I'm all for unbloating code. But it wasn't tablets that invented computer applications. Tablets only made it so these applications had to come exclusively from somewhere else, rather than many times, the user being able to create his own.
Bloat happens when the application you buy is designed to be very flexible and very user friendly (i.e. forgiving). For example, I don't see how an Ultrabook can avoid supporting useful applications like MS Office, if the Ultrabook is to be more than a gadget. Or program compilers. Or any number of other applications that have the clear potential to become bloated.
How's this future view: SSDs will come into their own as App-type operation and interfacing for users doing regular software task, becomes the new standard, and desktops longer need to support bloated code.
Video will be stored online and streamed whenever needed, so what else needs a huge spinning disk when a few GB SSD will do?
It seems to me that the Ultrabook will be a very useful device indeed, and it will replace laptops and notebooks. Whereas the tablet is a completely different animal.
Therefore, I don't understand why EE Times is pitting the two against each other.
I'd like to know how many EE Times reporters write their articles on tablets.
I saw the Ultrabooks in the Intel booth at CES and indeed they are cool. It's about time the Macbook Air had some competition from a similar form factor running Windows.
But what was most interesting is that one Ultrabook from a particular vendor was much thinner than the others. Apparently if you incorporate SSD, you can call it an Ultrabook, but that doesn't mean it's going to be ultra-light and ultra-thin.
@chipmonk- EE Times reports information from a variety of credible sources. Sometimes—in fact quite frequently—information, forecasts and theories from one source may conflict with that proffered by another. We present this information, as nearly all publications do, with the expectation that readers will apply their own experience and critical thinking skills to form their own opinions.
One expects a higher level of accuracy and consistency from a publication that used to have technical aspirations. Perhaps they need to have more technically savvy and experienced editors. Otherwise readers will have to do the hatchet job !