Talk:Ultra-mobile PC

message: As background to the following, I've spent the evening surfing Wikipedia looking up PDA and UPMC stuff and what I'm about to say is common to a lot of the related articles. Now, I know the importance of being well informed on your subject being something of a geek myself but, and I say this with the utmost of respect, can we not try and write articles that are readable as well as correct? Seriously people, read a book! Hell, go mad, read a few! See how it's done! Let loose and maybe link a few sentences together here and there!
Yes, we're writing an encyclopaedia here, facts and correctness are of the utmost importance, but as someone who's read the article in it's current form I say this: being correct is no use if people's brains turn to mush trying to follow it. It's possible to be right and be readable; indeed, as authors of information that's intended to be easily digestible by people who don't already understand a given subject, I'd say that both should be equally important to us...85.210.133.116 01:28, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Readability: perhaps think about considering it? 

message: By definition, the sony UX series currently is not in the category of umpc, as it has a 5" screen among other things that disqualify it.
*I am kind of torn about which devices we should classify as UMPC.
Microsoft's official hardware specifications are:
# Windows XP Tablet PC Edition 2005 OS
# Approximately 7” diagonal display (or smaller)
# Minimum 800 x 480 resolution
# Approximately 2 pounds
# Integrated touch panel
# WiFi- and Bluetooth-enabled
--Bjornstar 04:33, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not a UMPC 

message: Hi there,
Put this at the top, as it's an active discussion.
Basically, should DialKeys and Ultra-Mobile PC be merged, or not?
Personally, I think they should. Matt 16:25, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion for Merge with [[DialKeys]]

message: Go to the site and watch the Week 2 flash video. More info is coming out on 03.09.06. Who knows, maybe Microsoft is going to confirm a few things today, or maybe not. I don't know. --CanesOL79 05:02, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Origami Project Week 2 

message: Do we really know that it will ship in black and beige and all the other fuss this article says? I thought Microsoft made it clear the video was over a year old...--Cumbiagermen 11:07, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Nowhere the article says the specs are final. I think it is made clear the features mentioned are speculative, but probable. --Soumyasch 11:16, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: At launch, it will be available in at least two colors - beige and black, and will feature a docking station. The docking station will feature a portable keyboard. It is not clear whether the docking station will come standard or if it will be sold separately. I think that implies the specs are final. --Cumbiagermen 23:51, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. Reworded that part. --Soumyasch 18:50, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Final Specifications 

message: *I'm glad I wasn't the only one to know that. I was just screwing around and checked the source code and saw that. I thought it was a joke by Microsoft, but apparently not. Keep up the good work, Wikipedians! --CanesOL79 02:05, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  origamiproject.com Source Code 

message: Barring some recent breakthrough in touch screen technology that the manufacturers are keeping from us in the industry pressure sensitivity accessible to software on the unit would require a stylus with a tip that measures touch pressure and the RF circuitry to send that information to the unit.  The use of a software program that looks similar to one that supports but does not require a pressure sensitive stylus does not overcome the technical problems.--Nicklinn 20:07, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Or... it's a resistive touchscreen (which someone should put in the article, but I can't be bothered right now). (Yes I know it's an old comment) bjmurph talk‽ 06:17, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Touch Presure Sensitivity 

message: :It is also rumoured that the Origami will be a rival of both the iPod and the BlackBerry, although this has not yet been officialy confirmed.
Should this line be kept in the text? It is quite clear now that Origami will not be a competitor to portable media player (like iPod) nor just a communication handset (like BlckBerry) but a fully features mobile PC. So I don't think the statement is valid, and should be removed. --Soumyasch 05:15, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Blackberry/iPod 

message: There is a picture of the Origami (or something) on www.windowsfordevices.com. Can it be put up on the page? I am new here I don't know all the ins and outs yet. Link: [] I guess it won't matter since the press release is in 2 days.--Doom Child 23:22, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Origami Picture 

message: How are you going to input programs via DVD, Mini-DVD or CD? MarioV 18:57, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: USB --155.31.32.36 19:51, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  DVD or CD? 

message: What Microsoft forgot, was that ultra-mobile PCs were around five years ago, and failed miserably. Tablet PCs got a little better reputation, but in the long run, simply didn't have the potential to compete against mainstream laptops. So, how's this device any different? Well, it's really not! The PC promises to deliver a 'staggering' speed of 1GHz on a shitty Celeron M processor, a whopping 256mb of RAM, and the same version of Windows XP Tablet PC Edition that has been billed on many computers over the past half a decade. And with a hefty pricetag of $600+, I failt to see how this computer offers a stunning or even remotely competetive corner on the mobile market. --155.31.32.36 19:52, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  What's New? 

message: :Founder is Elitegroup Computer Systems (ECS) H70 rebranded. TabletKiosk manufacturers the V-700.
I took out these lines becaue the meaning implied by these is unclear. Please rephrase these before putting them back in. --Soumyasch 05:50, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Confusing statements 

message: Both the Samsung Q1 & Samsung Q1b are now available at all North America Best Buy stores, Fry's Electronics, and CompUSA stores for US$1099 & US$899 respectively.
Is this actually true? I wasn't able to find the lower price on any of the three stores. Where do these prices come from?
 24.114.252.226 22:48, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Prices 

message: "Current UMPCs feature the Windows XP Tablet PC Edition 2005 operating system and low-voltage Intel Pentium or VIA C7-M processors in the 1 GHz range."
About the Intel processor found in UMPC's:
- The correct name of those processors is Celeron M ULV 353 or the Pentium M ULV 723.
- Both of those processors are ULV (Ultra Low Voltage) models and not "Low Voltage" models which have much higher power consumption.
: Yeah, the processors and chipsets are really the key to low power in these devices, and should have more (and better) coverage in this article.  I added a comment on Stealy and Silverthorne (full disclosure: i referenced my own blog entry on it; if anybody feels that was inappropriate, take it out (i did have press credentials at the MPF in question, so i felt it was legit to self-ref)).  --Psm 03:58, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Low-Voltage Pentium 

message: 62.143.115.152 12:10, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  I thought we were keeping promotional links off the page? 

message: :Image:Origamitpi.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 05:46, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Origamitpi.jpg

message: :Image:Origamitpi.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot (talk) 19:31, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Origamitpi.jpg

message: I have always thought UMPC as a general term referring to devices larger than pda and smaller than subnotebook, but the article clearly is biased to 'offical' microsoft specs. imho article should clearly define when it speaks of microsoft device and when generally  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.167.107.251 (talk) 13:42, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: True in my eyes a Ultra Mobile PC is a just a real PC that is meant to be used in situations where a normal laptop is not suitable, a situation where the user is "Ultra Mobile", not sitting down with it on its lap (hence "laptop"), or using it as a desktop system but walking around with it. Fox example an engineer walking around on a construction site would use a "UMPC", not a laptop or a PDA. So it does not have to be a Windows based system, nor does it -have- to use a touchscreen, if there are other solutions available that make it useable under "ultra mobile" conditions. I think hat Microsoft just tried to tie the idea of a ultra mobile PC to their windows version, using a marketing hype campaign. But Ultra Mobile PC's have their use, whether windows/touch-screen based or not. Mahjongg (talk) 14:18, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I understand the difference between an UMPC and a subnotebook like the Eee PC. But what's the difference between an UMPC and a PDA? They're both computers that you can use while carrying them. --Damian Yerrick (talk | stalk) 22:23, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: PDAs have never been considered full replacements for Personal Computers, they are called "Personal Digital Assitants" to reflect that. They do not use a PC OS, but a special tiny operating system like Palm OS instead. In contrast, UMPC's, Netbooks, subnotebook, (or whatever is the going name for these systems) are tiny but full function PC's that run the same OS (windows or Linux) as normal desktop PC's and laptops. Mahjongg (talk) 00:00, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  UMPC general/microsoft 

message: The Benchmark against all so called Ultra Mobile PCs will have to be measured is still the HP LX200. Weight about 200g, Operating System MS-DOS 5.0, no start-up time, powered by 2xAA Batteries, Battery Life measured in days and weeks instead of hours, full range of applications from calendar to database, IR-Port, Serial Port, PC-Card Slot. 
Limitations: Lid Hinge broken, speed, no backlight, no color, no touch screen, not compatible with Windows applications anymore, except the text files; But with todays technology many limitations should be easy to overcome.
Weight, Battery Life and Functionality make this system still the top choice for Ultra-Portable Devices.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.213.65.214 (talk) 12:35, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Or else the Cambridge_Z88 ?!   Mahjongg (talk) 14:42, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Benchmark - HP LX200 

message: Should the article refer to the UMPC platform specifically, or inexpensive/small portable computers (e.g. ULPC or subnotebook or ultraportable) in general?
:I do not think -that- is the actual question. The actual question is whether the term UMPC should be exclusively used for UMPC's that adhere to a standard that Microsoft has written up, and that says an UMPC should be based on Windows, and have a touchscreen, OR that an UMPC should be any ultra portable computer, no matter which OS it uses, and what it uses as an input device, to enable it to be ultra portable. 
:Perhaps we need to define what "ultraportable" -means-. My interpretation is that it's not only portable in the sense that it's small and light enough for it to carry it around, (that is more the definition of a subnotebook), but that it is also portable enough that you can -use- it while you carry it. That is why the touchscreen was added in the first place, because other input devices could not be used while holding it in your hand. But maybe other interpretations of the term "ultraportable" are possible. The new term ULPC (ultra low cost PC), also seems to be a marketing term thought up by Microsoft, it seems to want to impose the meaning of "cheap and weak" onto such hardware, It is generally used when discussing Microsofts decision to try to impose arbitrary  limitations on the hardware specification used for netbooks onto their manufacturers. I think its use should be discouraged. Mahjongg (talk) 11:08, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: We're not here to encourage, discourage, define or redefine though. We're here to state the facts. 137.195.68.169 (talk) 12:17, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I fully Agree, question is, what are the facts? Is the fact that these systems are commonly called UMPC's? In fact that isn't the case, so in fact we shouldn't use the term to describe such systems. Fact is Microsoft came up with a term, and a definition for it. Fact is the market uses the term, but ignores the definition. Mahjongg (talk) 12:28, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: This is going wildly off-topic, but suffice to say, I'm not interested in promoting the term ULPC. The question is, should UMPC be used in reference to small laptops, or should it only be in reference to the UMPC platform? 137.195.229.160 (talk) 15:57, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It depends, not all small laptops are "ultra mobile". The question one should ask oneself is, what makes a computer an "ultramobile PC", or else is it just a marketing name? Looking at what the original (origami) ultramobiles differentiated (in their use) from other portable systems and laptops I came to the conclusion that what made them different from laptops is that they can be used in a different way. I'm not talking about the technology used to reach that way, but what differentiates them functionally from for example a laptop, that warrants the term "ultra mobile" over just "mobile".  A laptop  is "mobile" in the sense that you can carry it to the place where you want to use it, but then you need to put it down (on your lap, or on a table), and then you are basically using it as if it was a desktop system. Not so with these new "ultra mobile" systems. Not only can you transport them to the place where you want to use them, but you can actually -use- them -while- transporting them. So a small laptop you can use while transporting it (carrying it around) can be described as "ultra portable", or "ultra mobile" if you will, while a normal laptop is just a "portable computer" you can place in your lap to use it. Not all the "small laptops" we are talking about here can also be used while carrying, and in my conception they therefore are not "ultra portable" systems. But -some- are, the most notable example is the CloudBook, that clearly has design features that makes using it wile carrying it. The gap between the display and the base unit is there so you can put your fingers in bit, to support it in such a way that typing on the system with your other hand is possible, and also it has its trackpad placed in such a way that you can use your right-and left thumb to use it while holding the device in both hands. Newer CloudBooks are announced that will have a more traditional touch screen. So my answer is that some of these systems can be classified as "ultra mobile", wile others are not. Mahjongg (talk) 18:17, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, that's exactly my point. We have no specific definition for "ultraportable", "subnotebook", or even "ULPC" (beyond MS's stingy limitations on what they'll allow for cheap XP), so those are all bundled into the same article because they're clearly related to a similar sort of product. UMPC has a clear definition via Microsoft, so we should keep those this article clear from the general morass of teeny computers. And that definition does not include things like the CloudBook - "you can use it while walking around" isn't the specification! 77.97.229.16 (talk) 20:15, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Fine, just one thing, you are ignoring that the market is using UMPC for systems that are clearly not based on any Microsoft specification, so clearly there are two uses for UMPC. Mahjongg (talk) 01:10, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure, and that usage is pointed out at the top of the all-in-one article for ultraportable, ULPC, subnotebook etc. etc. already! It's on the top of this article too! The use of "UMPC" as a generic term for small portable computers is already reflected, so what's your problem here? Do you just have a bug up your ass about your preferred term having its origins in Microsoft, or what? 137.195.68.169 (talk) 14:09, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, yes I do have a problem with the fact that a single company can claim the term "ultra mobile", and define it in such a way that manufacturers that want to make a similar device can't use this term because the company somehow "owns" its definition. Its similar to claiming that you can't call a computer for personal use a "Personal computer" unless it uses Windows, and is designed according to Microsoft specifications! This current article itself now does not explain anymore that the term "ultra mobile PC", or UMPC is currently also in common use for systems that are not at all designed according to Microsoft specifications. But I won't try to fight the windmills, I hope others will sort out this mess. Mahjongg (talk) 14:48, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Microsoft originally coined the term "ultra-mobile PC", though. The specific usage predates the general. And, er, have you read the first line of the article? "This article is about a specific small form-factor PC. For the generic class of low-cost small PCs, see Subnotebook." 137.195.68.169 (talk) 17:01, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I know that Microsoft coined the name, but coining the name does not mean that it has exclusive right to use the term, and your last sentence is exactly what is wrong with the article, it assigns the term completely to Microsofts definition, and disregards other uses, by saying in so many words "If you came here to read about UMPC's other than Microsoft defined ones you are at the wrong place, go away". Mahjongg (talk) 12:00, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article scope and definition 

message: Please remove the origami-pic, its a pointless image in this article I believe.
Also include a picture of a subnotebook (eg the Eee PC)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.246.189.2 (talk) 06:34, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Pics

message: First the beginning topic of Project Orgami that stated the specification was made by Microsoft, you need a clear citation such of Technical Documentation Datasheet or a website community association that support it. You guys are totally making something up which is entirely not true, the Project Orgami is similarily the same as Nvidia ESA, AMD LIVE and AMD GAME which are a certification not a specification. Likewise they didn't came up the term like Intel MIDs which was never proven, even if Intel official website says they came up the term it is not enough, ones Corporation, LLC, company...etc doesn't represent an significant part of history as to the guy who came up with a certain term. (e.g. by that, an easy example would be proverbs, chinese idoms that derive from historical stories usually record down from historian. 
Also stating that it is use by tablet PC isn't true, Macbook Air and Samsung X360 notebooks are considered UMPC which doesn't uses a pen (or stylus) nor does it uses a touchscreen as stated in article. Clearly there needs to be a clearification in the rewrittening of this article. 
Macbook Air + Samsung X360 ref
--Ramu50 (talk) 05:09, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bullcrap information 

message: Nowhere near. Why is it pictured? Kubel (talk) 04:43, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  A 13.3" Macbook is NOT an UMPC 

message: There have been several previous generations of having a full function PC packed into the smallest possible package. First came the CP/M luggables like the Osborne and Kaypro. Next were IBM compatible luggables from IBM and Compaq and others. Then early laptops (and the Mac 'portable') hit the scene. The laptop 'family tree' branched into desktop replacements- heavy models that packed in ever increasing power and features without changing much in weight, and lines that went with incremental technology improvements while shrinking the overall size. The first really tiny full function PCs were the ones from HP and the Atari Portfolio.
Eventually power and tiny size met up in the 'palmtop' or subnotebook sized systems like the Toshiba Libretto line and some lesser known brands such as Palmax. Today's 'netbooks' are more powerful systems that fit in between the palmtops and the smaller 'big' laptops.
A UMPC is pretty much the tablet PC version of a palmtop.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bizzybody (talk • contribs) 02:09, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: So what are you suggesting be changed in this article? I agree the Psion palmtops and Psion netBook are significant. I am surprised they aren't featured prominently in the article. I'd suggest including them. 49.179.165.138 (talk) 12:56, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: UMPC, the latest round in little PCs

message: Could the Virtual Cogs VCMX212 be used as a umpc (has optional lcd display and can run full linux; uMON Linux  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.246.144.206 (talk) 14:27, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: VCMX212

message: I suggest this article to be deleted. Too many tags for too long.--Kozuch (talk) 23:41, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deletion 

message: Can we admit this has failed yet?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.42.35.60 (talk) 20:47, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Failure 

message: This article appears to read as though MicroSoft invented this class of computing,... which is clearly a false-hood. In fact no mention is made of other devices such as the PepperPad 2, launched in 2004, or the PepperPad 3, launched in 2006, or numerous other devices released around the same time-frames. Instead, the article reads as though it was a MicroSoft marketing piece, re-writing history as they saw fit. The article should be completely re-written without bias or deleted.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by JasePow1968 (talk • contribs) 05:58, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Revision or Deletion 

message: Although there are many touch and tablet computing devices both older and newer than UMPC, UMPC was a specific class of devices defined by Intel and Microsoft; the specific devices that meet the criteria should be classed as UMPCs and competitive products that don't fit under the classification should be treated as different entities. That's not an opinion on the value or precedence of the definition, just that it was a specific project between Microsoft and Intel and broadening it to cover all touch devices or narrowing it to specific Origami featues doesn't reflect the situation.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.146.112.220 (talk) 16:27, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Concur. I haven't looked yet in-depth at the article as to whether the specification is said to be sourced from Microsoft and Intel, but all other similar devices that don't meet the spec are called Mobile Internet Devices (MID), just to differentiate them from UMPC-s. -Mardus (talk) 03:31, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Specify this is UMPC from the Microsoft/Intel definition 

message: Cyberbot II has detected that page contains external links that have either been globally or locally blacklisted.
Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed, or are highly innappropriate for Wikipedia.
This, however, doesn't necessarily mean it's spam, or not a good link.
If the link is a good link, you may wish to request whitelisting by going to the request page for whitelisting.
If you feel the link being caught by the blacklist is a false positive, or no longer needed on the blacklist, you may request the regex be removed or altered at the blacklist request page.
If the link is blacklisted globally and you feel the above applies you may request to whitelist it using the before mentioned request page, or request it's removal, or alteration, at the request page on meta.
When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags.
The whitelisting process can take its time so once a request has been filled out, you may set the invisible parameter on the tag to true.
Please be aware that the bot will replace removed tags, and will remove misplaced tags regularly.
Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:
*http://rwservices.no-ip.info:81/biblio.html
*:Triggered by \bno-ip\. on the global blacklist
If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.
From your friendly hard working bot.—cyberbot II NotifyOnline 17:57, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Blacklisted Links Found on the Main Page