Slashdot Mirror
Designing The Ultimate Netbook
Harden writes "TrustedReviews has an interesting take on what the 'Ultimate Netbook' ought to be. From the article: 'How to solve a problem like the netbook? To my mind, despite nearly every manufacturer taking a stab at the thing, none has yet quite distilled my idea of what the Ultimate Netbook would be. This is partly because, until recently, not everyone had a clear understanding of what a netbook was meant to do, but also because manufacturers have all been far too busy jostling for market share to put a lot of thought into the finer details.' What would your Ultimate Netbook include?"
The Netbook needs to be cheap. Preferably in the $150-250 range. It should have a low to medium-end CPU, at least 256 MB of RAM and should run Linux (or if it has a high-end CPU at at least 512 MB of RAM, XP). It should have Wi-Fi out of the box, and a decent video card. It should have a minimum of 3 USB ports, and should be relatively shock resistant.
Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
Why is it that the 'original' netbook - the XO1 - can get 9-10 hours of battery life, even with a basic NiMH (rather than Li-ion) battery, and yet all the followup netbooks seem stuck at 4 hours tops? Even with the new ultra-efficient Atom processor, most new netbooks seem to have a relatively heavy power draw. I wish somebody would sort that out.
"I bless every day that I continue to live, for every day is pure profit."
Everyone has different needs and tastes. Some want a smaller package at the cost of features and screen size. Some of us want a little more hardware available and can't see a 7" screen anyhow. Many Japanese would be happy with a 4" netbook even if it had a 200Mhz arm processor. Most Americans would complain. This is why Asus etc have so many models and sizes. Trying to jam everyone into one model is like Henry Ford with the model T. He lost market share because he thought one car would be enough choice for everyone.
Even those who arrange and design shrubberies are under considerable economic stress at this period in history.
The good things about the netbook market are affordability, GNU/Linux and free software. Microsoft and Apple do not really have systems for that range.
An Apple Netbook wouldn't be affordable and it would include the usual Apple restrictions and digital rights violations. No, thanks.
I read the article. I got about 2 paragraphs in and read this little gem:
Since when the hell was the iPhone the definitive Phone? I'm honestly not trying to troll here, but it's widely documented that although it's great for web browsing and such, the actual phone aspect of it fails on nearly all points. It doesn't do MMS, it doesn't have bluetooth for anything other than headsets - hell, the shitty Windows Smartphone I had 4 years ago did everything the iPhone does today (and more), with the only exceptions of a multi-touch screen and 3G (Because it wasn't widespread back then). Honestly, what am I missing here?
+1 IDisagreeSoHeMustBeATrollOrAnAstroturferOrAShill
Apple has entered this field; it's called the MacBook Air. It's expensive, it's heavy, and it has limited connectivity options.
For heaven's sake folks, the Air isn't a Netbook - its a regular 13.3" widescreen form-factor laptop (which is about the minimum size for a full-sized keyboard and better-than-XGA display) that's been made super-slim, and then made to look even slimmer by clever design. Its aimed squarely at well-off Mac users who want a small laptop to supplement their iMac, don't want a MacBook Pro (pretty, but relatively hefty) but fancy something a bit more "executive" than the regular MacBook. Its no power-house, but it has considerably more grunt than most netbooks. The connectivity is stripped out because it is assumed that you'll use WiFi and Bluetooth (there's a clue in the name). The seriously expensive SSD option is intended to give HD-equivalent capacity. Its main competitors would have been smaller, sexy and equally expensive ultra-compacts, and the killer features would have been the keyboard, and that it slipped into a briefcase designed for A4/Letter documents better than a smaller-but-thicker computer. Yet, somehow, the reviews always put the Air head-to-head with the $300 EEE PC 701, rather than $3000 worth of carbon-fibre bonsai from Sony.
Just for the record, I own 0 (zero) MacBook Airs and 1 (one) EEE PC 701 (and am tempted to upgrade to a 901) - but I just find the comparison bizzarre.
In a survey of 100 programmers, 111111 thought that duck-typing was a good idea.
It's still pointless to compare new to used though. Give it time and you'll be able to pick up used eeepc's for cheap too.