It's the wrong time to buy an ultrabook

Why it's a good idea to hold on to your money for now!
Written by Adrian Kingsley-Hughes, Contributing Writer

Intel is using CES 2012 in Las Vagas as a platform for showing off the first wave of ultrabooks. But is it the wrong time to buy an ultrabook?

I think it is ... and here's why.

See also: James Kendrick's 'Ultrabook is going to confuse buyers'

Ultrabooks are the latest form factor to hit the PC market. They're essentially thin and light notebooks built out of brushed aluminum featuring decent processing power and good battery life. Think something along the lines of Apple's MacBook Air but instead of mac OS X you get Windows.

But not everyone is happy to jump onto the ultrabook bandwagon just yet. Ultrabooks have debuted at an awkward time seems that buyers are getting smarter, realizing that it they wait, they'll get a better deal.

So why is it the wrong time to buy an ultrabook?

  • Windows 8 is on the horizon, and that will make that shiny new ultrabook seem like a fossil. While I still need convincing that Windows 8 has much to offer on the desktop, the OS will make compact systems like ultrabooks much easier to handle. Ultrabooks aren't tablets (yet) but they're tablet-like enough to benefit form Microsoft's new OS.
  • Current ultrabooks are based on Intel's Sandy Bridge architecture. On the horizon are ultrabooks powered by the die-shrunk Ivy Bridge architecture which will bring better CPU and graphics power to the platform.
  • The current lineup of ultrabooks are pretty basic when it comes to features. They're basically thin and light notebooks. Next-generation units will not only have better hardware but also come equipped with cooler features, such as touchscreens and voice control.
  • The price will come down. Currently ultrabooks start at around $800, but Intel expects to be able to shave $100 off that by the end of the year. Doesn't seem like much, but combine it with better hardware and it makes sense to wait.

It makes sense to wait!

[poll id="747"]


Editorial standards