Second-Generation UMPCs: Now With Less Suck

[Jason Dunn]

<div class='os_post_top_link'><a href='http://www.engadget.com/2006/09/29/meet-the-second-generation-of-umpcs-shoulda-been-first/' target='_blank'>http://www.engadget.com/2006/09/29/meet-the-second-generation-of-umpcs-shoulda-been-first/</a><br /><br /></div><i>"When the UMPC platform was launched at Intel's 2005 IDF we were teased with a $500 or less device on the WWAN running on ultra-low powered chips capable of either 8-hours off battery or putting Vista to sleep for up to a week. Well, we all know how the Vista-less first gen launch went, right? Pictured above are Intel's reference designs for the 2nd generation UMPCs on display at IDF in San Francisco. Scheduled to launch sometime between the end of the year and mid-2007, the new breed of mobile PCs require 1/2 the power at 1/4 the size of the first generation and won't be using Intel's Core 2 Duos according to Intel. Instead, TG Daily speculates that the new devices will use an ultra-low voltage Core Solo with 1 MB of L2 cache."</i><br /><br /><img src="http://www.digitalmediathoughts.com/images/yahoo-umpc.jpg" /><br />[photo courtesy of <a href="http://www.tgdaily.com/2006/09/28/second_gen_umpc/">THG</a>]<br /><br />In terms of consumption of digital media content on a portable device with a decent-sized screen, it's tough to beat the <i>idea</i> of a UMPC. The reality though was much different with the first generation products - the second generation looks like it's significantly more evolved than the first, which is great news. I'll keep my eyes on the second generation of products, because I sure like the concept if the reality can come close to matching.

[aroma]

The reality though was much different with the first generation products

Jason,
Out of curiousity what is your reasoning behind this? I'm just curious what your opinion is on the problems with the UMPC. I've been using one for a bit now, including taking it with me on vacation, and have been quite pleased with it with one exception, the battery life. But 99% of the time with the unit I've had access to a power source, either wall jack or car power adapter, so I've always had the option of plugging in.

[Jason Dunn]

Out of curiousity what is your reasoning behind this? I'm just curious what your opinion is on the problems with the UMPC.

Well, when you look at how Microsoft was positioning the Origami project when it was first announced, they were giving us all the perception that UMPCs would:

1) Cost around $500
2) Be sleek and thin
3) Have great battery life

The first generation UMPCs were expensive, thick and bulky, and had poor battery life. I'm sure the OEM partners did the best they could in terms of making a great device, but it seems like Microsoft should have been a bit more realistic with their marketing about UMPCs.

I really want to get a UMPC, but the first gen units just didn't appeal to me at all. :?

[jlp]

Well, when you look at how Microsoft was positioning the Origami project when it was first announced, they were giving us all the perception that UMPCs would...

I've always said $500 was utterly unrealistic and double that price would be closer to reality.

Who would be so fool/naive to swallow the big pill that you can cram all the features of a notebook in a pocketable device and sell it at the price of a glorified pocket calculator? 8O

Take the HP 4700, surely the closest to (yet still very far from) the UMPCs; how much was it when first introduced? $600? $700? yet it lacks so much like an HDD (add $100), 192MB RAM (add around $50), WinXP Tablet (add another $100-$140), add a more powerful battery to support the added and hungry electronics, add a bigger display (another $50-100) and you're in the Samsung Q1 price range, features and capabilities.

8)

There's no miracle my friends, more features and capabilities means bigger, heavier and more expensive.

A few years later the OQO Model 01+ is quite on par with PDAs as far as size is concerned (it's still the smallest PC in the world), yet it's priced 3 times higher (twice if you count the discounted older Model 01 that was $1100) than the ipaq 4700, yet features 5-10 times the capabilities.

***excessive quoting edited by moderator JD***

[jlp]

Just did some research on Ultra Mobile 2007 that was announced in April 2005.

Quote from the PC world article mentionned here (http://www.pocketpcthoughts.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=41935&amp;highlight=gates+2007): "Gates said he envisioned Ultra Mobile 2007 as a new category of device that would cost between $800 and $1000, and weigh as near to a pound as possible. These devices would have a consumer friendly bent and would integrate a camera, a phone, and a touch-screen, and offer music and video playback functions along with very long battery life."

Not too bad indeed, given the facts: 1) they released devices one year early (unbelievable!!!! something from MS coming out early 8O) and 2) price was quite well forecast, nevertheless.