What's especially irksome is this thinness is exactly what would enable larger batteries. If the internals of this laptop are this tiny, then throw them in a standard thickness case and fill the empty space with a massive battery.
...and you'd have a six pound laptop with three-pound performance.
Batteries are heavy (and not entirely cheap either). There's a reason why thin-and-lights/ultrabooks seem to have standardized around roughly 50Wh - with current hardware (and decent engineering) it's a decent compromise between longevity and mass. OTOH, I'd gladly have a 1,3kg laptop rather than a 1,1kg laptop if the only difference was 200g more battery.
6 pound? what battery has that kind of weight? Car battery? Hyperbole too much? at last 4.5lbs and you can put like > 120Wh battery in a laptop. For mobile user that not using their notebook for serious work (video editing, 3D rendering, android programming, etc..), 50Wh battery is enough. But for people that tasking much their computer, it's not enough.
I remember using an Elitebook, all those years back, that featured a large slice battery and extended standard battery... MAX of 32 hours battery life. I started a video, on loop, but stopped it after 17 hours had passed with more than 50% battery remaining.
I agree with you 100%. My most important criteria for a phone? Battery life. My most important criteria for a laptop? No moving parts and battery life. If you're a mobile person, you don't know when you can recharge or not.
I wish fully functional quad core CPU had more appeal than thinness and battery life, but the reality is most laptop buyers don't use demanding applications and the dual core low voltage crap processors are well and good enough for writing papers, checking facebook, emails, Netflix, etc.
In my case, I travel frequently, but there is always an AC outlet nearby, so I don't care about battery life, and as long as it is at least 15" display or smaller, under 1.5 inches thick it is portable enough for me. I do need decent quad core CPU for work stuff though, and dedicated graphics in the range of GTX 1060 would be nice.
There are still a few options with quad core CPU but there is so much greater demand for thin wafer laptops with long battery life, even in the $1500-2500 range. Not only do most laptop manufacturers and retailers market everything as "6th/7th generation core i7" instead of clarifying whether CPU is dual core ULV or full quad core, but now Intel has even renamed their "M" series as core i7.
So after successfully branding "core i7" as fast or powerful, they are confusing laptop buyers even further with abominations like ultra low voltage dual core i7-7500U and even weaker, lower power core i7-7Y75, performing demanding tasks much slower than laptops with full quad core i5-6300HQ
Are you complaining about no supply of quad-core laptops or consumers without knowledge about current CPUs being misled to buy non-quad-core laptops? The former is just not true (there are portable quad-core laptops from almost any laptop manufacturer), the latter is irrelevant as consumers with a need for such computing power know what to look for.
Your faith in consumer's knowledge is a little overestimated. Needing processing power does not automatically make someone an enthusiast who cares enough to research that stuff (which can be cryptic even to casual hobbyists). I've known several architects who could only tell you i7 must be faster because the number was higher.
Then just don't buy this laptop but any of the quad-core 15" dGPU ones that are out there? I'm pretty sure even the company making this thin and light ultraportable has something like that to offer, as I'm typing this comment on one.
I was responding to JoeyJoJo's comment about battery life not being in as much demand. Actually the massive demand for extremely long battery life and thin wafer laptops is what has driven this trend toward weaker low voltage dual core U and Y core i7 processors.
I wish people would stop whining about their wishes especially when their <insert product of choice here> doesn't meet "all" of their expectations & then some.
While AMD has been behind in terms of CPU performance, you can EASILY find an AMD A10-8700 or 9600 for under $500 these days. They are fully functional. AMD Zen based laptops are expected in the second half of 2017 if the power of an AMD A8, A10, or A12 isn't enough for you.
Since we have power adapters already that people need to keep with them, why not add a battery pack(with protection against heat) to the power adapter. You see battery packs for cell phones for those who need longer battery life, and that could be done for laptops as well. Since it would be optional, people might go for it. That could also put some pressure on laptop manufacturers to standardize around power connectors for laptops as well(and yes, Apple would make a different connector, just to be different and annoying).
The all-glossy laptop fad was stupid, but this idiotic fixation with making a laptop thin at the cost of compromising everything else about the design is doing a great job at keeping me uninterested in buying a new laptop. Well, Windows 10 and Secure Boot being a pain (while also being not at all secure...iterations of it have been demonstrated as broken at DEFCON more than once making Secure Boot pretty pointless except as a barrier to installing a non-Windows OS) help too, but I could tolerate the keylogging and data mining by setting up outbound firewall rules. Actually, it's sort of sad that I feel like I need to keep malware and network intrusions out AND now feel compelled to keep my own OS from selling me out to corporate advertising machines, but that's another story. Still thin laptops...no thanks. I'll stick with my netbook and crappy Gateway with its T2310 Core2Duo.
The thin-and-lights are the flagship offerings. Do you need a powerhouse and don't care about the size? Or are you just looking for a cheaper laptop because you don't want pay for thinness that has no particular value to you? Either way, the market hasn't abandoned those segments. Nobody is holding a gun to your head and saying "we sell laptops to address many market segments but you must buy this ultrabook or die." To folks who travel a lot or place value on design aesthetic, flagship light and thin ultrabooks have value. The success of these has proven that to be the case. To those of us who need something else...buy something else. How is that a problem?
That the Skylake version is on sale to clear out stock and won't be around much longer? Other than that, higher boost clocks, speed boost 2.0, video encode/decode (HEVC and VP9 in fixed-function hardware). Not worth $500 alone, but then comparing to a clearance sale price sets price expectations at the wrong level.
Looks pretty nice to me. I'm actually fine with the thin + small battery, I'm sure for many people that is enough. So long as the keyboard, touchpad, and screen are all good quality it could be great machine.
I agree with others though that I wish they had the same model with a bit more thickness and 20+ hours battery as well though. Is that not a valid use case to want to work for 12+ hours without bringing a charger or having to turn off wifi, set the screen on dim, etc?
2770 mAh, I suppose it runs at a standard voltage around 19-20 V, then that's more than 50 Wh. That's not really a small battery for a low-power laptop.
A 5000 mAh battery would have enabled all day battery life at the expense of a slightly thicker case. Do people even care if the notebook is less than 1 cm thick?
A 5000 mAh battery is about 100 Wh. That's about the largest battery size being built into laptops, you can find it in quad-core 15" laptops such as the rMBP or the XPS15, not in this kind of class of laptops. 50+ Wh are already impressive. Energy density of LiPo batteries is around 100-200 Wh/kg, so doubling the (already big) capacity would add significant weight. Which is a crucial spec for an ultraportable computer.
Airlines do not allow batteries greater than 100 Watt hours for carry on. This is why most laptops purposefully try to max out at something like 90 Watt hours so they are not near that line of not being allowed on airplanes.
> Lithium ion (rechargeable) batteries are limited to a rating of 100 watt hours (Wh) per battery. These limits allow for nearly all types of lithium batteries used by the average person in their electronic devices. With airline approval, passengers may also carry up to two spare larger lithium ion batteries (101-160 watt hours). This size covers the larger after-market extended-life laptop computer batteries and some larger batteries used in professional audio/visual equipment.
@rxzlmn: "A 5000 mAh battery is about 100 Wh ... Energy density of LiPo batteries is around 100-200 Wh/kg, so doubling the (already big) capacity would add significant weight."
According to your statement, moving from a ~50Wh battery to about 100Wh would add 1/4 to 1/2 kg of weight. (100Wh - 50Wh) / 100Wh/kg = 1/2kg (100Wh - 50Wh) / 200Wh/kg = 1/4kg
For a laptop of this weight, that is a pretty significant 22% to 45% increase in weight. However, even with this increase in weight, it is still much lighter than pre-ultrabook era ultra-portable laptops. I think for many people, being able to avoid the charger longer would have been of more benefit to their portability than further reductions in weight. In any case, I don't see why there shouldn't be options that cater to both on the market.
@rxlmn: "50+ Wh are already impressive."
We'll have to agree to disagree here. 50+ Wh batteries are not uncommon and not impressive at all to me.
They are not the only ones on the ultrathin Kaby Lake bandwagon. My HP Spectre 13t with an i7-7500U (2.7 GHz, up to 3.5 GHz, 4 MB cache, 2 cores) + Intel HD Graphics 620 shipped yesterday.
As for the thin-haters, the whole point of a laptop is mobility. Mine is an adjunct to my primary, a desktop. It's not as if manufacturers have discontinued the "transportable" boat anchors with 6-cell batteries.
This. 16:9 should be a fringe option on low-powered, consumption-oriented devices...everything else that usually gravitates toward some variation of productivity should default to 16:10 or preferrably 3:2. In 90% of productive computing, vertical space > horizontal space. Among all the heartbreaking tragedies that have befallen personal computing, the perverse infestation of 16:9 surely ranks up in the top 10 if not top 5.
I like the Surface squarer form factor, 16:9 is easier to swallow with XPS 13-like thin bezels, not sure what's up with the huge bottom bezel here when it's still pretty large all the way around.
We’ve updated our terms. By continuing to use the site and/or by logging into your account, you agree to the Site’s updated Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
43 Comments
Back to Article
JoeyJoJo123 - Wednesday, October 19, 2016 - link
>muh thinnessI wish battery life had the supposed appeal that thinness has today.
Mr Perfect - Wednesday, October 19, 2016 - link
What's especially irksome is this thinness is exactly what would enable larger batteries. If the internals of this laptop are this tiny, then throw them in a standard thickness case and fill the empty space with a massive battery.Valantar - Thursday, October 20, 2016 - link
...and you'd have a six pound laptop with three-pound performance.Batteries are heavy (and not entirely cheap either). There's a reason why thin-and-lights/ultrabooks seem to have standardized around roughly 50Wh - with current hardware (and decent engineering) it's a decent compromise between longevity and mass. OTOH, I'd gladly have a 1,3kg laptop rather than a 1,1kg laptop if the only difference was 200g more battery.
Mr Perfect - Thursday, October 20, 2016 - link
Well yes, you'd keep the weight reasonable. Pack in enough battery to get a real day long charge with actual use.t.s - Thursday, October 20, 2016 - link
6 pound? what battery has that kind of weight? Car battery? Hyperbole too much? at last 4.5lbs and you can put like > 120Wh battery in a laptop. For mobile user that not using their notebook for serious work (video editing, 3D rendering, android programming, etc..), 50Wh battery is enough. But for people that tasking much their computer, it's not enough.heffeque - Thursday, October 20, 2016 - link
Who said anything about 6 pounds? *confused*trulyuncouth - Saturday, October 22, 2016 - link
Valantar said exactly that in the comment he was replying to.damianrobertjones - Thursday, October 20, 2016 - link
I remember using an Elitebook, all those years back, that featured a large slice battery and extended standard battery... MAX of 32 hours battery life. I started a video, on loop, but stopped it after 17 hours had passed with more than 50% battery remaining.andychow - Sunday, October 23, 2016 - link
I agree with you 100%. My most important criteria for a phone? Battery life. My most important criteria for a laptop? No moving parts and battery life. If you're a mobile person, you don't know when you can recharge or not.MaidoMaido - Wednesday, October 19, 2016 - link
I wish fully functional quad core CPU had more appeal than thinness and battery life, but the reality is most laptop buyers don't use demanding applications and the dual core low voltage crap processors are well and good enough for writing papers, checking facebook, emails, Netflix, etc.In my case, I travel frequently, but there is always an AC outlet nearby, so I don't care about battery life, and as long as it is at least 15" display or smaller, under 1.5 inches thick it is portable enough for me. I do need decent quad core CPU for work stuff though, and dedicated graphics in the range of GTX 1060 would be nice.
forgot2yield28 - Wednesday, October 19, 2016 - link
What's wrong with any of a number of gaming machines on the market? I didn't think yours was a segment of the market that had exactly been abandoned.MaidoMaido - Wednesday, October 19, 2016 - link
There are still a few options with quad core CPU but there is so much greater demand for thin wafer laptops with long battery life, even in the $1500-2500 range. Not only do most laptop manufacturers and retailers market everything as "6th/7th generation core i7" instead of clarifying whether CPU is dual core ULV or full quad core, but now Intel has even renamed their "M" series as core i7.So after successfully branding "core i7" as fast or powerful, they are confusing laptop buyers even further with abominations like ultra low voltage dual core i7-7500U and even weaker, lower power core i7-7Y75, performing demanding tasks much slower than laptops with full quad core i5-6300HQ
rxzlmn - Wednesday, October 19, 2016 - link
Are you complaining about no supply of quad-core laptops or consumers without knowledge about current CPUs being misled to buy non-quad-core laptops? The former is just not true (there are portable quad-core laptops from almost any laptop manufacturer), the latter is irrelevant as consumers with a need for such computing power know what to look for.LostWander - Thursday, October 20, 2016 - link
Your faith in consumer's knowledge is a little overestimated. Needing processing power does not automatically make someone an enthusiast who cares enough to research that stuff (which can be cryptic even to casual hobbyists). I've known several architects who could only tell you i7 must be faster because the number was higher.rxzlmn - Wednesday, October 19, 2016 - link
Then just don't buy this laptop but any of the quad-core 15" dGPU ones that are out there? I'm pretty sure even the company making this thin and light ultraportable has something like that to offer, as I'm typing this comment on one.MaidoMaido - Wednesday, October 19, 2016 - link
I was responding to JoeyJoJo's comment about battery life not being in as much demand. Actually the massive demand for extremely long battery life and thin wafer laptops is what has driven this trend toward weaker low voltage dual core U and Y core i7 processors.R0H1T - Thursday, October 20, 2016 - link
I wish people would stop whining about their wishes especially when their <insert product of choice here> doesn't meet "all" of their expectations & then some.smilingcrow - Thursday, October 20, 2016 - link
Tell me about it!Targon - Thursday, October 20, 2016 - link
While AMD has been behind in terms of CPU performance, you can EASILY find an AMD A10-8700 or 9600 for under $500 these days. They are fully functional. AMD Zen based laptops are expected in the second half of 2017 if the power of an AMD A8, A10, or A12 isn't enough for you.Targon - Thursday, October 20, 2016 - link
Since we have power adapters already that people need to keep with them, why not add a battery pack(with protection against heat) to the power adapter. You see battery packs for cell phones for those who need longer battery life, and that could be done for laptops as well. Since it would be optional, people might go for it. That could also put some pressure on laptop manufacturers to standardize around power connectors for laptops as well(and yes, Apple would make a different connector, just to be different and annoying).BrokenCrayons - Wednesday, October 19, 2016 - link
The all-glossy laptop fad was stupid, but this idiotic fixation with making a laptop thin at the cost of compromising everything else about the design is doing a great job at keeping me uninterested in buying a new laptop. Well, Windows 10 and Secure Boot being a pain (while also being not at all secure...iterations of it have been demonstrated as broken at DEFCON more than once making Secure Boot pretty pointless except as a barrier to installing a non-Windows OS) help too, but I could tolerate the keylogging and data mining by setting up outbound firewall rules. Actually, it's sort of sad that I feel like I need to keep malware and network intrusions out AND now feel compelled to keep my own OS from selling me out to corporate advertising machines, but that's another story. Still thin laptops...no thanks. I'll stick with my netbook and crappy Gateway with its T2310 Core2Duo.Lolimaster - Wednesday, October 19, 2016 - link
For home use glossy is fantastic. With matte or semi matte the screen looks weird and the colors kind of washed out and plain.forgot2yield28 - Wednesday, October 19, 2016 - link
The thin-and-lights are the flagship offerings. Do you need a powerhouse and don't care about the size? Or are you just looking for a cheaper laptop because you don't want pay for thinness that has no particular value to you? Either way, the market hasn't abandoned those segments. Nobody is holding a gun to your head and saying "we sell laptops to address many market segments but you must buy this ultrabook or die." To folks who travel a lot or place value on design aesthetic, flagship light and thin ultrabooks have value. The success of these has proven that to be the case. To those of us who need something else...buy something else. How is that a problem?Shadowmaster625 - Wednesday, October 19, 2016 - link
All sorts of stores have the skylake version on sale for $600. Exactly what are you getting here that justifies almost double the price?Valantar - Thursday, October 20, 2016 - link
That the Skylake version is on sale to clear out stock and won't be around much longer? Other than that, higher boost clocks, speed boost 2.0, video encode/decode (HEVC and VP9 in fixed-function hardware). Not worth $500 alone, but then comparing to a clearance sale price sets price expectations at the wrong level.blacktaxi2d - Wednesday, October 19, 2016 - link
"1920x180 IPS LCD"touchpad better have good scrolling
Valantar - Thursday, October 20, 2016 - link
Is that one of those three-line LCD panels I see in information kiosks, and on public transportation? Didn't think those were IPS, though.andrewaggb - Wednesday, October 19, 2016 - link
Looks pretty nice to me. I'm actually fine with the thin + small battery, I'm sure for many people that is enough. So long as the keyboard, touchpad, and screen are all good quality it could be great machine.I agree with others though that I wish they had the same model with a bit more thickness and 20+ hours battery as well though. Is that not a valid use case to want to work for 12+ hours without bringing a charger or having to turn off wifi, set the screen on dim, etc?
rxzlmn - Wednesday, October 19, 2016 - link
2770 mAh, I suppose it runs at a standard voltage around 19-20 V, then that's more than 50 Wh. That's not really a small battery for a low-power laptop.serendip - Wednesday, October 19, 2016 - link
A 5000 mAh battery would have enabled all day battery life at the expense of a slightly thicker case. Do people even care if the notebook is less than 1 cm thick?rxzlmn - Wednesday, October 19, 2016 - link
A 5000 mAh battery is about 100 Wh. That's about the largest battery size being built into laptops, you can find it in quad-core 15" laptops such as the rMBP or the XPS15, not in this kind of class of laptops. 50+ Wh are already impressive. Energy density of LiPo batteries is around 100-200 Wh/kg, so doubling the (already big) capacity would add significant weight. Which is a crucial spec for an ultraportable computer.Roland00Address - Thursday, October 20, 2016 - link
Adding to what you saidAirlines do not allow batteries greater than 100 Watt hours for carry on. This is why most laptops purposefully try to max out at something like 90 Watt hours so they are not near that line of not being allowed on airplanes.
> Lithium ion (rechargeable) batteries are limited to a rating of 100 watt hours (Wh) per battery. These limits allow for nearly all types of lithium batteries used by the average person in their electronic devices. With airline approval, passengers may also carry up to two spare larger lithium ion batteries (101-160 watt hours). This size covers the larger after-market extended-life laptop computer batteries and some larger batteries used in professional audio/visual equipment.
>https://www.faa.gov/about/initiatives/hazmat_safet...
BurntMyBacon - Thursday, October 20, 2016 - link
@rxzlmn: "A 5000 mAh battery is about 100 Wh ... Energy density of LiPo batteries is around 100-200 Wh/kg, so doubling the (already big) capacity would add significant weight."According to your statement, moving from a ~50Wh battery to about 100Wh would add 1/4 to 1/2 kg of weight.
(100Wh - 50Wh) / 100Wh/kg = 1/2kg
(100Wh - 50Wh) / 200Wh/kg = 1/4kg
For a laptop of this weight, that is a pretty significant 22% to 45% increase in weight. However, even with this increase in weight, it is still much lighter than pre-ultrabook era ultra-portable laptops. I think for many people, being able to avoid the charger longer would have been of more benefit to their portability than further reductions in weight. In any case, I don't see why there shouldn't be options that cater to both on the market.
@rxlmn: "50+ Wh are already impressive."
We'll have to agree to disagree here. 50+ Wh batteries are not uncommon and not impressive at all to me.
Lolimaster - Wednesday, October 19, 2016 - link
When will they ditch 16:9 on computers?16:10 and 3:2 are better productivity options.
BurntMyBacon - Thursday, October 20, 2016 - link
If it didn't happen last year, then it's not soon enough....
Darn.
fazalmajid - Wednesday, October 19, 2016 - link
They are not the only ones on the ultrathin Kaby Lake bandwagon. My HP Spectre 13t with an i7-7500U (2.7 GHz, up to 3.5 GHz, 4 MB cache, 2 cores) + Intel HD Graphics 620 shipped yesterday.As for the thin-haters, the whole point of a laptop is mobility. Mine is an adjunct to my primary, a desktop. It's not as if manufacturers have discontinued the "transportable" boat anchors with 6-cell batteries.
t.s - Thursday, October 20, 2016 - link
Funny. I have many friends that prefer thin smartphone, but have to bring their charger/ powerbank everywhere, every time.lilmoe - Wednesday, October 19, 2016 - link
2770 mAh....arsjum - Wednesday, October 19, 2016 - link
According to Acer website, it weighs 2.48 lbs, not 2.03 lbs. You must have confused it with Asus Zenbook 3. :)Ryan Smith - Thursday, October 20, 2016 - link
Thanks. Had the right value in the text, somehow got the table wrong.jsntech - Wednesday, October 19, 2016 - link
This. 16:9 should be a fringe option on low-powered, consumption-oriented devices...everything else that usually gravitates toward some variation of productivity should default to 16:10 or preferrably 3:2. In 90% of productive computing, vertical space > horizontal space. Among all the heartbreaking tragedies that have befallen personal computing, the perverse infestation of 16:9 surely ranks up in the top 10 if not top 5.Impulses - Thursday, October 20, 2016 - link
I like the Surface squarer form factor, 16:9 is easier to swallow with XPS 13-like thin bezels, not sure what's up with the huge bottom bezel here when it's still pretty large all the way around.jhanvi - Monday, November 14, 2016 - link
<a href="http://www.lastlaptop.com/2016/11/acer-swift-7-lap... Acer Swift 7 Laptop </a> reminds me of HP Spectre 13. Is this better than Hp?