Slashdot Mirror
Is Intel Killing 12-Inch Displays On Netbooks?
HangingChad writes "Dell has retired their 12-inch Intel Atom-powered netbooks, they said today. The official reason — 'It really boils down to this: for a lot of customers, 10-inch displays are the sweet spot for netbooksLarger notebooks require a little more horsepower to be really useful.' Or is the real reason that 12-inch displays on netbooks cut into Intel's more profitable dual-core market and Dell's profit margins on higher-end machines?"
I remember when I had a 12" iBook. Back then it was considered a normal laptop. OK, it wasn't wide-screen, but isn't 12" just too big for a netbook?
-- Cheers!
Now I might believe this "it's cutting into cash cow" theory if Dell was a monopoly like Apple. But if HP, Asus et all are offering 12" Netbooks then wouldn't they just be losing customers to their competitors--gaining 0 profit instead of less profit?
That might be a reason. Most netbooks have the Intel chipset which sucks a lot more power than the NVidia one. That might be a reason to want smaller screens, seeing as that would save *some* power...
[ irc.p2p-network.net -> #zomgwtfbbq ][ http://zomgwtfbbq.info ]
The whole reason for having a netbook is that it's tiny and portable. If you don't need super portability, you might as well get a more powerful machine. Market forces at work.
It seems a bit weird to choose to make a twelve inch screen on a netbook, since the entire point of picking a netboo over a beefier laptop is that you highly value lightness and compactness.
There's a trade-off between convenience and power, and once you get over a certain size, you might as well have something with a really workable screen.
Isn't the point of netbooks to be small and light? 12" screens start to defeat that; I wouldn't doubt that most netbook purchasers prefer 10" screens (of course, any smaller than that and the keyboard gets pretty cramped). If you're going to get a 12" machine, you might as well make the jump to a full notebook...
I'm actually on a 12" laptop right now, and love it very much.
I. Cui bono? 2. Follow the money.
"If you want to know what happens to you when you die, go look at some dead stuff."
The market will decide this.
why have a 12" screen when you can pack all those pixels into 10" or 8"?
If you want extra-large print, buy a 24" LCD and run it at 800x600.
The Dell Mini 12 had a horrible graphics chipset and 1 GB memory soldered onto the motherboard, which couldn't be upgraded. It wasn't cutting into profits *anywhere*.
Interested in open source engine management for your Subaru?
Putting larger screens and larger keyboards in a netbook...the device ceases to BE a netbook. When you start getting into 12-13 inch screens you're starting to get into a form factor that is...well...a laptop.
The whole point of a netbook is that it's small, compact, light, low-battery...but that's harder and harder to do when your netbook gets to be the size of your laptop. You can call a dog's tail a leg, but that doesn't make it a leg. Just because you call a device that's 5 lbs and has a 12" screen a netbook doesn't make it a netbook.
So where do you draw the line? I have a netbook and a laptop and a desktop. They serve three distinct purposes (though I rarely use my laptop anymore because my netbook, with the 10" screen, does just fine for most of those tasks).
Perhaps the reason more people are moving to netbooks instead of laptops is that most people have realized that an Atom processor is just fine for their tasks. That spending more to have a dual-core processor that spends 99% of its time idle and sucking up battery life was wasteful.
-B-
I'm eyeing the 11.6 notebooks, with ~1300x768 resolution, because they are the first workable machines for me (1024x600 res of the 10" just isn't enough although I would buy a smaller one if the resolution was up to par).
Anyway, at these sizes, it's not much cheaper than the cheapest full size notebooks - but it's still a lot easier than lugging around the average 15", has much better battery life than the cheapest notebooks, and with the typical browsing/email most people do, having max processing power isn't the biggest concern although having enough obviously is.
An iBook may have been the exception to some of these observations, but then they are more expensive, and were sleeker than the average plastic clunker.
I bought a 11 inches 6 small netbook. Mostly for watching film while travelling or play old dosbox games or playing usic while on train. Nothing really special. I was searching for long battery time (some train travel can be up to 8 hours). I found 10' and 11'6 netbook. The 11'6 was less powerful but a longer time (8 hours versus as low as 360-420 minutes for more "powerful" netbook). At that point when we are speaking of 6 to 8 hours, the screen power consumption for 11'6 to 10' is probably not too different (11'6x9 to 10'x9' make a difference of 6%, so assuming for a first approximation that the surface of the LCD give the same power per cm^2, that is a 6% difference in surface, so 6% differenfce in power. For a 8h or ~500 minutes netbook battery power that is a difference of 30 minutes in minus).
C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
visit randi.org
Most people I know buying netbooks are doing so because they already own 1 or more computers (often already own a notebook, even), and they just like the idea of having something cheap that could really be brought around anywhere they go without many concerns.
(EG. I have a custom configured Macbook Pro I bought new, last year. Great machine, and I maxxed out the RAM in it, upgraded the hard drive to a 500GB, and got a great carrying bag for it and its accessories. I take it to work regularly and on vacation trips, etc. But with a value of close to $3000 for all of that, possible theft or loss is a big worry. I'm definitely not going to lug it all over the place without a care in the world.... So I got a $200 or so closeout model of eeePC, and that one is pretty disposable by comparison. It's less functional and the screen gives me eyestrain after a while - but it works in a pinch, in places I'd just do without a portable otherwise.)
I suspect a 12" screen netbook is approaching the size where it's a little less convenient to take everywhere. (I can throw my eeePC in my car's glovebox .. but don't think a 12" display netbook would fit.) It also has to carry a bit higher price-tag than a 9" or 10" screen model would carry.
12" is the perfect size for many people who want the smallest possible laptop that they can still be productive on (i.e. type on comfortably). 12" laptops are a product with a market and that market probably doesn't care whether the product is called a netbook or a notebook or whatever.
I used a friend's 10" netbook for a few minutes and immediately knew I couldn't buy one with a screen that small. 600 pixels is not nearly enough for vertical resolution.
I researched all of the netbooks and just purchased (2 days ago) an Acer AO751h. It has an 11.6" display (1366x768), a full sized keyboard and a 6 cell battery that lasts ~7-8h depending on drivers.
FYI, if you decide to get one as well, be sure to update the GMA500 drivers to the versions this guy is talking about because other versions will cause it to lock up, and also have terrible performance.
I'm still waiting on the 9" or 10" netbook tablet type to be put on the market. That way I can spend the $300 for it and be able to use it as an ebook reader as well as a laptop instead of spending the same amount on just the ebook reader from Sony or Amazon or any of the others out there.
I think Atom purchasers have to declare the destination of the chip and intel charges more if the destination is a 12" display. The idea being every 12" sold is a desktop CPU sale lost. AMD, NVIDIA, VIA don't have the necessary market share to impose this kind of restriction on the manufacturers using their chips. Dell is probably surrendering now rather than continue with a platform that's had its profit margins hobbled from the start.
This makes sense for Dell without inventing a conspiracy with Intel; Dell would have you upsold to a bigger machine because you want the better display. Display size is crucial to a laptop; it's probably the most important specification. Dell knows this. This is why you are made to run a gauntlet of low prices and bundled crap before you're shown the real, disappointing, resolution and realize you'll have to dramatically increase the price to get a usable screen.
Without the unsubstantiated Intel angle this wouldn't warrant a look on Slashdot so this amounts to a conspiracy story. Could we have some grownup editors, please?
How about the relationship with Microsoft?
What are Microsoft's licensing terms and costs for 10" netbooks, 12" netbooks and >12" notebooks?
Oh, and it only weighs 3lbs, too, with the 6-cell battery.
I used to have a full 6-7lb laptop, it was fine at first but I soon got sick of having to carry it around. This thing being only 3lbs, I can just throw into my bag and go. And, because of the 7-8h battery life, I don't have to worry about bringing the charger with me (before this brought the laptop up to 7-8lbs)
I've been looking for a replacement for my 12" G4 Powerbook and looked at the Dell Mini 12. Good dimensions and screen resolution, but what killed it for me was the Intel GMA 500 chipset and Atom N530. Underpowered and overpriced, plus flaky compatibility and lousy battery life. Its like a TFT maker had leftover panels and Intel had the junk leftover from making "quality" GMA 9x0 and N2x0 parts and sold it to Dell real cheap.
Roll in a candy coating and sell it for $100+ more than the good Mini 10 series and presto! A line that will be quickly discontinued because the geeks that actually buy netbooks know better.
"The quality of life is determined by its activites."--Aristotle
Isn't it more probable that they're taking them down so their whole netbook line is allowed to run windows 7 starter editon? That's one of the main limitations imposed by microsoft.
I chalk this up to bad market research. Dell probably asked a focus group how they could improve on the 10" netbook. The focus group probably said a bigger screen and faster cpu. How much more will they pay for it? $150 bucks.
Now Dell goes and makes one at that price point and screen size. Except the 12" is heavier and eats into the already mediocure battery life, it's waaay more expensive than the the 7" models that are practically being given away. No wonder it doesn't sell well.
I think Dell market research here forgot that the real desirable factor in netbook is the low, low price, portability, and long battery life. Ignore the core features customers love, and they will ignore you. How shocking!
In Soviet Russia, articles before post read *you*!
Remember, that even tho Intel is huge, the ARM chip set is nothing INTEL should ignore. So, saying it is cutting into their profits, well ARM can replace ATOM in a heart beat. SO, I honestly think 'market forces' are at work here.
Remember, the point ( and conciquently the actually name ) of a Netbook means SMALL in every way... portable. Laptops of 10+ inches are much more bunky and the only reason you know need a bigger screen, really, is for gaming and whatever we all do on a Laptop. ( play EVE on my laptop... I know a Netbook would be utterly useless in that regard. )
No, the Netbook is a Netbook and NOT a laptop for a reason. SIZE. Also remember that adding just 2 inches is based on cross diagonal size, not width. So adding 2 more inches is actually adding much more overall size.
I am tired of Intel's crap. Dozens and dozens of different processors that vary by speed, features, and price, and completely artificial restrictions on which processor(s) can be put into which products. How does even Intel keep them all straight? All if it is designed to do nothing more than screw the consumer.
What I would like to see is it all simplified down to a couple processor families -- Low End and High End, with one processor in each of those families with maybe 4 or 5 different speed grades with all the features in all of the processors. I cannot believe that Intel wouldn't make more money mass producing a few models with greater economies of scale than this huge number that vary only by who has virturalization here and who has hyper-threading there, plus who actually has both. And eventually the High End is replaced by the New High End, and the old High End becomes the New Low End.
I'm in the market for a netbook to buy over the next few months. I need something to take on the road to be small, inexpensive, handle e-mail, browse the web, and allow me to write with a reasonably full-sized standard keyboard and acceptable battery life. I am so disgusted with Intel's phony restrictions that I'm going to wait and see what the ARM-powered netbooks turn out like before I make my final decision. I don't fear a unix machine.
The ugly (to Intel) truth is that even lower end processors these days are all most people need if they don't buy into the Microsoft garbage that you can't enjoy the Windows 7 experience without a top-end processor from no longer than 6 months ago, 4GB minimum of memory, and a DX11 graphics card that isn't even out on sale yet.
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
I am not aware of how required processor power is directly related to screen size. While the case might be made that GPU power should be scaled up to match the number of pixels being handled, ATI and NVidia are already nicely handling that end of the equation. To say that a 12" laptop requires a full Core Duo or better, while 11.6" screens run just fine on Atoms, is beyond bogus.
I am aware of how much I hate Dell for lying.
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
I'm a light pc user when I'm working. I don't use a lot of computing power, I'm either using ssh or a lightweight text editor, maybe a web browser. I would like to be portable enough to pick it up and go sit on my back porch and do this via wifi, because it's such a nice day outside. A 10" screen is a tad small for what I'd like to do. A decent 12" screen would be just about right, for me, to work comfortably at arm's length, not to mention the more useable sized keyboards that are typically on a 12" netbook. I've tried a few of them out, in stores, and find that I can comfortably touch type on most of them. The 8-10" ones kind of defeat the purpose of doing real work with the tiny keyboards.
Sue me, I'm a hamfisted/half blind old fart, who doesn't want to pay $1000+ for a text editor/ssh terminal to go sit on his back porch and work.
I know regular 12" notebooks have been around for $1000 for a while now, but I'm picky. I saw the first netbooks and thought "that's ideal for me, now if they'd only make one a little bigger so it's more of a workspace and less of a glorified IM/email client, I can throw a simple distro on it and go.
-Troll, Flamebait, and Offtopic are NOT equivalent to disagreement.
The $300 laptop is already here - an HP at Walmart.com. Trying to limit what people put in a netbook to protect the price of laptops is just chasing the unicorn.
People want our netbooks with the new low power processors and a screen as big as the lid. And maybe the new cellular wireless tech embedded. There's no good reason to deny us what we want, except that Microsoft is having trouble running from that tiny SSD. That's an antitrust issue begging for attention.
Help stamp out iliturcy.
The problem with netbooks is that you need to stop what you're doing, open up the netbook, load up the OS, and finally begin what you wanted to do in the first place. The process of operating it is the same as a normal laptop, which for me defeats the purpose of having one. This is unlike mobile phones which are essentially instant-on devices. As for the 10-inch displays, the only "sweetspot" I can think of that applies to those displays is the exact size that suckers customers into squinting at their screens long enough for them to develop astigmatism.
Hmmm.... Let's see where your logic leads. Apple has a 100% share of the market for Apple computers. Wow. That's so incisive. Read below to see where your logic takes you.
Dell has a 100% share of the Dell computer market. Ergo, Dell is now a monopoly. AMD has a 100% share of the AMD cpu market. Ergo, AMD is now a monopoly.
Your logic is so flawed, so "strawmanish", that it's not funny. Every company now qualifies as a monopoly because they hold a 100% share of their own sales, and no one else can manufacture and sell their brand.
Didn't Techcrunch allege that Intel charge more for their chip if it's destined to a machine with a 12" laptop rather than A 10" one? Or that it was because the lowest spec Windows 7 distribution only works with screens up to 10" in size, so a 12" one, for cost reasons, would effectively be Linux only??
hint: max spec for Windows XP Home on netbooks was 12.1", max spec for Windows 7 Starter on netbooks is 10.2"
http://www.engadget.com/2009/05/22/microsoft-publishes-maximum-windows-7-netbooks-specs/
This does lead into the question of how fearful of Microsoft are the hardware manufacturers who get hired to build ARM based netbooks with screens larger than 10.2"? I would not be surprised to see ARM products constantly bumped to the back of the production queue for 'mysterious' reasons this holiday manufacturing season. Remember, Microsoft once forced Intel to fold one of their software divisions in the 90s because it threatened Windows and promoted Java. More recently, the head of the Thai manufacturers association publicly said they fear Microsoft... So is it really Intel doing the strong arming here?
LoB
"Anyone who stands out in the middle of a road looks like roadkill to me." --Linus
If you want a thin and light notebook with a decent-sized screen that doesn't cost an arm and a leg, a 12" netbook is perfect. The price jumps straight from around $500 to around $1500 for higher-powered subnotebooks in the same form factor. Aside from the terrible GPU, I like the Mini 12. I'm not saying I buy the argument that Intel forced this on Dell. I think it's more likely Dell is ready to come out with a better alternative in the very near future. It's just marketing: they probably don't want to distract from a new product launch by canceling a product at the same time.
Good riddance I say. Netbook shouldn't be larger than 10 inches. I would expect a lot more from a 12 inch laptop like the hp dv2 laptops. I wonder when this race to the bottom is gonna level out. Hopefully soon considering theres a netbook offering from every manufacturer. I would encourage this if it wasn't for the fact that almost every single netbook is exactly the same when it comes to the actual computing. I'm all for those ARM processor based ones though. A 7-10 inch version with 720p video and full flash support would be awesome. Hopefully tegra delivers on its promise.
My 10" netbook is wonderful. The only problem I really have with it is the 1024x600 screen. If a 12" screen would make for a 1280x750 screen I'd be all over it. I've been wanting to buy a few more of these computers for my kids and that size would be my sweet spot. As it is, since the 10" models are all that is available, I'm just going to wait for prices to bounce off the pavement before I pick up any more.
The case is Microsoft holds 90% of the entire PC market. Apple holds 10%. Hence why Microsoft is a Monopoly, and Apple isn't on the OS side. Apple also competes in the hardware business with Dell, HP and other OEMs. They don't have even near a controlling interest.
As for your other comment, the MacOS market, MacOS isn't a market, it's a product. PCs are the market and Apple doesn't even come close to having a monopoly on it. You'd have to be retarded to think otherwise.
"Not to mention all the idiots who use words like boxen."
Anonymous Coward on Monday August 04, @06:49PM
suck my 12"
wait, dell just cut it off
nooooo
O.o
The real kicker with a netbook would be cheap 3G data. For something I take everywhere, it is useless on its own but makes a great citrix or X11 terminal, but it needs network! I just need a 3G card that works for Linux. The machine only has 7GB flash and 512 MB ram so is not suitable for Windows (this is what makes it a netbook to me, not just a small laptop)
Owned 3",4",12",15" computers and DEFINATELY 12" is the technical tipping point at which the display supports desktop functionality. 12" was the perfect form factor in the embodiment of Apple's MacBook Pro 12.
BUT...the display drives retail pricing and Apple dumped the 12. It has been my thought that the margins didn't support all the same components necessary to drive the larger displays. Profit bought us the widescreen displays.
Hmmm.... Let's see where your logic leads. Apple has a 100% share of the market for Apple computers. Wow. That's so incisive. Read below to see where your logic takes you.
Dell has a 100% share of the Dell computer market. Ergo, Dell is now a monopoly. AMD has a 100% share of the AMD cpu market. Ergo, AMD is now a monopoly.
Your logic is so flawed, so "strawmanish", that it's not funny. Every company now qualifies as a monopoly because they hold a 100% share of their own sales, and no one else can manufacture and sell their brand.
someone mod this man up!
"Monopoly" does not mean "owns 100% of the market". It means they have an overwhelming majority of a market. Microsoft is a monopoly, which is not illegal, immoral, unethical, or whatever. They only ran afoul of the law when they abused their monopoly status with OEMs and vendors.
People around here throw around "monopoly" like it's some inherently bad thing or illegal. It's neither.
we don't need to limit ourselves to naming. there is a continuum between netbooks and notebooks. if there is a market for low-power 12in notebooks (higher end "net"books)..let it be.
--- widget evolution: enhanced, plus, super, ultra, extreme, exxxtreme, ultra-extreme,
That's what I use my old iBook for. It's powerful enough to do mobile computing without a problem and gets great battery life but it's old and I don't worry too much about it. I'd hate the thought of having to worry about where my $3000 computer was. It's got a 12 inch screen which is about the biggest I'd want to lug around. I've thought about getting a netbook but really they don't have any more power than the old G4.
Even if your logic weren't flawed (see the other response), there is nothing illegal about having a monopoly over a market. You've only broken the law if you unduly use your monopoly status (or near monopoly status) to weed out competitors, for example, by dumping a product on the market below market value, or by illegally tying products and services.
:)
Seriously tho, i agree with intel. If you are going for that size, might as well step up the horsepower to run more apps locally and just call it a notebook.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
I used a friend's 10" netbook for a few minutes and immediately knew I couldn't buy one with a screen that small. 600 pixels is not nearly enough for vertical resolution.
What happened to GUIs? For years, my primary machine was a 386sx laptop with a 640x480 display in 16 shades of blue. I did word processing, programming, and image editing on it quite happily and never found the screen resolution particularly limiting. I'm not disputing your point, I'm just wondering what changed. Part of it is that back then I used to use one application maximised, while now I run several and they all take a bit of screen space (running more than one app on a 386sx with 5MB of RAM - one soldered to the board, four 1MB SIMMs - was not a good idea regardless of screen space) but even individual apps seem to need to be bigger.
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
They have a 100% share of MacOS computers, they are a monopoly in that market.
Um, everyone has a monopoly of their own products, genius.
What you're saying is that Apple doesn't license Mac OS X to other computer makers. That's not the definition of a monopoly. Monopoly isn't about specific products, but about product categories. "Macs" isn't a product category (as regards monopolies), it's a brand and a product line.
Or, if you say that's not the case, that their computers are just PCs and compete with all the others, well then you are hard pressed to call MS a monopoly at that point.
MS wasn't a monopoly because they were the only source of MS Windows. They were a monopoly (and still are in many regards) because they sold the overwhelming majority of computer operating systems, and used that status to significantly abuse the market.
I really can't see a situation where MS is a monopoly, but Apple isn't.
You seriously can't see a difference? Both have a "monopoly" over their own products, but only one had a greater than 90% share of their particular market, and only one went on to abuse that market share sufficiently to trigger anti-trust investigations that resulted in conviction, and only one of them faces seemingly non-ending sanctions by the EU.
The other has had a few lawsuits filed against them, and an investigation here and there (mostly regarding the iPod and iTunes), but has never once been found guilty of being a monopoly.
How much more difference do you need?
If having a monopoly over your own product is sufficient similarity, then everyone has a monopoly, and the term is useless.
So, I'm considering an MacBook. I already have lotsa horsepower on my desktop, so I don't need another "ferrari". After looking about, I end up with a $300 Aspire One. I would have gone for the 11 inch next to it, but it had Vista. Good thing too, this machine runs really well once I purged some Startups. The Vista machine on the Atom chip, not so much. I can't get XP on the bigger machine (11 inch) due to MS rules. So, why is anyone surprised that laptop makers are trying to keep the "laptop" market higher end than the "netbook" markets. It cannot cost more to make a bigger computer than the netbook. If so, it is not very much. This is all about maintaining margins and artificial product segmentation.
Microsoft is effectively killing 12" netbooks by charging OEM's higher licensing fees for screens over 10.2".
Actually OS X is just a pretty version of Unix, much like Linux (though in most cases a -hell- of a lot more polished). It is actually based on freebsd; you can access a terminal and run normal unix commands on it. It is highly customized, but so is Ubuntu or Fedora.
They have about 90% of the desktop Unix "market", maybe a little less, and almost none of the Unix server market. Even paring down the market like that, they have nowhere near the market share Microsoft has in the broader OS market.
Finally, when evaluating a monopoly, you don't arbitrarily define the market, you look at who the competitors are. Apple doesn't give a rats ass about the Unix market, they aren't really competing in it, though you could associate them in it. They are competing in the OS market, with the likes of Windows and other OS vendors, like Canonical. They don't even hardly compete with RedHat because they are primarily unix workstations and servers, though they are more similar to each other than to Windows.
You are a monopoly when you have enough market pressure to force your competitors to produce inferior products to your own. It goes beyond out-maneuvering the competitors and gaining a market advantage, because once you can force your competitor to produce an inferior product, you can drive them out of the marketplace and control the market at will.
Look at telco's for a good example of monopolies. They are more localized than they once were, but in any given area it is virtually impossible for a new competitor to enter the market and provide a better service for less money. The monopolies own the entire infrastructure, even though it was paid for by tax dollars. Nobody gets in without their say-so, nobody could get approval to run new lines to create a competing infrastructure, and nobody could afford to do so anyway. It is the very definition of a monopoly, it was broken up once before, and it needs to be broken up further still.
We are not as bad in the PC market, though we were close for a while a few years ago. Microsoft got beat the hell up for it too, and lost a lot of their market control. They still dominate however, and calling Apple a monopoly is a joke.
My sig applies to you.
Security is mostly a superstition... Avoiding danger is no safer in the long run than outright exposure. - Helen Keller
What a stupid question.
Sigh. Apple doesn't have a monopoly. It's the wrong word but the right general concept. So while people are arguing semantics, they're totally missing the point.
A Dell PC is trivially replaceable with a PC from a number of other manufacturers. Everything else will be more or less the same.
An Apple PC is not trivially replaceable. Changing to any competitor will require changing go a completely different OS, which behaves in a noticeably different way and requires different software. If you want an Apple computer with a configuration not available from Apple, you don't have a lot of options. You have to pick the closest Apple product. If you want a Windows PC with a configuration not available from Dell, you find a manufacturer that does make a PC with that configuration.
App developers optimise arround the minimum screen size they think a significant proportion of thier userbase will have. For a number of years that was 1024x768 then suddenly netbooks started appearing with lower resoloutions. With some apps it's not a problem, others either plain won't fit or will leave so little useful screen area that you won't want to use them.
Also I suspect our expectations have increased, if living with a very cramped screen is all you've ever known you won't wish too hard for anything better.
Personally i'm waiting for a 10 inch machine with 768 vertical pixels. They are already availible in the US afaict and should be availible soon here in the UK too (there are already sites taking preorders for them)
note: i'm known as plugwash most places but i screwd up registering that here somehow in the past and now can't register
Youtube plays just fine, I can even play 720p videos on any 1.6ghz atom netbook. That's hardly a crap computer.
The 1.6GHz atom feels generally as fast as a regular desktop for daily use.
If it's not running that fast, you're not using it right.
Hardly a crap system.
Seems you're saying people should get overkill systems, and not good enough. By that logic, everyone should spend $5,000 on a nice 5 drive SSD raid and tri GTX 285s on a core i7 extreme, just in case they'll need it. And hey, it loads the browser for youtube videos faster!
I'm running my Sempron laptop with 1GB Ram at 1GHz, and the only problem with it performance-wise is that it doesn't have SSE so it can't run Silverlight. But that won't be a problem with Netbooks.
Who are these people that need this so called performance? Most people I know use their computers to surf the web and write documents, and people have been doing that for decades with slower hardware than we have now.
The only problem will be using a small screen because most web sites expect 1024x768 resolution.
As long as I can get a full-size notebook keyboard (yes that does seem like an oxymoron) in 10" width I'm a happy camper. What drives me nuts about netbooks is 1024x600. I would *love* to try out a 1920x1080 10" display. I *want* 300ish DPI. I want the additional battery drain. Nokia hit a 200ish DPI screen with their N800 and that was how many years ago... where are the 1080p netbook displays??
Monopolies aren't about products at all. They're about the ability of a company to charge monopoly rents - if apple didn't have to worry about losing marketshare due to alternate products, they'd have a monopoly. Note that this is a progressive scale - intel isn't a monopoly, but they have a whole lot of clout and, if not for AMD, they could do pretty much what they like.
"We returned the General to El Salvador, or maybe Guatemala, it's difficult to tell from 10,000 feet"
I spend most of the day working on my 12" Thinkpad (X41, 4-5 years old). I really can't imagine doing that on anything smaller, I need a decent sized keyboard and the Thinkpad one is probably the best I have ever used. A 12" surely stretches the definition of a netbook though...
Your point is still wrong. Functions don't define a market. Sure people don't have a choice if they want a Apple computer and Dell just produces some beige clones in a clown suit. But that doesn't mean crap. What you can do on MacOS X, you can do on Windows too, and as such, that doesn't give Apple any kind of controlling interest in the market, only control over their own product. And this argument is basically semantics. The guy wrongly used the word monopoly. It doesn't mean what he thinks it means and as such, his message was completely distorted.
"Not to mention all the idiots who use words like boxen."
Anonymous Coward on Monday August 04, @06:49PM
> I really can't see a situation where MS is a monopoly, but Apple isn't.
How about reality? One of those entities is a convicted monopoly, one is not.
Monopolies aren't about products at all. They're about the ability of a company to charge monopoly rents
For access to products.
I fail to see how you can have a monopoly without some product (either goods or services) being involved.
if apple didn't have to worry about losing marketshare due to alternate products
I thought you just said it wasn't about products?
they'd have a monopoly. Note that this is a progressive scale - intel isn't a monopoly
Actually, Intel has been found guilty of engaging in monopolistic practices.
but they have a whole lot of clout and, if not for AMD, they could do pretty much what they like.
Monopoly doesn't mean you don't have competition, it means (in the sense that is generally accepted from a government regulation viewpoint) that you have "a whole lot of clout" (as you put it) and use that clout to engage in sufficiently anti-competitive practices.
You need both the clout and the abuse, and yes, this has to happen around some sort of product, be it OS's, CPUs, phone service or aluminum.
No troll thread is complete without a twitter conspiracy plot.
Well ok, but back to the first point: monopolies aren't about products, they're about how much you can charge for them. Apple has competitors and there are alternatives to OSX on a macbook. Sure, apple owns the college market, but they can't jack up their prices without consequences.
Intel is not a company I see as a monopoly, but as something very close to one. That's my whole thing about the sliding scale - they can't dictate prices, but they have a lot of influence, and they have gotten their hand slapped for the exclusivity deals they did. Without AMD, there would be no credible alternative to intel (so they'd have to make one to get gov't contracts), but right now, so long as they don't demand specific behavior wrt chips running AMD, I don't see them as a monopoly. Just a very big gorilla.
"We returned the General to El Salvador, or maybe Guatemala, it's difficult to tell from 10,000 feet"
Totally awesome netbook with 1280x800 resolution is sooo worth it, 2gb memory upgrade is a must have. Had to buy in UK, apparently only the black version available in US and that one is a fingerprint magnet. The 800 vertical rez is the key, massively cuts down on scrolling.
I will not be pushed, filed, stamped, indexed, briefed, debriefed or numbered. My life is my own.
The problem with most netbooks is the low resolution 1024x600. If you're reading short e-mail/web pages and viewing youtube video, then this is adequate. I owned a MSI Wind, but the poorly built cramped keyboard causes strain after long use. If you're a touch typist, it will cause you to mistype when you switch back to a full sized keyboard due to muscle memory. In addition, the touchpad on the MSI Wind is unusable. It's best to use an external mouse. It made for a horrible user experience that I ended up replacing it. This is basically what the Apple folks concluded when asked about netbooks.
I replaced the MSI Wind with a HP Mini 2140 with HD (1366x768). This has an almost full sized keyboard which is quite comfortable to use. The HD display is absolutely gorgeous and has enough resolution to view large documents. Programmers will love the display as one can see more lines of code. The only problem is the higher resolution results in the pixel being smaller. People that have bad eyes are going to have a hard time with the smaller 10" display and is going to cause eye strain. The trackpad button placement is also a bit awkward and the touchpad itself could use more vertical space. These are minor problems that I could live with though. If the display were 11", then I think we have the sweet spot. If they built this, I imagine more people would replace their existing laptops with netbooks. Of course, that would cut in on the manufacturer's laptop sales. I don't think that will happen.
Replying to yourself anonymously to raise the visibility of your -1 posts so you can go back to Roy "Spam King" Schestowitz to complain how you are 'abused' is lame, so people should know why you are posting at -1.
After abusing the Slashdot community for about two years, no one is interested on what you have to say. So why don't you just do us all a favour: go back to 'BoycottNovell' and stay there.
Well ok, but back to the first point: monopolies aren't about products, they're about how much you can charge for them.
Not true. MS got in trouble for giving IE away for free.
It had nothing to do with the price, and in spite of what you keep saying, it had everything to do with the products. Specifically, the tying of IE to Windows.
Intel is not a company I see as a monopoly, but as something very close to one.
Actual courts of law have ruled otherwise.
And apps are space-bloated now. Menu bars, tool bars, status bar, ribbons, shadows, etc, etc.
I don't think it is really "optimisation", as if you look at a typical windows file explorer screenshot, you'll find the same information (like the selected file name) present in several locations at the same time. I think it is just bloat and bad design.
I used to work with a 512x342 b&w mac screen, and, while being small, it was really usable. I can only dream at the amount of information that could be presented on the screen I am typing on (a 30inches), if UI didn't follow the bloated path they did.
I also use a netbook with 9" screen, and it is clearly much less usable than a 25 year old macintosh.
No, MS got in trouble for leveraging a monopoly into other areas. They have a monopoly in desktop PCs because they can charge monopoly rents. They then used that monopoly to force IE on the world, killing netscape. Being a monopoly has everything to do with price, but it's only illegal if you use a monopoly to force your way into other markets.
"We returned the General to El Salvador, or maybe Guatemala, it's difficult to tell from 10,000 feet"
If Dell was making good money on the 12" laptops with the atom, they'd keep making them. If their competitors were making good money on the 12" laptops, Dell would still be finding ways to improve their margins on them.
Everyone likes to blame the big bad old chip company...of course they must be controlling this market by charging an extra $5 for a chip. (presume I'm rolling my eyes so severely that my head is becoming misshapen.
Frankly, I like the 12" form factor, but as someone over the age of 28 find it less than usable for long periods of time even with the mr. magoo glasses. A 10" netbook has all the portability, but in the 14-16" range I find non portable usability to be far better. And at $350-400 for all the horsepower you can use from a pentium dual core or low end core 2 duo and a 14" form factor, I'm struggling to find the mysterious men-in-black tin foil hatted chip maker pressures to have any validity whatsoever.
But then again, if you like them small and thin, I guess your preferences are your own...
If AMD had their low power CPUs to compete with Intel, there would be *real* competition and then Intel just couldn't decide that they didn't make *enough* money this quarter and limit a very much in demand consumer product.
Be sure to check their site, but pretty much all of the Sierra cards/chipsets work under linux, I have the AT&T branded 881U and it works quite well. It may take a little fiddling if they haven't fixed some of the bugs that were present half a year ago when I was last trying to use it with NetworkManager, but I imagine they've ironed those things out.
Judging from what I've seen, netbooks have not come along enough to render multiple processes and active web content, let alone HD web content. That would make it useful for most users. The unique netbook processor is not yet a potential threat. Wait until the next gen comes - hopefully with extremely low voltage (RISC or something of the like) and decent graphics. I wouldn't hold my breath though. 10" or over is definitely the functional realm for netbooks. Assuming word processing or similar tasks and web browsing. Seamless mulitasking is essential for today's comp users. I await the day when every house has a media server, and every occupant has a smart phone, netbook and game-capable machine. Hope it happens before humanity screws itself.
It's funny how everybody, including companies that "invented" so called netbook have trouble defining, what netbook actually is. Asus coined the term and created a very profitable niche in it's own right. When the rest of the crowd blindly followed the hype nobody actually understood what netbooks really are. Maybe if Microsoft hadn't flexed it's muscle with an old and battered WinXP but introduced an innovative platform, the perception of a netbook would be a different from what it is now - a small laptop that's becoming fatter due to an untrimmed OS that was shoved to OEMs in a hurry.
So now we have Microsoft defining what netbook is because of Win7, Intel is having problems with screen size. And I have difficulties explaining my customers what this little lappy actually is for. While it was primarily meant for the "net" part it's still basically an underpowered laptop on which people are putting stuff on that wasn't meant for in the first place. Atom might eventually as well eat out the classic x86 market of home desktops and laptops, but it's the manufacturers own fault, following the hype that nobody really understands.
Ceterum censeo Microsoft esse delendam.
How often do those two compete though?
HP, Dell and Asus all compete amongst themselves (Dell being the key word here since the article is about Dell). Their most direct competitors are themselves.
Apple is usually purchased not on the basis of its hardware but on its operating system. In that regard Apple has a complete monopoly. You buy an Apple laptop if you want OSX. Dell has no such luxury. You can get a computer that works exactly the same as dell and runs all the exact same software from Asus.
Windows PC category: Apple, Dell, Asus, HP, Lenovo etc....
OSX PC category: Apple.
Apple certainly seems to think of itself as a product separate and unique from PCs as a whole. "Hi I'm a Mac, And I'm a PC" anybody? According to Apple: PC is interchangeable. And I tend to agree with them on that point as do most consumers (even those who prefer PCs).
The only difference between a netbook today and a laptop a few years ago is screen size. If netbook today isn't powerful enough to "render multiple processes" (whatever you mean by that) or "HD web content" (whatever that means, like, a really big browser window?), then why did you waste your money on that laptop you bought back in 2005?
And you certainly don't need a dual core room heater for "seamless multitasking", I was getting "seamless multitasking" on my Amiga 1000 in 1986.
Intel wouldn't know a quality GPU if it bit them on the ass.
Lock-in. You mean Apple products come with an often quite considerable vendor lock-in. General concept nothing, that's a completely different kind of customer abuse.
I mean that lock-in means that Apple removing an item from their product line will have a different effect for Apple than Dell removing an item from theirs will have on Dell.
As for whether it's customer abuse or not, it doesn't really matter to the argument.
Intel has been taking the wrong approach to this.. It's time to release the dual core atom, you have been milking the single cores far too long. How about instead of holding back hardware because of your aging dual core platform you start releasing quad core mobile CPUs? I bet 4 atom cores packaged together with a memory controller and coupled to some decent bus speeds would make for a screaming laptop. Offsetting the netbooks by keeping sub par graphics cards in them will certainly keep interest in their full size counterparts. The 1st company to come out with a 11" dual core model gets my cash. The 1366x768 display IS the sweet spot, as viewing an 8.5" wide piece of paper on the screen at 100% size is crucial. While many will enjoy 12" netbooks I agree that that size is just a little too big, but the 11" maintains that coolness factor, and doesn't take up your entire bag. Oh, and Intel, owning a netbook definitely has not put a hamper in my plans to own my own dual core tablet.. (unless they come out with a dual core 11" netbook tablet, that would be a very HOT item!)
Huh? In 2005, I used a second hand laptop which specced P-III 700MHz / 512Meg RAM / 4GB 4200RPM harddisk. It ran Windows XP SP2 just fine, and I serveral productivity applications on it. Sure, I didn't have to overdo it and eventually I upgraded the 4Gb 4200RPM harddisk with an 80Gig 5200RPM harddisk which did wonders to performance.
However saying that 7GB flash and 512Meg RAM is not enough for Windows (XP) is not exactly correct. It's sufficient, not comfortable (post SP2) but sufficient for many tasks.
The primary reason I want a netbook...
Size, cost, portability.
Something to serve as a base of operations when I'm traveling for pleasure and don't want to risk my expensive work laptop. A place to catch up on news, offload data from flash memory sticks, or to get a small spot of writing done.
So 10" feels like the sweet spot for me. My primary work notebook is a massive Thinkpad T61p 15" widescreen.
Wolde you bothe eate your cake, and have your cake?
Here's another lack of knowledge/logic....
Every major OEM PC manufacturer in existence puts some kind of proprietary hardware in their system(motherboards anyone?) so that you must go back to them to buy parts. That gives them vendor lock-in. Some won't even sell you a replacement part if you bought your machine second-hand, although I fail to see any upside at all for such an idiotic business model.
Apple lost much of their hardware distinctiveness when they moved to the x86 architecture. Now other OS's in the PC realm can run on their hardware. So, their vendor lock-in is reduced by quite a bit: I can install Linux or Windows on Apple hardware and the machine will run fine. Yes, I still have to go to Apple to buy major system parts, but then that's true for any OEM PC.
Plugging a big monitor into an old Mac was quite something. The menubar would be all in the top left (Apple File Edit ...).
I thought my mouse clicks should echo, there was so much screen space.
That "huge screen" is, of course, the 21" one I'm working on now, that I'm finding cramped and full.
Don't ask me how I survived with 640x200 on the Amiga, or 40 column text (320x200) on a C=64. But I got my stuff done....
It is likely that back when your primary machine was a 386sx laptop you either A. Didn't do exactly the same kind of things with the laptop you do now (Which is likely, as whatever you were programming back then probably had far different expectation than now) or B. You only ran one app at a time back then because that was about all you could do anyway but would have ran several windows all over the screen if you could have.
It is nice to have say....a Web Development tool open, a web page opened to test the site you are developing, and two reference sources open right in front of you. It would have been nice back in the day, too. You just didn't have the chance to do that back in the day.
It's the extra cost that makes 12" netbooks redundant or unsuccessful - it's nothing to do with performance or conspiracy.
Being around the price of a high-end iPod, 10" netbooks are bought as gifts and/or to liberate parents' computers from their children and that's why netbook sales are high. Sure, some customers need the form factor, but for the majority, 10" netbooks hit the price sweet spot that their 12" cousins overshoot.
Funny how the street.com had an article today about how the atom is a tiny profit margin for intel compared to penryn. Article.
No, I don't carry large amounts of confidential business data around on my netbook, just e-book and multimedia content for offline entertainment. So a 16G SSD is not a problem for me. My confidential business data stays on my desktop, I access my desktop over the Net via encrypted connection when I need it, and if my netbook is lost or stolen or confiscated at a national border, I don't have to worry about the loss of a hard drive's worth of information.
However, thank you for your concern. I'm in my mid50s, I use my Eee PC900 netbook regularly for business purposes. When I need technology advice, I can get it from people with a clue, a group you aren't part of.
Should you ever become a businessperson, you'll probably figure out why people who have to carry around a computer a lot of the time prefer light and small and rugged to the boat anchors people like you would like people to saddle themselves with.
Tech Public Policy stuff
Guess what: different people have different necessities. Maybe 12" is too big to be considered a netbook (although many 12ers are marketed that way), so you can call it an "ultraportable" with less power under the hood. You can also get a 12" Sony Vaio, but that will cost 3x the price of a netbook. I researched and got me a Samsung NC20. 5+ hours battery life (low brightness, wi-fi on), 1,5 Kg (3.3 lbs), and a "typable" keyboard. It "kind of plays" 720p clips on Vimeo, although the CPU get pegged at 100% and it stutters a bit, but I can live with that. We are always balancing screen size (keyboard size), weight, battery life, feature set and price. We can't have all of them as we wish, thus the need to pick what is most important.
My cellphone ringtone is a ring tone.
Except you don't buy a PC to run Windows or to run OS X (well, aside from geeks with a OS fetish to maintain). You buy a PC to surf the web, read e-mail, store pictures, listen to music, etc... Both PCs and Macs can do this without a problem, OS notwithstanding. Now, the consumer when buying a machine will look at Apple computers the same way he looks at HP or Dell or Asus, as a machine enabling him to do the things he wants to do. He'll weight the pros and cons, and compare on a price basis vs his needs. Apple are indeed competing with Dell and HP, they just have some different pros and cons than just sheer price.
And again, saying Apple has a monopoly is like saying McDonald's has a monopoly on Bigmacs. If you really want a BigMac, you have to go to McD's. That's a product, not a market, and as such, it's not a monopoly situation. McDonald's doesn't have control on the fast food market, there is healthy competition. Same with Apple, they don't control the PC market at all, they have a niche product that is different enough that some retards thinks it's a whole other market, but at the end of the day, it's used in exactly the same way that the competition's product is.
"Not to mention all the idiots who use words like boxen."
Anonymous Coward on Monday August 04, @06:49PM