Ultrabooks May Use Hybrid Storage to Cut Costs
Ultrabook manufacturers may follow Acer's lead by using hybrid HDDs instead of SSDs in future waves.
Given that storage components account for 10 to 15-percent of an ultrabook's total cost, unnamed sources from "ultrabook players" are reporting that manufacturers will likely ditch pricey high-capacity SDDs and rely on hybrid storage solutions for future ultrabook models. This is expected to help reduce costs while also fulfilling Intel's goal of a sub-$1000 pricetag and retaining high storage capacities.
The news follows reports that ultrabook manufacturers will start using fiberglass frames instead of aluminum which will also help keep production costs low. Because manufacturers aren't getting a subsidy on Intel processors, they're looking at other avenues of reducing the overall cost without sacrificing critical components.
The new ultrabook form factor requires storage to be smaller than a standard 9.5-mm hard drive while also having the ability boot into the operating system within 8 to 45 seconds. With those two factors in mind, manufacturers want to use a hybrid solution in future models, as they have a lower cost than standard high-capacity SSDs while also meeting Intel's fast boot time and storage efficiency.
As seen weeks ago, Acer launched its Aspire S3 series ultrabook using a combination of an HDD and an SSD in a stick form factor, throwing the operating system on the 20 GB SSD portion while leaving the 320 GB portion open for consumers. Other ultrabook manufacturers are possibly looking to do the same, sources claim, but consumers won't see hybrid solutions until future waves of ultrabooks arrive in 2012 or later. In the meantime, the initial wave will focus primarily on SSDs as seen with the Asus Zenbooks and the Lenovo IdeaPad U300.
Have whatever size SSD at release and a booming cottage industry for SSD upgrade cards would flourish around it.
Simples!
20GB is NOT enough space for a windows OS with windows update turned on and normal use.
Yeah, the Fusion chips are very nice! Whilst on the CPU department they don't stand a chance against the i7, in the graphics they obliterate the intel chipset. Definetely what I would prefer...
Of course, knowing that intel is behind the whole ultrabook thing, AMD might have trouble with getting companies to use their APU's
how many more cuts can they make.
Oh, really?
That is strange it defys how ICs work. The next gen is always faster and cheaper.
When I bought a modest 486 in the 90s it cost me almost $3000 to build. Now days it costs me less than $1000 to build a decent i5 2500k rig with a 560 ti. So where is this price increase you are talking about? intel may increase proffit margins with every gen but the price per market segment has stayed about the same.
The macbook air exists now.
Perhaps they are trying too hard to put extra performance in the thing? Go for slower but larger hybrid disc solutions, use slower i3 and i5 procs instead of i5 and i7's. Get the volume and demand up on the first generation, and then let loose with the power-house machines after you get the manufacturing process and supplier costs figured out.
Of course, knowing that intel is behind the whole ultrabook thing, AMD might have trouble with getting companies to use their APU's
Someone should produce a Fusion based ultrabook just to stick it to Intel. Intel is the one demanding more or less from manufacturers a $1000 ultra book without being very helpful.
The stronger graphics are kind of meaningless for an ultrabook...gaming is not their purpose.
How is the MacBook Air underpowered? What is it underpowered for? It's not a gaming machine and it is not meant to be but I'm not sure I see your point of how its underpowered.
Not after Sales Tax/Shipping it ain't...
And a super powerful CPU is useless as well since you won't do anything really CPU intensive either. AMD would still be better though since while heavy gaming won't be done, videos and some light gaming will and AMD CPU/GPU combo will most likely do better overall.