No, they didn't. In fact, under OEM pressure, Microsoft foolishly prolonged their life by providing support for a next generation of netbooks with Windows 7 Starter.
Fact is that that you could get a proper laptop for the same money as a netbook, and this was much better for users.
Note that the original netbook (from Asus) had a 7in screen, and this was a substantial part of the cost saving. However, market forces drove bigger screens into the netbook market: 10in became the standard, and some had even larger screens. Prices went up to match.
The netbook actually died because OEMs reduced laptop screen sizes from 13.3in (which used to be very popular) while retaining the extra RAM (2GB or 4GB) and the extra screen resolution (1366 x 768).
At this point, many real laptops with 11.6in and 10.1in screens were cheaper than netbooks, so you had to be an idiot to buy a netbook. Or to manufacture one, which is why they disappeared from the market.
This had nothing to do with Ultrabooks.
Note that Ultrabook is an Intel trademark and Ultrabooks were also required to follow Intel's specification, which made them premium products.
But every OEM was and is able to make whatever thin-and-light laptops they like, regardless of the Ultrabook spec.
Thing is that to get XP, and later 7 Starter, OEMs have to follow strict specs defined by MS. This then choked off any potential differences the OEMs could experiment with.
Yes, that was part of the deal. OEMs could choose to design whatever they liked, or choose to exploit a netbook/nettop design package that provided some discounts on Microsoft/Intel technologies.
OEMs were not obliged to market netbooks. They did it because they thought they could make money that way.
I loved my eeePC back in college - either a 700 or 701 running, I think, Xunbuntu. Perfect for taking notes in class, which a tablet, or even the Surface RT I have now, would be garbage for. Not bad for light hacking either.
I still have two of the original eeePC machines, which I use to run antique Teletype machines. The Linux version is crappy. The WiFi connection system gets hung up if anything at all goes wrong, and the "union" file system leaks inodes, which have to be cleaned up with a script every few weeks of use.
You can get a tablet for $39, which is useful for little dedicated applications.
Still, I could buy 3-4 of my old eeePCs for the price of a Mac Air, and neither is really in the same form-factor. When you're working an $8/hour work-study job for your discretionary income, that price differential matters. The eee was also great for fitting on those comically tiny lecture hall chair-desk surfaces that a 10-13 inch laptop would swallow up, with room to spare for a honking big container of bad, strong coffee.
They would also fit on an economy-seat airline seat, and I didn't have to worry about the douche (no offense) in front of me breaking it by slamming his seat into recline mode. Was awesome.
Fact is that that you could get a proper laptop for the same money as a netbook, and this was much better for users.
Note that the original netbook (from Asus) had a 7in screen, and this was a substantial part of the cost saving. However, market forces drove bigger screens into the netbook market: 10in became the standard, and some had even larger screens. Prices went up to match.
The netbook actually died because OEMs reduced laptop screen sizes from 13.3in (which used to be very popular) while retaining the extra RAM (2GB or 4GB) and the extra screen resolution (1366 x 768).
At this point, many real laptops with 11.6in and 10.1in screens were cheaper than netbooks, so you had to be an idiot to buy a netbook. Or to manufacture one, which is why they disappeared from the market.
This had nothing to do with Ultrabooks.
Note that Ultrabook is an Intel trademark and Ultrabooks were also required to follow Intel's specification, which made them premium products.
But every OEM was and is able to make whatever thin-and-light laptops they like, regardless of the Ultrabook spec.