, I can correct their notion of Ultrabooks and ultraportables, and change my recommendations to his / her change of perspective. It's no trouble.
But, the idea is not
vice versa. It's the same way that the Internet is an internet but an internet isn't the Internet.
Ultrabook is a specification and trademarked brand by Intel for a class of high-end subnotebooks which are designed to feature reduced bulk without compromising battery life.
Source: Wikipedia.org :: Ultrabook <click here for link>
A subnotebook (also called an ultraportable or mini notebook) is a class of laptop computers that are smaller and lighter than a typical notebook.
Source: Wikipedia.org :: Subnotebook <click here for link>
Ultrabooks may be the latest buzzword, but that's just another type of ultraportable laptop. We give you the five best ultraportables on the market today.
Source: PCMag.com :: The 10 Best Ultraportables <click here for link>
An ultrabook[sic] is basically a select type of laptop and therefore there are many similarities between these new ultraportable computers
Source: Ultrabookreview.com :: Ultrabook vs regular laptop/notebook in 2014 <click here for link>
An Ultrabook is an ultraportable. It's a class
of ultraportable, which in turn an ultraportable is a class
of notebook. But not all ultraportables are Ultrabooks because ultraportables is a much broader class including the not so expensive ones.
It is important to be factual and precise but in this case, it assumes the background is common knowledge which it simply isn't.
Then isn't it for us to resolve that problem instead of being part of it? Re-education may be tough, but it's for a good cause.
You're quick to call my adherence to spec as excessive and almost tantamount to arrogance, yet you're unable to comprehend that you're upset over the fact that a notebook that may have been responsible for spawning the next generation of notebooks is exempt from a recommendation for the next generation of notebook.
And why is it exempt? Because apparently it doesn't qualify for this next generation.
If this had happened in reverse -- that Apple made the spec and set out the same rules as Intel did, and Samsung's Series 5 just happened to qualify as a Ultrabook in all categories save for its battery stamina, I would never recommend it as an Ultrabook.
Why? Because its battery stamina fails the spec.
Simple as that.
Perhaps, moving forward, we should first clarify if people are looking for an ultraportable or an Ultrabook?
And if they do not, we shall ask them what they want specifically.
Edit: Redundancy removed.
-- edited by Nelko on Dec 17 2014, 08:29 PM