Slashdot Mirror
Technology Changes To Kill Netbooks?
The BBC is reporting that the netbook craze may already be nearing the end of its run. Citing rising netbook prices and many other evolving technologies that can potentially fill that gap, some critics think that the limited power of netbooks will ultimately bring about the quick demise of the once popular device. "Ian Drew, spokesman for chip designer Arm, also believes netbooks are in for a shake-up. Consumers, he said, were chafing against the restrictions that using a netbook imposed on them. 'We have failed the consumer because we have imposed constraints on them,' he said. Changing web habits and greater use of social media will mean consumers will be looking for gadgets that are tuned to specific purposes. 'It will be a lot of different machines for a lot of different people,' he said. 'This whole market will be exploding in the next couple of years.' Impetus for this change will come, he believes, from the phone world where many, many types of gadgets are already blooming."
I wonder whether or not the same thing will happen to phones. As people use their phone for more and more, will the cost rise so much that it will be prohibitively expensive? Does this mean that, at least for the near future, the idea of a phone as a true personal computer is just a device from science fiction stories(just like flying cars)?
I don't like Linux. This doesn't make me a troll.
and
The World Wide Web is dying. Soon, we shall have only the Internet.
Handhelds such as the iPhone and Android family don't allow for touch typing. Netbooks allow touch typing and as such, they will always have a place as a laptop replacement.
The main thing that would dethrone netbooks would be an external bluetooth keyboard for a smartphone, and it's interesting to note that even the popular iPhone doesn't officially support one, though it can be done with a hack.
Also, netbooks generally run some flavor of Windows which allows people to have a laptop/desktop experience on the road. Handhelds don't quite replicate that experience, though as we move more of our data and applications online the local operating system will become increasingly irrelevant.
The bottom line is that for at least the near future, netbooks still have their place, mainly as a replacement for more fully featured laptops for most purposes, and eventually they will probably be themselves partially displaced by handhelds for most people.
it's = "it is"; its = possessive. E.g., it's flapping its wings.
ARM has always been smart both in design as well as production (via licensees). While Intel gets all the press ARM is stealing the show and marketshare.
It is not clear if the net book is a good idea, but if you go down to bestbuy or microcenter, you find things that are almost as exspensive as a regular laptop, with cruddy features, poorly designed trackpads with the buttons on the side, tiny screens that need scrolling (is that a fubar or what) and, since they don't run linux, they don't have the 30 second boot time that was one of the most desirable featues - turn it on, check the cloud, turn it off before the first windows splash screen
What's he talking about? The Wikipedia says the Eee PC was introduced at a price of $399 US. Taking a wander around the racks at the local electronics retailer suggests that the average netbook, which has considerably better specs than the Eee is priced around $300-$350 CAN, which some being as cheap as $250 CAN.
it fills a very important need slot : fast, small, web capable device that you can carry around and with capabilities of a normal low end office pc.
as long as people are on the move and need to connect to web from a capable device (of the capabilities of a pc), that need will never cease. its not about 'social networks' or anything, its about a very common need.
i dont know from where the shitty need to link everything with social networks and whatnot comes. probably they are just playing along with the fad.
Read radical news here
Mine (Acer aspire) was less than $300, is small and light enough to take along every day, and
is powerful enough to support the work I do (sw development). All three are important for me
to have my work with me all the time. Any more expensive and I'd think twice about taking it
everywhere. At $300 if I loose it or break it it's annoying but easy enough to replace. Any
bigger or heavier and I'd think twice about throwing it in my backpack every day. Any less power,
or no keyboard, and I couldn't do my work. It's in the sweet spot for portable computing. Sure
more battery time would be nice, but not at the expense of the keyboard, the power, or the
manageable size and low cost.
Impetus for this change will come, he believes, from the phone world
The predicted convergence is very unlikely for two reasons: keyboard and display. It is not possible to be as productive on a less-than 25cm wide cell phone keyboard as on a netbook, and nobody has holsters or shirt pockets large enough for a real keyboard. The same holds true for displays. Phones are fine for reading WAP-enabled HTML and composing short emails or text messages, but that's not what people use netbooks for.
Apple's rumored iSlate, an iPhone with ports for keyboard and monitor, may work for some but the hassle of carrying around a keyboard/monitor won't be easier than carrying around a netbook, and netbooks will always have far more CPU and RAM.
I have to agree with my engineering friends on the other side of the pond and chalk up another faux-pas to the BBC, whose website, streaming audio, and tech reporting have never been particularly cutting edge. Not that our own NPR/PRI does tech any better.
Microsoft and Intel have been very uninterested in netbooks since they don't have the same market share as full size laptops. That's why the third generation of Atom chips aren't really any faster than the first generation and why the version of Windows 7 that gets stuck on a netbook is so limited you can't even change the background.
But other companies, without a large amount of profit coming from fullsize laptops, will jump at the chance to increase their bottom line. Ubuntu and ARM for example, have nothing to lose by offering netbook products, since they don't have any real marketshare in the laptop market.
AMD has been suspiciously quiet the last couple of years. I'm waiting to see if they might come out with an "Atom-killer". And don't forget Via. They already have a competent netbook chip.
There's definitely a market demand for low cost netbooks, so Intel and Microsoft can continue ignore this segment and risk that their competitors will take it away, or they can get in the game themselves. I think we'll see a real change in the netbook market maybe not this year, but early in 2011 as more and more alternatives to Atom and Windows 7 become available.
battery life!
Netbooks are the portable typewriter of the 21th century
Just look at their newest atom offering, its deliberately poor. They are also not releasing duel core netbook atoms anymore(they will only allow them for desktop solutions). Why? It doesn't fit their business model and they want to sell expensive notebooks and desktops with their crappy chipsets. If you want a better chipset (say from nvidia) then you have to pay more for the atom. Also Microsoft pushing vendors to use windows 7 and not xp or linux. Due to all this vendor bullying the price has been inflated massively.
My eee901 can play a plethora of decent 3d games and is surprisingly powerful, full screen movies work fine and the screen is a great size and it has a ~8 hour battery life. It fits all the requirements I have of it. I can buy a similar netbook with the exact same components today and pay twice the price I paid for the 901.
The distinction between "netbook with keyboard" and "tablet with keyboard emulator" is more a choice of the options you're interested in than a difference in technology.
With luck, the current generation of dedicated ebook readers will shuffle off to proprietary hell, and low end netbooks and tablets will replace them as the high end of handhelds.
But not running pure tethered platforms like Chrome OS, please.
Netbooks are dying!!!
It seems that netbooks in the 7-9" range have started to disappear, instead they've grown slightly (both in size and specs) to essentially have become 10" cheap laptops. I know many people that use them as machines to take while traveling (especially internationally) and even more people that use them as their primary portable (typically with a larger laptop or desktop relegated to, well, the desk). $300 for a small, durable laptop with more than enough performance to do word-processing, web browsing and watch movies on, most which get 5+ hours of battery life (depending on usage) is still an amazing deal.
A good indication of their continuing success is the fact that 10" netbooks still account for 4 out of 5 of the top sellers in the computers and accessories categories on Amazon.
'It will be a lot of different machines for a lot of different people,'
What bullshit. People are predictable, and as with languages, humans will always simplify. If we can make it easier then we will use it.
To use the car analogy: The reason I don't own a motorcycle, a car, and an SUV (one for efficiency, one for general use, one for adverse weather conditions) is because I simply don't have room/money for three vehicles. These items take resources from our lives, just as these portable devices do. I'm sometimes annoyed enough as it is that I have to carry around my keys, my cellphone, wallet, and my keyfob. I'd only carry a netbook/notebook if I needed the additional computing power (or a keyboard, for that matter). Otherwise, my Droid works just fine for most other things. The point is is that we do not want more devices, we want consolidation. We want a one-stop shop because, simply, we don't have the resources to purchase a multitude of devices.
ARM's fatal flaw is that it can't run non-free Windows apps that aren't ported to CE. Windows CE netbooks exist, but a lot of Slashdot users say they find CE and its limit of 32 MB of RAM per process inadequate for the kinds of things that are done on netbooks nowadays. For example, what CE web browser can display SWF objects?
We've had the Atom for about 18 months now, and it's about to be replaced by a newer version that... runs at the same speed.
This is where the major problem lies. Those 18 months have seen CULV CPUs come down in price and go up in performance, but the Atom is sat there anchored to a 1.6GHz speed, most likely for another year or so. The other kicker is that the 7" and 9" machines with SSDs were soon replaced by 10" and 12" models with HDDs which blurs the line considerably to the extent that a netbook is now just a laptop with a slow CPU. The benefits of the small footprint and limitations of small storage have been lost.
Some people will still say that they can do all their basic stuff on a netbook, but when you can fork out an extra $100 and get something like a Dell 11z or 13z (Core 2 Duo 1.3GHz, 9 hour battery life), I really don't see the point.
Who waits for booting when you can just put the machine to sleep/hibernate when you're not using it?!?
People who have to make do with broken device drivers that come out of sleep with no sound or (worse) no video. I've seen it happen in both Windows and Linux.
"They" failed in the sense that they created a product for simple web browsing. The netbook is a failure because people still want to be able to burn CDs and DVDs, watch DVDs, play games that require > netbook spec hardware.
Soon you'll see the "DVD Netbook" and the "Gamer's Netbook" and the "Touch Netbook with extended battery life and cell modem with flipout nightlight".
Both statements are fine. You can fail and adjust. This is wonderful business.
i dont know from where the shitty need to link everything with social networks and whatnot comes.
Possibly because the "low end office PC" has started to become inadequate for users' needs in the face of web sites' abuses of SWF and the like.
All of these technologies can be considered stop-gaps until we have enough bandwidth to support either thin or hybrid thin/network-bootable clients. The only difference between a smart-phone and a laptop (or workstation) should be it's dimensions and form. If I store my data and environment on the network I can be almost device agnostic. I can use any workstation and access all my data, applications and any running processes. I can upgrade my system or expand/add capacity without needing to replace a single device. If you have the money why not carry a super computer in your pocket? Just don't carry the super computer parts.
Quack, quack.
> Changing web habits and greater use of social media will mean consumers will be looking for gadgets that are tuned to specific purposes.
Yeah, sure. As a consumer I really want to load my belt with my phone, my music player, my pda, my pager, my tag reader, my gps, my ebook reader and whatnot. I don't mind having ten different battery-chargers in my living room. What I don't want is a 300$ netbook because it does not have a specific purpose.
Which reminds me: when will best buy sell a Facebook device, a Slashdot reader and a youtube player? Cause I still have three inches left on my belt to hook gadgets.
lucm, indeed.
My exact same thoughts as I read the summary/article; why would netbooks fade away? They fill a gap that must be filled: an ultra-portable computer. Laptops are not the same, and phones have nowhere near the capabilities for a lot of people. Yes, mobile phones are getting more and more technologically advanced by the quarter, and yes, I'm loving every bit of it, but netbooks will still hold their own.
Our ASUS Eeepc 1005HA works flawlessly out of the box.
Blar.
The problem is the things that make a netbook so desirable by a lot of people - amazing battery life and small form factor - are being discarded by hardware makers. They are insisting consumers want more powerful devices, so they are beefing up processor and memory which eats into battery life. Similarly, they are insisting users need larger screens which increases form factor and also eats into battery life.
So basically hardware makers are wandering into small laptop territory, when I'm not sure the core Netbook market is really moving at all - it's just the hardware makers are moving away from it and finding people don't want what they are making as much.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
As they demand more and more laptop features ( and higher costs ).. as eventually they will become laptops and the market will vanish. The people will still want them, but they wont exist. ( barely do now )
---- Booth was a patriot ----
wen evrything u say is n txts, u dont need 2 touch type
Cheap, small, foldable screen or keyboard (so you can use it as touchscreen or laptop), good (not great, just enough) resolution and speed, Thats the point to which a lot of things seems to be converging, from the cellphone arena (i.e. the Nokia N900, Palm Pre or some Android based phones ) or the note/net books arena (like the Asus T91, Fujitsu Lifebook and a lot of others) and probably more around (iSlate?). 3G connection, gps, even tv receiver are usual extras.
So netbooks have a future, at least if can be used as tablets too.
To me, what's important about a netbook, is:
1) size -- 7" - 12" screen
2) price -- under $600
3) functionality -- runs the basics (real web browser, terminal or dedicated ssh client, vnc viewer, IM, document viewers)
4) shape -- the above things can also be applied to "tablets", but the difference between a mid-range tablet and a mid-range "clamshell" is the keyboard. The "mid-range clamshell" is a "netbook" (with or without the swivel screen/convertible tablet capability). Not a smartbook, not a sub-notebook, etc. Those are just market-droid's attempts to re-brand and differentiate from past models of the same thing. It's a netbook.
I personally don't think #1 will ever go away, whether you call it a "netbook", "smartbook", or "sub-notebook".
I don't think the price is going to really have a huge change either. Sure, some netbooks are getting more expensive. But, some "laptops" are also coming down to a price point that competes with netbooks.
As for functionality, as time marches forward, the capabilities of devices in that size and price rang will increase. That's a given. So, eventually, netbooks will run more than just the basics. But the point is: they need to always run those basics well.
So, while the marketing blurbs may change, and the exact numbers might change, I'm willing to bet that the actual device category (7-12 inch screen, well under $100, runs basic apps) is here to stay. The only thing I think that might change ... is that someone might come up with a truly compelling device that matches 1-3, but doesn't keep the keyboard. Maybe it'll be the EnTourage eDGe (dual screen tablet, like the OLPC2 concept, or the Microsoft Courier). Maybe it'll be a plain tablet (Notion Ink Adam, or the highly anticipated Apple tablet). Maybe it's something we haven't envisioned yet.
I need a real computer. I would like to be able to have it anytime, anywhere,
and net-connected of course.
I want to be a contributor, a producer, a writer, a creator, with my computer,
not just a consumer whose expresion of choice amounts to little more
than clicking the channel changer on the advertainment opiate-for-the-masses drip.
So I need a full keyboard or equivalent. NOT a touchscreen virtual keyboard.
I just need continued miniaturization, so that my current 4.5 pounder iBook G4 12"
becomes a 1 pound "wafer thing" wonder that I can stuff in a big pocket of my
jacket and go. But somehow, I need at LEAST 1024x768 resolution.
Hey but that's just me. Maybe the real deal will be a separate 1024x768 or better
tablet with a separate bluetooth fold-up keyboard optional.
Where are we going and why are we in a handbasket?
They were just a smaller laptop. Certainly, blurring the lines is going to happen.
What is it with all the netbook weirdness.
I have an Eee 900 20G. Basically it is a small, cheap, very light, well built machine with a moderate battery life. It can combine those properties because it was very low spec compared to its contemporaries. Other than that, it is just a laptop. There are no restriction or lack of featuers. It is just a laptop.
I happen to like it because I don't require a fast machine or a large screen. Therefore it is better than almost all other laptops (for me) because it nails the specs I do care about.
When I am at home, I plug it in to an external monitor and DVD drive and it works well as my home (entertainment) computer.
I can't believe I am the only person in the world who does not need a fast machine. I have particular trouble believing it because they sold so very well.
I can see that the netbook markey it "dieing" mainly because the speed, size, weight and cost has gone up, making them merge with the normal laptop segment. There's therefore nothing to distinguish them from normal laptops. But when they were small, cheap and light they sold well.
The great thing about generic PCs is that they span niches from Vortex86, PC/104, through to laptops (with any practical range of speed, weight, battery life, cost size), luggables, desktops (from tiny Via /atom to quad socket behemoths) through to servers in as many shapes and sizes.
Why does this particular combination of weight, speed, size and cost seem to cause so much consternation?
SJW n. One who posts facts.
The netbook is just the first of many. We got a nice device outside of the Wintel duopoly and people discovered that they loved it. Then the duopoly imivated their own version, locking down specs and defining it to be what they wanted it to be - in the process driving up the price and netting them a bunch of embarassing low-margin sales, but at least preventing the other guys from reaping the full benefit of their innovation. If OEMs want to create new things and keep control of the markets they create all that's needed is to avoid platforms Windows can run on.
I think that OEMs are coming to understand that there is a market for any device that enables and empowers individuals to do new things - if it's portable and reliable and doesn't impose unnecessary restrictions. It's not really about the widget, it's about the people.
Help stamp out iliturcy.
It's not a failure because the majority of mobile device users haven't embrace it. I have DVD drive on my Thinkpad. I've used it maybe twice in three years. All my data comes to me over the wire instead of on dead dinosaur media. Burn CDs? Hello, iPod?
Blar.
Reading tablet with e-ink screen, internet access, typing facilities and detachable keyboard.
Netbooks may be deserting the netbook niche due to a lack of power and screen size, but the original needs inherent in netbooks (small, portable, ability to type and limited surfing) haven't gone away. Sure, consumers find that it is really convenient to do a lot more stuff on a "portable", and when you pay almost as much as for a fully powered laptop, there's no reason to have low expectations, right?
Tablets are coming in full force anyway, and adding this functionality would be cheap and simple.
CE sucks. WiMo sucks. The fact that if you use ARM Microsoft and Intel can't swoop in on your party and run off with your guests like they did with netbooks isn't just not a fatal flaw - it's a main reason for going with ARM in the first place.
Help stamp out iliturcy.
Wow, really getting sick of this 'netbooks are underpowered' crap that the market/media seems to be pushing on us. We get it, you like the illusion that they can't do anything but email/browse so we'll buy your more expensive machines. I have a Lenovo s10-2 with an extra 1GB ram (2GB total), which when all was said and done cost be about $400 USD. There's nothing I cannot do unless directly hindered by my limited resolution (which I easily solve by plugging into my monitor (which I also did/do with my other notebooks ranging from 13"-17")). I have Photoshop (which sure, takes an extra 30sec-1min to start up than my dual core, who cares?), I have the same amount 'constant running' apps I've always had, there's only two web based apps that didn't exactly run as smooth as did before (Google Wave, Aviary, both early in development) and hell I can even smoothly run World Of Warcraft (with settings obviously brought down, but that's a given), in major cities running with 20++ FPS easily. This 'underpowered' bullshit is just that, an attempt at getting the uneducated consumer to move up a step in price. Anyone actually knowledgable/experienced in the market doesn't need a constant reminder that they're 'underpowered' as they know the tag is simply for the stupid.
Blow up my plane? Nuke ten of your airports.
"Groups are out. Four-piece groups with guitars particularly are finished."
— Decca Recording Company executive Dick Rowe turning down The Beatles, 1962
"You set fire to it! Then what do you do, Walt? You inhale the smoke! You know, Walt, it seems you can stand in front of your own fireplace and have the same thing going for you!"
— Bob Newhart, to Sir Walter Raleigh, on the discovery of tobacco
* As late as 2005 Sir Alan ("Sralan") Sugar declared that the iPod would never take off.
* Daryl Zanuck predicted the failure of television because "people will soon get tired of staring at a plywood box every night".
* In 1977 the boss of Digital Equipment said that nobody would need a computer in their home - a view I remember sharing, though of course until the arrival of the internet, computers were almost largely used for word processing, calculating and very simple games.
* Back in 1883 Lord Kelvin said that X-rays would turn out to be a hoax, and in 1878 the chief engineer at the Post Office said we had no need for the telephone in Britain, as we still had plenty of messenger boys.
(all of the above are copied from a couple of articles)
Ever grow tired of people in print trying to appear wiser and know-it-all? There are dozens of ways a product can evolve and zap the market and then disappear off the map altogether. Why try to get all Nostradamus at the drop of a hat?
It's widely recognised that the netbook craze took laptop manufacturers by surprise. Sales of more expensive laptops were lost as people flocked to buy the cheap, highly portable and "good-enough" devices that they actually wanted. Now the industry is trying to kill off the monster they have created, with opinion pieces like this one. No-one's paying the slightest attention, of course - people know what they want, and they'll continue to buy it, no matter what the media tells them they ought to be doing.
Didn't we go through this already? Arm made their push with PDA's then pushed their demise with the declaration that everyone wanted all their gadgets integrated. Now they claim everyone wants their gadgets separate and specific? Guess their original world domination plans didn't work out quite the way they wanted?
While I agree that the netbook as it is now will change and evolve, there is now a proven niche for low-mid cost devices that can do basic computer tasks, features and abilities will increase but I don't see this market segment going away. There are plenty of us that like the idea of a kindle for instance but find it too limited in what it can do, tablets seem like the natural progression. I know they have been tried before, but integration in the past wasn't nearly at the level it is now and cost of production and ownership kept the really good ones out of the hands of mainstream consumers. Perhaps improvements in communication, power consumption, quality, speed and costs have advanced us to the point that Star-Trek like data tablet is finally ready for prime time?
Over the past two years, netbooks have been getting larger in size and more expensive, whilst retaining the all-around same specifications. Once the price goes above $300 and the screen goes above 9 inches, I might as well get a cheap laptop.
I picked up my EEEPC 900 HA when it was $258 and I feel I got an excellent deal. Apparently Amazon agrees with me, because now that model is *MORE* expensive than it was. This device is small, has a big hard drive, and does what I need it to on the go. if I wanted a bigger machine, I would toat this laptop around with it's 4 gigs of RAM and an NVIDIA GPU.
Although I use Linux, I am not one of those fanboys who goes around saying that netbooks should consist of only a web browser. I expect a fully functional tiny PC at a low price with reasonable specifications.
As for smart phones, I'm not interested. I don't want to be chained to a contract and I expect to have control over my own hardware.
My new netbook is the same size and relative speed as my 5 year old Toughbook (CF-M34), just less drop-able.
And I think my 1995 IBM 701 thinkpad was even smaller.
The format stays the same, we're not going to carry-around another device just for Facebook. Even non-smart-phones can change your status, and I doubt Facebook will change that.
The netbook just made an old product new again.
It's a new sub-notebook at the same price as a 5-10 year old "Used" small laptop(sub-notebook) that you can find on E-Bay. And it runs at about the same speed. The netbook just tapped a market that was previously limited to used computers and the netbook I'm using right now is $100 dollars cheaper than when I first bought it 6 months ago.
You can now spend $300 every 18 months and replace your netbook as often as your cellphone.
As to specialized gadgets.
When I leave home, I've got my:
Smartphone, (Always)
Music player, (Only if I know I will use it, and I want to conserve cellphone battery life)
Netbook, (Only if I will do some serious work(or net-surfing))
8-track player (Only if I know I will meet someone from the BBC so that they can write an article about how the world is going to re-embrace analog music, cause it just sounds so much better than that MP3 mumbojumbo)
oh, and a Coffee-cup (Always)
Only idiots want "specialized" underpowered, cramped, horribly tiny devices like cellphones to do things a netbook should, and only idiots want huge overpowered laptops to do things a netbook can easily do. Netbooks are the perfect middle ground between the two, and was the best idea to come along in portable computing in a LONG time.
Why is it that the only good things in technology in these modern times are ruined by idiots?
As a netbook owner, the best thing about the device is its quick boot up, portability, and power. I can play divx, xvid, maybe even some mkv off my USB using VLC player, but the biggest drawback I keep having is its inability to play Hulu, YouTube, or TuDou smoothly because flash 10 is such bloatware that makes the framerate lag at 12-14 fps. Any other sites with embedded flash video prior to ver. 10 runs just fine, regardless of video quality/ size. Adobe is ruining netbooks for everyone.
Is the 12.1" powerbook I have on my desk retroactively a netbook? Other than the fact it does have an optical drive? Now I see some "netbooks" with 11.6" screens and are only $50 less than the 15" "laptops" setting right next to them with a full sized keyboard, a better processor, and more RAM.
"The problem with socialism is eventually you run out of other people's money" - Thatcher.
People want cheap laptops. Thats all they want. Yeah, netbooks are good because at the time they were -cheap-. Is there a market for ultra-portables? Yeah, there was before the netbook fad and will be afterwards. The thing is, at this time last year, if you wanted a $350 laptop, it would have to be a netbook. Today, you can get a laptop with a 15 inch screen and a CD/DVD drive for the same price.
Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
The 3rd generation of Atom processor is about what it's always been about-- lower power. Processor is ~10% faster clock/clock, but this time the graphics is integrated on the same silicon chip. AKA much lower power-- we're talking 12 hours on a 6cell battery instead of 5-6 with the GMA950 graphics chips that were on a 90nm process.
AMD does not have an Atom killer in the works. They would have announced it to keep shareholders happy. ... not fast enough. The Atoms are much faster than ARM's offerings, and Windows 7 is faster and more resource friendly than Linux.
The ARM chips are SLOW for a desktop environment. Sure, they can accelerate 1080p video (so can my GMA500 in my netbook), but if Gnome is running at 8fps (yes, I saw it) then the processor is
Windows 7 is the "netbook friendly" Windows version after Vista, so I'm not sure why you say Microsoft has not been netbook friendly. Just don't get one with Windows 7 Starter.
I'm sorry but your post just sounds like the typical "rah-rah-Linux Microsoft Sucks" post without the facts to back it up, just ranting.
I was playing Flash movies on a Pocket PC five+ years ago in Pocket Internet Explorer.
Five years ago, Flash sites didn't require the same version of Flash Player that they require now. How well does, say, YouTube run in Pocket IE?
That’s like saying that a website’s fatal flaw is, that it can’t be used in that criminally on-purpose incompatible and on top of that more buggy than a bag of insects horrible piece of shit that is the Internet Explorer!
If 60 percent of your viewers use IE, then you had better make your web site compatible with IE.
Mircosoft’s fatal flaw, that will completely kill off Microsoft and will make Ballmer eat his own chairs, is that they are unable to adapt to modern platforms.
Third-party software publishers share the blame in being unable to adapt to platforms with less than 1 percent market share.
And the Compiz crows ruins the whole thing in less than 3 months by having even more colorful clickables, programmed for fun, in their spare time!
How well does an operating system that includes Wine and Compiz even on x86 run apps designed for Windows XP, compared to Windows Vista?
This is just wishful thinking on the part of the manufacturers. "Consumers want power! They want specialization!" No, that's almost exactly the opposite of what consumers want, which is low cost and flexibility. Rather, uber-powerful, single purpose devices are the manufacturer's wet dream. They've been pushing that idea since the '90s, and if anything, the opposite has happened. Phones and gaming consoles are now more like general-purpose PCs than ever.
If netbooks die, it won't be due to "technology changes," it'll be due to Microsoft and Intel doing everything in their power to kill them off, despite high consumer demand. This is a short-sighted, greedy move on their part, and if they don't offer what consumers want, then someone else will move in that will. This is why I think Chrome OS, despite its simplicity, will be huge. If nothing else, it'll light a fire under Microsoft's and Intel's feet.
vi ~/.emacs
My netbook is running Ubuntu (full desktop version not their netbook remix). So what do you mean they don't run linux?
So basically, the article says netbooks are going to fail because of:
* rising netbook costs
* smartphones increasing in functionality
* ARM preeminence on the horizon
* specialized devices (ie Kindle and kin) serving people's needs
Basically, what it boils down to, is "Netbooks are too expensive now due to Windows".
Frankly, I think the article is full of crap. The netbook isn't going anywhere; in fact, I think we'll see netbooks getting more features in the coming year, reducing their cost and/or increasing their diversity. Namely:
* That Pixel Qi or whatever screen which is viewable in direct sunlight we've been hearing about. Who needs a Kindle (for only $100 less) which is a crippled device, when you can get a full computer?
* "Convertible" displays (ie tablets), again challenging the Kindle
* Touchscreens
Granted, if ARM based devices can get into the market in the sub-$300 range and have all of those above features, I don't see why they wouldn't be able to "compete" with Intel based machines - x86 Windows and x86 apps included.
Personally, I've been waiting for better part of a decade for what is, essentially, a modern ARM tablet with a low-power display (loooong use) which is also similar to the NEC MobilePro 790 and/or 900. Might actually have a chance of that at some point. Surfing the internet from the top of a mountain after weeks of being there, via packet radio, would be so cool...
~/ssh slashdot.org ssh: connect to host slashdot.org port 22: too many beers
Anybody who passes the age of 40, their eyesight starts failing, they need reading glasses, etc. Even with reading glasses, it can be a drag to read small screens.
I want a portable device where the display and peripherals are separate from the device.
Make the DEVICE as powerful as possible and small enough to fit in my pocket.
Make the DISPLAY cheap, huge screens hung anywhere - your TV, at work on your desk, embedded in the table at the Internet cafe ... Let the device wirelessly work the display and any peripherals.
This will not only help those of us with gradually failing eyesight, it will be convenient as hell.
THAT will be the killer hardware application to beat all others. Netbooks are silly, because while the form factor for the device can shrink and needed to shrink, there was no reason to shrink the form factor for the display.
Imagine sitting down at the wireless hotspot, pulling out your device the size of a pocket telephone, and then viewing your display on the large screen that was waiting there, provided for you to come along and interact with it.
I guess that will mean 2010 will be the perfect time to get one cheap.
'It will be a lot of different machines for a lot of different people,'
What bullshit. People are predictable, and as with languages, humans will always simplify. If we can make it easier then we will use it.
There seems to be an assumption here that One Size Fits All. While it's true that consolidation makes life a lot tidier, some of us want pocket-sized solutions, some of us want netbook-sized solutions, and some want other solutions, such as notebooks or even desktops.
Just like there are Motorcycle People, Automobile People and Truck People.
The problem with convergence is that the more functionality you put into a given device, the more load you put on that device's battery.
No single device - yet - has the ability to power all the various sub-tasks that we use these devices for and still maintain an acceptable level of readiness.
My Palm Lifedrive (which was really ahead of its time) made a great ebook reader, GPS (using a bluetooth GPS receiver) PDA, music and audiobook listener, and a passable video device, gaming platform, and web browser. But all those functions drew on the same battery. And some of those functions (GPS and internet access) require radios to be active (Bluetooth and WiFi) and so they hammer the battery even harder than self-contained apps.
When it is out of charge, you're dead in the water for all those functions.
So now, I have an iPod for audio/visual. I have a Kindle for ebooks. I have an eeePC 901 for internet, general purpose computing, and gaming. I have a Garmin 765 for vehicle navigation and audiobooks. I have a PSP-Go for gaming (xmas present) And I have a phone for communications and emergency web access.
Yes, that is a hell of a lot more devices to manage, and there is a nontrivial amount of mass in power adapters. In some ways, this is a step backwards. But by spreading tasks amongst devices, I ensure that I always have enough battery charge to do whatever task it is I want, when I want it. Or put another way, because I spread the power consumption amongst several devices, the likelihood of .any given device being charged up enough to carry out the intended task for the duration I want is very high.
Another factor (which is related) is that device specialization means the device can be better tuned for the task at hand, and storage requirements aren't a zero-sum. I can have a lot of music and video in my iPod (it's a 160Gb) I can have a lot of books. I can have fully detailed maps of the world and a bunch of audiobooks. I can have lots of games. And I can have a workable keyboard! All this without having to rob Peter to pay Paul in a single device.
Eventually, this will all get worked out. The iPhone unquestionably trumps my LifeDrive as a convergence device. I fully expect the 5th or 6th gen iPhone will have sufficient storage space and mature applications to fully take over the media, ebook, and quite possibly gaming functions, as well as be a serviceable personal GPS. But it will also have to be able to power these functions for at least 24 hours of use without recharging before it can fully replace all the other devices, and I don't think it will ever replace the general computing function of the netbook.
DG
Want to learn about race cars? Read my Book
To use the car analogy: the reason that there are still motorcycles cars AND SUVs is because each person chooses what is most important to them. People each make their individual choices about what is most important to them.
Back to the non-analogy: you're happy with your droid, and it does what you need/want it to. My friend has a 7" or 8" netbook, and it fits in her purse, and it does everything she wants it to. I have a 10" netbook, and it fits in my backpack, I don't carry it with me at all time, but I don't need it to be with me all the time. My boyfriend has a desktop and a full laptop... it works fine for what he needs to do with it.
The reason why netbooks will stick around for the long-term is because it fills a niche. Even with convergence, each device will converge in a slightly different way, based on what it is capable of. When phones start having a full keyboard (no matter the size) I may need to evaluate my needs, but until then, my netbook is the closest to perfect I can get.
WARNING! This girl exceeds the MAXIMUM SAFE standards established by the FDA for BRATTINESS
Tiny Screens, almost unusable trackpads (why?), so underpowered they barely browse the web. The biggest advantage I hear is they are easy to carry around, but my wifes 13" mbp in a slim vertical messenger carries like a purse, and has realistic screen real estate with a fantastic keyboard and mouse. The price advantage is not enough to maintain sales growth given the limitations for the majority of people (do realize most /.'rs are not typical). Judging only by the buzz from friends and blogs it feels like we are already on the top or backside of the curve. Netbooks will remain a niche product for the foreseeable future. Do keep in mind there is nothing wrong with a really nice niche. (from an MBA and that writes code for a living)
they lack the screen size and keyboard.
Read radical news here
Apple's rumored iSlate, an iPhone
I think that's the point: iSlates and competing tablets can be marketed as a better way of running iPhone/Android-style "Apps(tm)" rather than as a way of running desktop PC applicatons - which is what the netbook has become.
Had the original eeePC 700 been a better product (better battery life, better Linux distro, better tailoring of the UI and applications to work on a tiny screen) then maybe the original concept would have take off. As it was, it kickstarted the market for small, cheap (mainly) Windows laptops that could do everything a desktop PC could, and the original concept was effectivey abandoned.
The new "tablets" have the advantage that they will be building on established, non-PC platforms with established software bases (its not all fart apps) and developer communities, running OSs and applcations designed from the ground up for use on small, touchscreen devices and making full use of new tricks such as multitouch and accelerometers.
In a survey of 100 programmers, 111111 thought that duck-typing was a good idea.
what CE web browser can display SWF objects?
There are around half a dozen such browsers/apps with varying degrees of support for different levels and profiles of Flash. Skyfire is a recent entrant that has become popular. Some use server-side presentation/deployment, others use on-device rendering. The fact that you are apparently unaware of the existence of such apps compels me to doubt the rest of the content of your comment.
Da Blog
We are basically looking at three to four screen sizes here:
(1) Desktop will be 20" - 30" because large size is an advantage, not a disadvantage.
(2) Maximum-function laptop will be 15" - 17". Anything larger is too cumbersome to transport.
(3) Easy-go laptop (netbook) will be 11" or less, never larger than a standard piece of paper.
(4) Cell phone screens will hold about 6", the maximum you can fit in a pocket comfortably.
(5) You could have a form factor smaller than a cellphone if projection screens take-off. I've seen demos at SIGGRAPH where you always get a perfect rectangled displayed on a desk-surface or wall, even if you have some tilt in the device. Of course image warping will detect and compensate.
In a decade all will have the computing capacity of a modest supercomputer of today and its memory capacity too.
The N900 does rock, and the N800/810 before it were doing things 4+ years ago that the iPhone hasn't even caught up to now.
But: the N900 has a tiny screen, under 4" if I recall right. That's swell if you're young and still have good eyes, but for us folks in the 60+ crowd, it's damn hard to read anything on that device even with reading glasses.
What I really want is something much like the N900, but in a larger form factor - say, an 8 inch screen with 1280x800 pixels, but with the other benefits that the N900 brings: low power ARM CPU, etc. Scale the battery up to a netbook format (vs the cell phone battery in the N900) and give me a whole day of operating time from it.
Unfortunately, nobody makes one. The "AlwaysInnovating" thing doesn't really count. It's all Atom devices which are more like laptops, and you're lucky to get 6 hours of battery life from one.
On the future of desktops. In 5-10 years I see the desktop as becoming a mini-cloud server, where you do the stuff you normally do on a desktop now, but also acting as the main controller for your tv/dvr. cofee-maker, oven/microwave/toaster, phone service ( hell the entire phone system will be replaced by VoIP ), car ( nice to have that engine all warned up on a cold day when you go out ot it ), heat/cooling system and anything else that uses an embedded computer. Plus a server for your laptop/netbook.
On your laptop you will still do most of the things that you do on your present laptop/netbook, surfing will be the same, you will still read your email, but it will get downloaded to yhour desktop and you will browse your desktops email cache. In other words the laptop will become a semismart terminal for your desktop.
From this perspective, netbooks come closer to what people will want as opposed to laptops. 1) long battery life, 2) Fairly large screen 3) decent keyboard/mouse ( laptops win on 2&3 but for the most part they don';t determine netbooks ), 4) a touch screen ( which will become standard across all computers, 5) cheap enough so that if you lose it you don't cry. In fact I would want mine to be an IMF version of a laptop,,, after ten consecutive failed attempts to log in, I want it to self destruct.
The reason you hear this discussion of netbooks dieing is that the future netbook will not be running a version of Windows ( see all the fanboys already yelling about that in this discussion ), and it will mean small margins for several of the hardware ( re Intel ) manufacturers.
HandyGandy
Yes, 3.5" widescreen is small. However, you can change the font size both in the xterm, web browser, and many other apps just using the "zoom" button, and most applications use fonts larger than typical paperpack book. My eyesight is far from perfect (I'm in my mid-thirties, with myopia and some astigmatism in both eyes), not only I have no problem with, but I'm much happier with the new rather than the previous 3-and-something-inches mobile.
posting to undo accidental moderation.
so they have been incrementally moving people to more expensive entbooks which are more and more like laptops.
This is all just my personal opinion.
I've owned or used extensively several larger laptops (~15 inch), a desktop, an Acer Aspire One and an EEEPC 1000H 10" (1024x600) running XP. The EEEPC is what I use the most often by far. It has a long battery, I can shove it in my half-size backpack in two seconds, I don't need to carry around a cord if I'm gone for just the day, I can do word processing, browse the web, play some games on it to pass the time, and watch movies from the HD. The keyboard is large enough to easily type on (with the Aspire One it's possible but uncomfortable). Basically, it is perfect. Sure, I wouldn't mind some slight improvements in power, but 10" is the perfect size in the tradeoff between portability and usability. I would buy the EEEPC over a full-size laptop three times as fast if they were the same price, because it is far more useful to me. Doesn't seem really hard to understand, really.
an ordinary person like me, who is willing to try it, can't go down to the store and buy one - i went to the bestbuy at the arsenal mall in watertown and the microcenter in cambridge, both in MA, last summer when my laptop broke.
Since i really needed to buy a laptop, i looked carefully - as far as i remmber, there were no nix computers for sale - i think best buy cd special order one.
I don't own a netbook, but I've considered buying one. Mostly for travel. I want something small and light, that nevertheless allows me to browse the web, send email, edit documents, and maybe watch a movie. A smart phone doesn't fit the bill, even the ones with keyboards. The screen is too small and inputting text is a huge pain in the butt. A normal laptop would work, but then its larger and heavier. And, honestly, all a "real" laptop buys you is a faster cpu, which is typically not the bottleneck for the kinds of tasks I described. That said, if I bought a netbook I'd probably try to get one that would let me swap in a faster SSD. (Which would, yes, destroy the whole "price" advantage of a netbook. But I wouldn't buy one because its cheap- I'd buy it because its small and light.)
In reality, netbook sales are WAY up, which isn't a sign of them going down.
Percentage increases always look fantastic when you start from a small enough base.
Sell your first unit and then sell two more...
What I want to see is the raw numbers. How many of these machines are out there - and how that number compares with others.
I like demographics as well. I want to know the age of the buyer. I want to know the income of the buyer.
I want to know if the netbook is his primary PC or simply another gadget. Not the argument that "feels right," but what can be proven.
its just those fake ms restrictions they put on. the atom dule core and nivida one gpu have really have given netbooks more power even in gaming. as long as most netbook makers ignore ms and install windows anyways or use linux until ms relises they can not say how they should be built.after that happons netbooks will just keep getting more powerfull and cheaper.
As others have pointed out, the anti-netbook push is a desperate attempt by manufacturers to prevent the computer industry from migrating to $199 laptops. The EeePC was originally announced as a $199 laptop. Massive efforts have been expended to stop that trend, by both Microsoft and Intel. Microsoft, of course, frantically announced a life extension for Windows XP, with CPU speed and screen size restrictions designed to cripple "netbooks". Intel actually has a screen size restriction for Atom-based netbooks. (For a CPU manufacturer, that's sheer arrogance.) The netbook manufacturers were pressured to move away from Linux. (The first generation of netbooks ware all Linux-based.)
It's been successful. Since 2007, the price point for netbooks has moved up, not down. Try searching on Amazon. (Hint: search "netbook computers -case -cover -sleeve -stickers -skins -adapter -keyboard -screen -charger -drive -speaker -phone -accessory -komputerbay -battery -cable -mouse", then use the "Sort by lowest price" option. Amazon doesn't make it easy to find the cheapest product.) The cheapest is a Visual Land 7" laptop at $149. EeePC units now start at $249. The cheapest new newbook on Google Shopping (which seems to be mostly a rehash of Amazon) is $229. The cheapest netbook at WalMart is $278.
... predicts their death; news at 11. I, for one, will not be welcoming any new, RISC-speaking overlords.
"We have failed the consumer because we have imposed constraints on them,'"
Absolutely.
Instead of investing heavily in lightweight operating systems for these machines, you took away Linux and installed Microsoft sloware.
That is the biggest constraint with which consumers have been burdened.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
I want a small one that is easy to carry.
I am sure I am not alone.
I don't need 15inch screen, neither do I need CD/DVD drive!
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
Consumers see netbook fail because flash is really slow.
If half of the 'interactive web2.0' wasn't powered by flash we wouldn't have this problem.
There is no reason a P3 performance chip cannot deliver an OK browsing experience even with AJAX-y rich sites, but throw flash into the mix - unaccelerated - and its foobar.
And the linux zealots - flash is even worse in linux than windows. Yes I know the reasons (I'm a fedora man).
I completely agree with the guy. We need more specialized devices. Unfortunately clothing manufacturers are not keeping up with the number of pockets required for them but they will see the light.
Look at my gadget bag, its perfect, cell phone, Peek, Twitterpeek, Celio Redfly, iPod touch, Epson photo viewer, Canon ELPH digital camera and EeePC. I can't wait for Peek to release Facepeek for Facebook!
I am also looking for Palm Fooleo on eBay. I dont understand why they have cancelled this device. It would be great seller and would help Palm much more than stupid Pre and WebOS.
I really need to buy more crappy ARM powered one function devices because my bag looks empty. Ian Drew, than you for your vision of the future, I can't wait!
You guys in the US should get out and lynch some FCC guys and the congresscritters who pander to ATT and Verizon. If I have a cell phone that they havnt been allowed to improve for their network aka cripple, how can they tell and charge me more for netbook/laptop. The simplist phones have modem functionality built in and for Android/Linux phones you will be able to use it freely even in the US.
You just neet to say NO to continue being ABUSED by your service provider.
The problem is, when you try and solve the problem in your analogy (motorcycle, car, SUV) with one vehicle you end up with an underpowered, over-grown station wagon with no ground clearance.
In short: It sucks at any one of the original tasks.
Sadly, people buy these things then complain that it isn't as good as the vehicle dedicated to whatever purpose the combo-car isn't excelling at.
Disclaimer: We own 2 Ducatis, a Triumph, a YZ125 dirt bike, my wife's Mustang GT, my Toyota Tundra, and as of last Saturday... a Jeep.
Each has their purpose.
I do have an ASUS EeePC netbook with a solid state flash drive. It has 16GB and runs at a nice 88 MB/s. The trouble is now, you can't find ANYTHING with an SSD, regardless of the size (of the SSD as long as it is at least 16GB, or the screen/etc). I guess everyone still wants spinning metal platters that can be damaged by some strong impacts. If I ever needed to replace this one, I couldn't as a new unit (have to go to EBay and hope someone will part with their precious baby).
now we need to go OSS in diesel cars
The netbook might survive as a gamer's friend. How so? By making netbooks to PCs as PSPs are to PSones. A lot of classic PSone games were eventually ported to the later PSP, generally with only cosmetic changes to fit the slightly smaller screen, a good example being Breath of Fire III. Go back about 6-7 years, and you will find a plethora of PC games that will run smoothly on most netbooks. I own an Acer Aspire One AOA150, and I can play, on a regular basis, World of Warcraft, Sims 2, Simcity 4 Deluxe, Emperor: Battle for Dune, Star Trek: Armada II, Warcraft III (with The Frozen Throne expansion), DOOM (via Doomsday Engine / jDoom). All of these games perform rather well, at a reasonable framerate (15fps or more), and generally will fit on the unit's hard drive (if you get the old mechanical variety of hard disk, common seem to be 160GB SATA disks).
For those games that need CD-ROM drives, Alcohol 120%, PowerISO, etc. becomes your friend. Either that, or an external USB CD-ROM drive or casing.
I think small, low cost laptops will always be in demand.
As more computationally intensive applications migrate their heavy lifting to the cloud the thin-client paradigm becomes much more compelling. I'm certain that CPU/chipset vendors would gladly accept the low margins associated with netbook & nettop machines if there is a corresponding uptick in the enterprise server market.
I haven't read too many of the above comments, but I believe these comments are totally incorrect. As far as the phone goes, capabilities continue to rise. And the costs of those phones are getting cheaper. And the netbook popularty is rising, because their capabilities have risen so much and the prices have decreased.
Has anyone looked at Google OS and Chrome and where Google thinks computing is going? The netbook will serve as an efficient web browser with a 8 to 15 hour battery life between charges. Sigh, It is rough to know what the future will unroll in terms of discoveries.
Leslie Satenstein Montreal Quebec Canada
Consumers, he said, were chafing against the restrictions that using a netbook imposed on them.
That's been the situation since portable computers were invented.
What made netbooks seem like something new is not the hardware. Cheap low-end laptops have been around for deaces. The shift occurred because that a cheap laptop now serves 90% of computing needs - the internet. Yes, consumers will chafe against the 10% of things they can't do on a netbook (games, video) but that doesn't mean that they won't keep buying netbooks. That's like saying that because people don't like the pick-up in low-end cars, all cars will suddenly become high-end cars. That's silly.
The fact that if you use ARM Microsoft and Intel can't swoop in on your party and run off with your guests like they did with netbooks isn't just not a fatal flaw - it's a main reason for going with ARM in the first place.
You say CE sucks. But what other operating system that 1. runs on ARM, 2. has a library of relevant apps even in genres not suitable for free software, and 3. is available for licensing to OEMs, should the maker of an ARM-based netbook use? Right now, it's choose 2 out of 3: drop 1 and you have Windows NT, drop 2 and you have Linux, drop 3 and you have iPhone OS.
if we had a compact wireless keyboard and next generation (in terms of resolution) wired or wireless glasses... that would solve the typing and larger-visibility-for-using-apps issues...
I think everyone would benefit from a PC the size of a grain of rice - with an atomic 100 year battery and a holographic screen and keyboard. What people want in a net book, is a netbook with the guts of a supercomputer and to have it weigh under 100 grams.
.
Voting up, Voting down - If I really gave a fuck about your approval or not, I'd come and ask you.
The industry hates these low-margin cheapos. They would love them to go away. But they fill a big need as long as the user has realistic expectations.
I use my netbook on the road. I like its small size. I answer emails (briefly) and read a little news. Some social sites included, but just to check in. When I am traveling I have no need for a powerful machine. The low price point is important, however. This is definitely an "extra" machine. I loaded EeeBuntu on mine and it is pretty snappy. At home I use it as a wireless radio bedside with some cheap add on speakers.
One feature that would appeal to me would be a built in printer. B&W would suffice. On the road I always want to print out little stuff, but can't -- unless I go to a business center or a I-cafe. On line movie/theater tickets (you often have to print them.) Airline E-ticket receipts. (You are obliged to have this on hand). A thermal printer, like the kind they have on those hand held credit card machines they use in restaurants, would be enough (in A5 size). But a tiny single sheet feed inkjet (A5) would be too cool.
Yes, of course, there are little road warrior printers. But it would be great to have this capability right on board. I envision the paper dropping into a slot on top of the LCD and running through behind it. I have checked around, but never found one. It would have to be cheap, though. Give away the razor and sell the blade. They'll nail me on cartridges or thermal paper. If it added, say, 75 dollars to the price I would spring.
"No fear. No envy. No meanness." Liam Clancy
Some people will still say that they can do all their basic stuff on a netbook, but when you can fork out an extra $100 and get something like a Dell 11z or 13z (Core 2 Duo 1.3GHz, 9 hour battery life), I really don't see the point.
1. Dell doesn't make a 13z, it makes the 11z and 14z. 2. Only the 14z comes with a core 2 duo processor, the 11z only comes with single core processors 3. The 14z with dual core processor, 9 hour battery and crappy intel integrated graphics costs $789... Only $100 more than a normal netbook? In what dreamland? The 11z costs around $414 with a celeron processor and 6 hour battery, which is $100 ish more than a 'normal' pine trail netbook but its specs aren't much better than a normal netbook other than the processor.
Speak for yourself. I do own a motorcycle, coupe and truck.
I want to carry my data on a fast terabyte micro sd card in my smartphone. When I want the screen/keyboard/battery/ram/processing power, then I open the netbook (with the cpu & ram behind the screen, and the crap collecting keyboard being easily replaceable) and put my smartphone on the wireless power supply spot. The availability of the extra power turns on the UWB radio in the phone, and the phone's already running & net connected OS starts using the new resources. The netbook has two batteries, like the Motion Computing slates, so if I want more battery life, I can just bring more batteries & swap 'em like it was a cordless drill.
I have yet to see one convincing argument to run windows on a netbook, the UI does not really scale that well into the screen sizes used
That's an app issue, not a Windows issue. Netbooks are 1024x600px. I started out on Windows 3.1 at 640x480px, and before that Mac OS 7 at 512x342px. But as far as I can tell, there are still more Windows apps that support the 800x600px screens commonly used with Windows 9x than Windows apps that are ported to Linux on ARM.
(Atom - No), Tegra Yes
As I understand it, several of your (Atom - No) items are ION Yes.
Does it doe Blu Ray without Taxing the Processor
Who is going to carry around an external optical drive? And don't Blu-ray movies need to be played on a proprietary operating system (or at least a severely "hide teh Lunix" operating system) to handle the multiple layers of digital restrictions management?
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1467692&cid=30382742
You've had MORE than "ample time" to look into that... &, I suspect @ this point, you are running because your attempts @ "shooting down my points" on HOSTS on your blog, rather than here, only got YOU "shot down", quite quickly, right in that URL here above...
Now, YOU may not LIKE this? But... If you are indicative of management @ MS, & their skillset in this art & science? Your companies' in trouble... & your attempts @ placating me & stating you'd look into it? You NEVER intended to imo...
People aren't stupid you know, & neither am I. Your attempts @ "placating" me? Pretty transparent, & I am ONLY POINTING THIS OUT TO MAKE A BETTER WINDOWS 7 MAINLY (because overall? It's NOT BAD, but per what I put in here?? It can be better!)
APK
P.S.=> For those interested? Take a read in the URL from this website above... & here is a short summation of what I am reminding Mr. Foredecker of Microsoft about:
1.) Microsoft's removal of the ability to use 0 as a valid blocking "IP Address" in Windows VISTA, Windows Server 2008, & yes, Windows 7 from 12/08/2008 MS "Patch Tuesday" onwards, where VISTA @ least was able to use 0 before that in HOSTS files!
(Which on Windows 2000/XP/Server 2003, it STILL returns a 0.0.0.0 on sites blocked by 0 in the HOSTS file upon ping'ing they while they are blocked thus, in HOSTS files)
After all:
Using 0 in HOSTS files yields a FAR SMALLER HOSTS FILE than does using 0.0.0.0 even, & especially the default 127.0.0.1 "loopback adapter" - here, for example:
(656,000 entry HOSTS file)?
Using 127.0.0.1 yields a slower & larger 23mb sized HOSTS file + it adds a "loopback" operation to the mix (these others below, do not, on the latter point)
Using 0.0.0.0 yields an 18mb sized HOSTS file
Using 0 instead? ONLY A 14mb sized HOSTS file results!
Thus, 0 allows MUCH faster reads into RAM for caching it (due to up to 60% or more less filesize vs. 127.0.0.1), & more efficient internal operations as well (due to WHILE loop reads of files & their internal records, character-by-character, until the CR+LF (enter keypress) in hit on each line's ending, & lastly, until the EOF marker/trailer record is encountered...)).
2.) Problems in the local DNS Client caching service (which begins to "cough up badly" to say the least, when using HOSTS files that are relatively "largish" in size (over 1mb iirc))
3.) And, I would like to know the reasoning behind this being done too, because it makes NO sense (after all: MS put in the usage of 0 in HOSTS files somewhere after Windows 2000 released, in a service pack, altering the base BSD reference design & actually IMPROVING IT, & it was that way since then, up into VISTA even, until 12/08/2009, so why change it now?)
Again - simply because using 0 here in HOSTS files (or, any HOSTS for anyone really), yields a FAR SMALLER HOSTS FILE than using 0.0.0.0 or 127.0.0.1!
(Which, also again, means faster reads up from disk into memory (be that the DNS client service, OR, the local diskcache subsystem (which takes over when the DNS client service is turned off, due to the faults in #2 above))).
apk
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1467692&cid=30382742
You've had MORE than "ample time" to look into that... &, I suspect @ this point, you are running because your attempts @ "shooting down my points" on HOSTS on your blog, rather than here, only got YOU "shot down", quite quickly, right in that URL here above...
Now, YOU may not LIKE this? But... If you are indicative of management @ MS, & their skillset in this art & science? Your companies' in trouble... & your attempts @ placating me & stating you'd look into it? You NEVER intended to imo...
People aren't stupid you know, & neither am I. Your attempts @ "placating" me? Pretty transparent, & I am ONLY POINTING THIS OUT TO MAKE A BETTER WINDOWS 7 MAINLY (because overall? It's NOT BAD, but per what I put in here?? It can be better!)
APK
P.S.=> For those interested? Take a read in the URL from this website above... & here is a short summation of what I am reminding Mr. Foredecker of Microsoft about:
1.) Microsoft's removal of the ability to use 0 as a valid blocking "IP Address" in Windows VISTA, Windows Server 2008, & yes, Windows 7 from 12/08/2008 MS "Patch Tuesday" onwards, where VISTA @ least was able to use 0 before that in HOSTS files!
(Which on Windows 2000/XP/Server 2003, it STILL returns a 0.0.0.0 on sites blocked by 0 in the HOSTS file upon ping'ing they while they are blocked thus, in HOSTS files)
After all:
Using 0 in HOSTS files yields a FAR SMALLER HOSTS FILE than does using 0.0.0.0 even, & especially the default 127.0.0.1 "loopback adapter" - here, for example:
(656,000 entry HOSTS file)?
Using 127.0.0.1 yields a slower & larger 23mb sized HOSTS file + it adds a "loopback" operation to the mix (these others below, do not, on the latter point)
Using 0.0.0.0 yields an 18mb sized HOSTS file
Using 0 instead? ONLY A 14mb sized HOSTS file results!
Thus, 0 allows MUCH faster reads into RAM for caching it (due to up to 60% or more less filesize vs. 127.0.0.1), & more efficient internal operations as well (due to WHILE loop reads of files & their internal records, character-by-character, until the CR+LF (enter keypress) in hit on each line's ending, & lastly, until the EOF marker/trailer record is encountered...)).
2.) Problems in the local DNS Client caching service (which begins to "cough up badly" to say the least, when using HOSTS files that are relatively "largish" in size (over 1mb iirc))
3.) And, I would like to know the reasoning behind this being done too, because it makes NO sense (after all: MS put in the usage of 0 in HOSTS files somewhere after Windows 2000 released, in a service pack, altering the base BSD reference design & actually IMPROVING IT, & it was that way since then, up into VISTA even, until 12/08/2009, so why change it now?)
Again - simply because using 0 here in HOSTS files (or, any HOSTS for anyone really), yields a FAR SMALLER HOSTS FILE than using 0.0.0.0 or 127.0.0.1!
(Which, also again, means faster reads up from disk into memory (be that the DNS client service, OR, the local diskcache subsystem (which takes over when the DNS client service is turned off, due to the faults in #2 above))).
apk
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1467692&cid=30382742
You've had MORE than "ample time" to look into that... &, I suspect @ this point, you are running because your attempts @ "shooting down my points" on HOSTS on your blog, rather than here, only got YOU "shot down", quite quickly, right in that URL here above...
Now, YOU may not LIKE this? But... If you are indicative of management @ MS, & their skillset in this art & science? Your companies' in trouble... & your attempts @ placating me & stating you'd look into it? You NEVER intended to imo... Heck, to be completely STRAIGHT about this?
I hope it helps you get a promotion @ MS by pointing this out to your peers in mgt., especially those involved in the IP stack & how it works! Maybe that's not what "does it" for that @ MS, but, I don't think it's going to hurt your chances on that note either, & it certainly WILL improve Windows, which IS what I am personally after here, & that's it.
People aren't stupid you know, & neither am I. Your attempts @ "placating" me? Pretty transparent, & I am ONLY POINTING THIS OUT TO MAKE A BETTER WINDOWS 7 MAINLY (because overall? It's NOT BAD, but per what I put in here?? It can be better!)
APK
P.S.=> For those interested? Take a read in the URL from this website above... & here is a short summation of what I am reminding Mr. Foredecker of Microsoft about:
1.) Microsoft's removal of the ability to use 0 as a valid blocking "IP Address" in Windows VISTA, Windows Server 2008, & yes, Windows 7 from 12/08/2008 MS "Patch Tuesday" onwards, where VISTA @ least was able to use 0 before that in HOSTS files!
(Which on Windows 2000/XP/Server 2003, it STILL returns a 0.0.0.0 on sites blocked by 0 in the HOSTS file upon ping'ing they while they are blocked thus, in HOSTS files)
After all:
Using 0 in HOSTS files yields a FAR SMALLER HOSTS FILE than does using 0.0.0.0 even, & especially the default 127.0.0.1 "loopback adapter" - here, for example:
(656,000 entry HOSTS file)?
Using 127.0.0.1 yields a slower & larger 23mb sized HOSTS file + it adds a "loopback" operation to the mix (these others below, do not, on the latter point)
Using 0.0.0.0 yields an 18mb sized HOSTS file
Using 0 instead? ONLY A 14mb sized HOSTS file results!
Thus, 0 allows MUCH faster reads into RAM for caching it (due to up to 60% or more less filesize vs. 127.0.0.1), & more efficient internal operations as well (due to WHILE loop reads of files & their internal records, character-by-character, until the CR+LF (enter keypress) in hit on each line's ending, & lastly, until the EOF marker/trailer record is encountered...)).
2.) Problems in the local DNS Client caching service (which begins to "cough up badly" to say the least, when using HOSTS files that are relatively "largish" in size (over 1mb iirc))
3.) And, I would like to know the reasoning behind this being done too, because it makes NO sense (after all: MS put in the usage of 0 in HOSTS files somewhere after Windows 2000 released, in a service pack, altering the base BSD reference design & actually IMPROVING IT, & it was that way since then, up into VISTA even, until 12/08/2009, so why change it now?)
Again - simply because using 0 here in HOSTS files (or, any HOSTS for anyone really), yields a FAR SMALLER HOSTS FILE than using 0.0.0.0 or 127.0.0.1!
(Which, also again, means faster reads up from disk into memory (be that the DNS client service, OR, the local diskcache subsystem (which takes over when the DNS client service is turned off, due to the faults in #2 above))).
apk
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1467692&cid=30382742
You've had MORE than "ample time" to look into that... &, I suspect @ this point, you are running because your attempts @ "shooting down my points" on HOSTS on your blog, rather than here, only got YOU "shot down", quite quickly, right in that URL here above...
Now, YOU may not LIKE this? But... If you are indicative of management @ MS, & their skillset in this art & science? Your companies' in trouble... & your attempts @ placating me & stating you'd look into it? You NEVER intended to imo... Heck, to be completely STRAIGHT about this?
I hope it helps you get a promotion @ MS by pointing this out to your peers in mgt., especially those involved in the IP stack & how it works! Maybe that's not what "does it" for that @ MS, but, I don't think it's going to hurt your chances on that note either, & it certainly WILL improve Windows, which IS what I am personally after here, & that's it.
People aren't stupid you know, & neither am I. Your attempts @ "placating" me? Pretty transparent, & I am ONLY POINTING THIS OUT TO MAKE A BETTER WINDOWS 7 MAINLY (because overall? It's NOT BAD, but per what I put in here?? It can be better!)
APK
P.S.=> For those interested? Take a read in the URL from this website above... & here is a short summation of what I am reminding Mr. Foredecker of Microsoft about:
1.) Microsoft's removal of the ability to use 0 as a valid blocking "IP Address" in Windows VISTA, Windows Server 2008, & yes, Windows 7 from 12/08/2008 MS "Patch Tuesday" onwards, where VISTA @ least was able to use 0 before that in HOSTS files!
(Which on Windows 2000/XP/Server 2003, it STILL returns a 0.0.0.0 on sites blocked by 0 in the HOSTS file upon ping'ing they while they are blocked thus, in HOSTS files)
After all:
Using 0 in HOSTS files yields a FAR SMALLER HOSTS FILE than does using 0.0.0.0 even, & especially the default 127.0.0.1 "loopback adapter" - here, for example:
(656,000 entry HOSTS file)?
Using 127.0.0.1 yields a slower & larger 23mb sized HOSTS file + it adds a "loopback" operation to the mix (these others below, do not, on the latter point)
Using 0.0.0.0 yields an 18mb sized HOSTS file
Using 0 instead? ONLY A 14mb sized HOSTS file results!
Thus, 0 allows MUCH faster reads into RAM for caching it (due to up to 60% or more less filesize vs. 127.0.0.1), & more efficient internal operations as well (due to WHILE loop reads of files & their internal records, character-by-character, until the CR+LF (enter keypress) in hit on each line's ending, & lastly, until the EOF marker/trailer record is encountered...)).
2.) Problems in the local DNS Client caching service (which begins to "cough up badly" to say the least, when using HOSTS files that are relatively "largish" in size (over 1mb iirc))
3.) And, I would like to know the reasoning behind this being done too, because it makes NO sense (after all: MS put in the usage of 0 in HOSTS files somewhere after Windows 2000 released, in a service pack, altering the base BSD reference design & actually IMPROVING IT, & it was that way since then, up into VISTA even, until 12/08/2009, so why change it now?)
Again - simply because using 0 here in HOSTS files (or, any HOSTS for anyone really), yields a FAR SMALLER HOSTS FILE than using 0.0.0.0 or 127.0.0.1!
(Which, also again, yields the same valuable BLOCKING function as 0.0.0.0 or 127.0.0.1 do, & it also means faster reads up from disk into memory (be that the DNS client service, OR, the local diskcache subsystem (which takes over when the DNS client service is turned off, due to the faults in #2 above))).
apk
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1467692&cid=30382742
You've had MORE than "ample time" to look into that... &, I suspect @ this point, you are running because your attempts @ "shooting down my points" on HOSTS on your blog, rather than here, only got YOU "shot down", quite quickly, right in that URL here above...
Now, YOU may not LIKE this? But... If you are indicative of management @ MS, & their skillset in this art & science? Your companies' in trouble... & your attempts @ placating me & stating you'd look into it? You NEVER intended to imo... Heck, to be completely STRAIGHT about this?
I hope it helps you get a promotion @ MS by pointing this out to your peers in mgt., especially those involved in the IP stack & how it works! Maybe that's not what "does it" for that @ MS, but, I don't think it's going to hurt your chances on that note either, & it certainly WILL improve Windows, which IS what I am personally after here, & that's it.
People aren't stupid you know, & neither am I. Your attempts @ "placating" me? Pretty transparent, & I am ONLY POINTING THIS OUT TO MAKE A BETTER WINDOWS 7 MAINLY (because overall? It's NOT BAD, but per what I put in here?? It can be better!)
APK
P.S.=> For those interested? Take a read in the URL from this website above... & here is a short summation of what I am reminding Mr. Foredecker of Microsoft about:
1.) Microsoft's removal of the ability to use 0 as a valid blocking "IP Address" in Windows VISTA, Windows Server 2008, & yes, Windows 7 from 12/08/2008 MS "Patch Tuesday" onwards, where VISTA @ least was able to use 0 before that in HOSTS files!
(Which on Windows 2000/XP/Server 2003, it STILL returns a 0.0.0.0 on sites blocked by 0 in the HOSTS file upon ping'ing they while they are blocked thus, in HOSTS files)
After all:
Using 0 in HOSTS files yields a FAR SMALLER HOSTS FILE than does using 0.0.0.0 even, & especially the default 127.0.0.1 "loopback adapter" - here, for example:
(656,000 entry HOSTS file)?
Using 127.0.0.1 yields a slower & larger 23mb sized HOSTS file + it adds a "loopback" operation to the mix (these others below, do not, on the latter point)
Using 0.0.0.0 yields an 18mb sized HOSTS file
Using 0 instead? ONLY A 14mb sized HOSTS file results!
Thus, 0 allows MUCH faster reads into RAM for caching it (due to up to 60% or more less filesize vs. 127.0.0.1), & more efficient internal operations as well (due to WHILE loop reads of files & their internal records, character-by-character, until the CR+LF (enter keypress) in hit on each line's ending, & lastly, until the EOF marker/trailer record is encountered...)).
2.) Problems in the local DNS Client caching service (which begins to "cough up badly" to say the least, when using HOSTS files that are relatively "largish" in size (over 1mb iirc))
3.) And, I would like to know the reasoning behind this being done too, because it makes NO sense (after all: MS put in the usage of 0 in HOSTS files somewhere after Windows 2000 released, in a service pack, altering the base BSD reference design & actually IMPROVING IT, & it was that way since then, up into VISTA even, until 12/08/2009, so why change it now?)
Again - simply because using 0 here in HOSTS files (or, any HOSTS for anyone really), yields a FAR SMALLER HOSTS FILE than using 0.0.0.0 or 127.0.0.1!
(Which, also again, yields the same valuable BLOCKING function as 0.0.0.0 or 127.0.0.1 do, & it also means faster reads up from disk into memory (be that the DNS client service, OR, the local diskcache subsystem (which takes over when the DNS client service is turned off, due to the faults in #2 above))).
apk
This guy has obviously never used a netbook. My Eee fills a the gap between my iPhone and Desktop computer perfectly. It does what the iPhone can't and goes where the Desktop can't.. My desktop is the heavy lifter for heavy duty media editing while my iPhone is an ultra portable information device. I've lugged laptoptops around for over a decade and believe me, smaller is better.
As for limitations, I don't agree. No CD/DVD drive.. Optical media is nearing the end of it's life. Digital downloads and USB flash are quickly killing CD/DVD. The low power Atom based CPU is perfect. Long battery life and super green low power. As for screen size. I find the LCD backlit 10" screen bright and perfect.
I suggest this guy got it wrong. The netbook may kill the laptop segment.
I've got one of the Asus netbooks, and the keyboard, while a bit smaller than usual, is still big enough to work with. It runs everything I wanted it to (email, office suite) and a lot of stuff I wasn't expecting it to (Audacity, video editing, and a lot more games than I was expecting).
Lack of optical drive hasn't bugged me - I grabbed the Windows ISO reader, and have InfraReader on a USB stick in case I need to get a copy online. It's never been an issue for me.
Yes, it's smaller than a laptop - that's the point. My old machine was ten pounds with a 15" display. My new machine might only be 10" (widescreen) display, but it only weighs about three pounds, which means it goes a lot more places than the old one did. That means it gets a lot more use as well, which makes it more effective. And did I mention the six hour *minimum* battery life? (They advertise 8, but that's at bare-bones settings; I easily get 6 or so without noticing a tradeoff at all)
Of course, you do pay for that form factor (smaller monitor, smaller keyboard). But that's just the tradeoff to be made. There will always be a market for a simple ultraportable machine at a decent price point. (Yeah, I can get a "full" laptop for around 500, but maybe I don't want the extra couple size and weight). If anything kills the netbook, it'll be the tablets.
SymbolNOBODY: You said what's quoted below from you, here -> http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1476008&cid=30428430
"It's tolerated (perhaps encouraged) in part because these annoying actors are otherwised engaged in improving Linux. Major Debian and BSD contributors, for example, use slashdot as a workspace for their human-machine interaction side experiments, of which APK is probably one. In addition many of these trolls post links which, if you follow them, will completely hose a Windows machine. This is part of the game. - by symbolset (646467) on Monday December 14, @01:15AM (#30428430) Journal
I took offense to the BOLDED part... & ALL you EVER seem to have is "ad hominem" based attacks on people, not the points they make. So, "symbolNOBODY": The day you can make something like this (& that got you PAID for it, & that has done as well for others online):
http://www.tcmagazine.com/forums/index.php?s=b861a743aa23c4568b7d73e07ef7ecec&showtopic=2662
That's also gone over 250.000 views worldwide in 1++ yrs.' time online, & across 15 forums where that guide for Windows Security has been made either an:
1.) "Sticky/Pinned" thread
2.) An "Essential Guide"
3.) Rates 5/5 stars (etc.)
AND, gets "feedback" like this from users that have applied it:
----
http://www.xtremepccentral.com/forums/showthread.php?t=28430
PERTINENT QUOTE/EXCERPT:
"...recently, months ago when you finally got this guide done, had authorization to try this on simple work station for kids. My client, who paid me an ungodly amount of money to do this, has been PROBLEM FREE FOR MONTHS! I haven't even had a follow up call which is unusual. Now I don't recommend this for the average joe, but it if can work for a kids PC it can work for anything! Now, i substituted OpenDNS and activated the Adult Content filter with them for this kids computer. I know its not perfect, but will catch over 99.5% of said sites."
and
http://www.xtremepccentral.com/forums/showthread.php?s=10f9ba9ad5ff990aaae1e7ec91f593a2&t=28430&page=3
"Its 2009 - still trouble free! I was told last week by a co worker who does active directory administration, and he said I was doing overkill. I told him yes, but I just eliminated the half life in windows that you usually get. He said good point. So from 2008 till 2009. No speed decreases, its been to a lan party, moved around in a move, and it still NEVER has had the OS reinstalled besides the fact I imaged the drive over in 2008. Great stuff! My client STILL Hasn't called me back in regards to that one machine to get it locked down for the kid. I am glad it worked and I am sure her wallet is appreciated too now that it works. Speaking of which, I need to call her to see if I can get some leads. APK - I will say it again, the guide is FANTASTIC! Its made my PC experience much easier. Sandboxing was great. Getting my host file updated, setting services to system service, rather than system local. (except AVG updater, needed system local)"
Thronka - forums member @ xtremepccentral.com
----
THEN, when you have done so, on THAT account? THEN, you can talk (and, ESPECIALLY about that which you said about myself which I quoted from you above shows YOU, libelling ME, clearly. It's clearly immaterial & outright b.s. from you, vs. the kind of feedback my guide on securing Windows gets, quoted above from others? It CLEARLY disproved your outright b.s., period...)
Also?
When you have done all of this as I have over time in this Art & Science of computing:
"My Na
SymbolNOBODY: You said what's quoted below from you, here -> http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1476008&cid=30428430
"It's tolerated (perhaps encouraged) in part because these annoying actors are otherwised engaged in improving Linux. Major Debian and BSD contributors, for example, use slashdot as a workspace for their human-machine interaction side experiments, of which APK is probably one. In addition many of these trolls post links which, if you follow them, will completely hose a Windows machine. This is part of the game. - by symbolset (646467) on Monday December 14, @01:15AM (#30428430) Journal
I took offense to the BOLDED part... & ALL you EVER seem to have is "ad hominem" based attacks on people, not the points they make. So, "symbolNOBODY": The day you can make something like this (& that got you PAID for it, & that has done as well for others online):
http://www.tcmagazine.com/forums/index.php?s=b861a743aa23c4568b7d73e07ef7ecec&showtopic=2662
That's also gone over 250.000 views worldwide in 1++ yrs.' time online, & across 15 forums where that guide for Windows Security has been made either an:
1.) "Sticky/Pinned" thread
2.) An "Essential Guide"
3.) Rates 5/5 stars (etc.)
AND, gets "feedback" like this from users that have applied it:
----
http://www.xtremepccentral.com/forums/showthread.php?t=28430
PERTINENT QUOTE/EXCERPT:
"...recently, months ago when you finally got this guide done, had authorization to try this on simple work station for kids. My client, who paid me an ungodly amount of money to do this, has been PROBLEM FREE FOR MONTHS! I haven't even had a follow up call which is unusual. Now I don't recommend this for the average joe, but it if can work for a kids PC it can work for anything! Now, i substituted OpenDNS and activated the Adult Content filter with them for this kids computer. I know its not perfect, but will catch over 99.5% of said sites."
and
http://www.xtremepccentral.com/forums/showthread.php?s=10f9ba9ad5ff990aaae1e7ec91f593a2&t=28430&page=3
"Its 2009 - still trouble free! I was told last week by a co worker who does active directory administration, and he said I was doing overkill. I told him yes, but I just eliminated the half life in windows that you usually get. He said good point. So from 2008 till 2009. No speed decreases, its been to a lan party, moved around in a move, and it still NEVER has had the OS reinstalled besides the fact I imaged the drive over in 2008. Great stuff! My client STILL Hasn't called me back in regards to that one machine to get it locked down for the kid. I am glad it worked and I am sure her wallet is appreciated too now that it works. Speaking of which, I need to call her to see if I can get some leads. APK - I will say it again, the guide is FANTASTIC! Its made my PC experience much easier. Sandboxing was great. Getting my host file updated, setting services to system service, rather than system local. (except AVG updater, needed system local)"
Thronka - forums member @ xtremepccentral.com
----
THEN, when you have done so, on THAT account? THEN, you can talk (and, ESPECIALLY about that which you said about myself which I quoted from you above shows YOU, libelling ME, clearly. It's clearly immaterial & outright b.s. from you, vs. the kind of feedback my guide on securing Windows gets, quoted above from others? It CLEARLY disproved your outright b.s., period...)
Also?
When you have done all of this as I have over time in this Art & Science of computing:
"My Na
SymbolNOBODY: You said what's quoted below from you, here -> http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1476008&cid=30428430
"It's tolerated (perhaps encouraged) in part because these annoying actors are otherwised engaged in improving Linux. Major Debian and BSD contributors, for example, use slashdot as a workspace for their human-machine interaction side experiments, of which APK is probably one. In addition many of these trolls post links which, if you follow them, will completely hose a Windows machine. This is part of the game. - by symbolset (646467) on Monday December 14, @01:15AM (#30428430) Journal
I took offense to the BOLDED part... & ALL you EVER seem to have is "ad hominem" based attacks on people, not the points they make. So, "symbolNOBODY": The day you can make something like this (& that got you PAID for it, & that has done as well for others online):
http://www.tcmagazine.com/forums/index.php?s=b861a743aa23c4568b7d73e07ef7ecec&showtopic=2662
That's also gone over 250.000 views worldwide in 1++ yrs.' time online, & across 15 forums where that guide for Windows Security has been made either an:
1.) "Sticky/Pinned" thread
2.) An "Essential Guide"
3.) Rates 5/5 stars (etc.)
AND, gets "feedback" like this from users that have applied it:
----
http://www.xtremepccentral.com/forums/showthread.php?t=28430
PERTINENT QUOTE/EXCERPT:
"...recently, months ago when you finally got this guide done, had authorization to try this on simple work station for kids. My client, who paid me an ungodly amount of money to do this, has been PROBLEM FREE FOR MONTHS! I haven't even had a follow up call which is unusual. Now I don't recommend this for the average joe, but it if can work for a kids PC it can work for anything! Now, i substituted OpenDNS and activated the Adult Content filter with them for this kids computer. I know its not perfect, but will catch over 99.5% of said sites."
and
http://www.xtremepccentral.com/forums/showthread.php?s=10f9ba9ad5ff990aaae1e7ec91f593a2&t=28430&page=3
"Its 2009 - still trouble free! I was told last week by a co worker who does active directory administration, and he said I was doing overkill. I told him yes, but I just eliminated the half life in windows that you usually get. He said good point. So from 2008 till 2009. No speed decreases, its been to a lan party, moved around in a move, and it still NEVER has had the OS reinstalled besides the fact I imaged the drive over in 2008. Great stuff! My client STILL Hasn't called me back in regards to that one machine to get it locked down for the kid. I am glad it worked and I am sure her wallet is appreciated too now that it works. Speaking of which, I need to call her to see if I can get some leads. APK - I will say it again, the guide is FANTASTIC! Its made my PC experience much easier. Sandboxing was great. Getting my host file updated, setting services to system service, rather than system local. (except AVG updater, needed system local)"
Thronka - forums member @ xtremepccentral.com
----
THEN, when you have done so, on THAT account? THEN, you can talk (and, ESPECIALLY about that which you said about myself which I quoted from you above shows YOU, libelling ME, clearly. It's clearly immaterial & outright b.s. from you, vs. the kind of feedback my guide on securing Windows gets, quoted above from others? It CLEARLY disproved your outright b.s., period...)
Also?
When you have done all of this as I have over time in this Art & Science of computing:
"My Na
I purchased an iPhone to replace my non-smartphone cellphone, my PDA, my iPod, and some of my USB flash drives.
For me, the convergence to an iPhone meant I no longer had to bear the inconvenience of the "Batman Belt".
And as a technogeek, I know I'm not going to be away from an outlet for more than the 8-12 hours it takes for my iPhone to lose its charge.
Up, Up, Down, Down, Left, Right, Left, Right, B, A, START
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1467692&cid=30382742
You've had MORE than "ample time" to look into that... &, I suspect @ this point, you are running because your attempts @ "shooting down my points" on HOSTS on your blog, rather than here, only got YOU "shot down", quite quickly, right in that URL here above...
Now, YOU may not LIKE this? But... If you are indicative of management @ MS, & their skillset in this art & science? Your companies' in trouble... & your attempts @ placating me & stating you'd look into it? You NEVER intended to imo... Heck, to be completely STRAIGHT about this?
I hope it helps you get a promotion @ MS by pointing this out to your peers in mgt., especially those involved in the IP stack & how it works! Maybe that's not what "does it" for that @ MS, but, I don't think it's going to hurt your chances on that note either, & it certainly WILL improve Windows, which IS what I am personally after here, & that's it.
People aren't stupid you know, & neither am I. Your attempts @ "placating" me? Pretty transparent, & I am ONLY POINTING THIS OUT TO MAKE A BETTER WINDOWS 7 MAINLY (because overall? It's NOT BAD, but per what I put in here?? It can be better!)
APK
P.S.=> For those interested? Take a read in the URL from this website above... & here is a short summation of what I am reminding Mr. Foredecker of Microsoft about:
1.) Microsoft's removal of the ability to use 0 as a valid blocking "IP Address" in Windows VISTA, Windows Server 2008, & yes, Windows 7 from 12/08/2008 MS "Patch Tuesday" onwards, where VISTA @ least was able to use 0 before that in HOSTS files!
(Which on Windows 2000/XP/Server 2003, it STILL returns a 0.0.0.0 on sites blocked by 0 in the HOSTS file upon ping'ing they while they are blocked thus, in HOSTS files)
After all:
Using 0 in HOSTS files yields a FAR SMALLER HOSTS FILE than does using 0.0.0.0 even, & especially the default 127.0.0.1 "loopback adapter" - here, for example:
(656,000 entry HOSTS file)?
Using 127.0.0.1 yields a slower & larger 23mb sized HOSTS file + it adds a "loopback" operation to the mix (these others below, do not, on the latter point)
Using 0.0.0.0 yields an 18mb sized HOSTS file
Using 0 instead? ONLY A 14mb sized HOSTS file results!
Thus, 0 allows MUCH faster reads into RAM for caching it (due to up to 60% or more less filesize vs. 127.0.0.1), & more efficient internal operations as well (due to WHILE loop reads of files & their internal records, character-by-character, until the CR+LF (enter keypress) in hit on each line's ending, & lastly, until the EOF marker/trailer record is encountered...)).
2.) Problems in the local DNS Client caching service (which begins to "cough up badly" to say the least, when using HOSTS files that are relatively "largish" in size (over 1mb iirc))
3.) And, I would like to know the reasoning behind this being done too, because it makes NO sense (after all: MS put in the usage of 0 in HOSTS files somewhere after Windows 2000 released, in a service pack, altering the base BSD reference design & actually IMPROVING IT, & it was that way since then, up into VISTA even, until 12/08/2009, so why change it now?)
Again - simply because using 0 here in HOSTS files (or, any HOSTS for anyone really), yields a FAR SMALLER HOSTS FILE than using 0.0.0.0 or 127.0.0.1!
(Which, also again, yields the same valuable BLOCKING function as 0.0.0.0 or 127.0.0.1 do, & it also means faster reads up from disk into memory (be that the DNS client service, OR, the local diskcache subsystem (which takes over when the DNS client service is turned off, due to the faults in #2 above))).
apk
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1467692&cid=30382742
You've had MORE than "ample time" to look into that... &, I suspect @ this point, you are running because your attempts @ "shooting down my points" on HOSTS on your blog, rather than here, only got YOU "shot down", quite quickly, right in that URL here above...
For those interested? Take a read in the URL from this website above... & here is a short summation of what I am reminding Mr. Foredecker of Microsoft about:
1.) Microsoft's removal of the ability to use 0 as a valid blocking "IP Address" in Windows VISTA, Windows Server 2008, & yes, Windows 7 from 12/08/2008 MS "Patch Tuesday" onwards, where VISTA @ least was able to use 0 before that in HOSTS files!
(Which on Windows 2000/XP/Server 2003, it STILL returns a 0.0.0.0 on sites blocked by 0 in the HOSTS file upon ping'ing they while they are blocked thus, in HOSTS files)
After all:
Using 0 in HOSTS files yields a FAR SMALLER HOSTS FILE than does using 0.0.0.0 even, & especially the default 127.0.0.1 "loopback adapter" - here, for example:
(656,000 entry HOSTS file)?
Using 127.0.0.1 yields a slower & larger 23mb sized HOSTS file + it adds a "loopback" operation to the mix (these others below, do not, on the latter point)
Using 0.0.0.0 yields an 18mb sized HOSTS file
Using 0 instead? ONLY A 14mb sized HOSTS file results!
Thus, 0 allows MUCH faster reads into RAM for caching it (due to up to 60% or more less filesize vs. 127.0.0.1), & more efficient internal operations as well (due to WHILE loop reads of files & their internal records, character-by-character, until the CR+LF (enter keypress) in hit on each line's ending, & lastly, until the EOF marker/trailer record is encountered...)).
----
2.) Problems in the local DNS Client caching service (which begins to "cough up badly" to say the least, when using HOSTS files that are relatively "largish" in size (over 1mb iirc))
----
3.) And, I would like to know the reasoning behind this being done too, because it makes NO sense (after all: MS put in the usage of 0 in HOSTS files somewhere after Windows 2000 released, in a service pack, altering the base BSD reference design & actually IMPROVING IT, & it was that way since then, up into VISTA even, until 12/08/2009, so why change it now?)
Again - simply because using 0 here in HOSTS files (or, any HOSTS for anyone really), yields a FAR SMALLER HOSTS FILE than using 0.0.0.0 or 127.0.0.1!
(Which, also again, yields the same valuable BLOCKING function as 0.0.0.0 or 127.0.0.1 do, & it also means faster reads up from disk into memory (be that the DNS client service, OR, the local diskcache subsystem (which takes over when the DNS client service is turned off, due to the faults in #2 above))).
APK
P.S.=> Now, YOU may not LIKE this? But... If you are indicative of management @ MS, & their skillset in this art & science? Your companies' in trouble... & your attempts @ placating me & stating you'd look into it? You NEVER intended to imo... Heck, to be completely STRAIGHT about this?
I hope it helps you get a promotion @ MS by pointing this out to your peers in mgt., especially those involved in the IP stack & how it works! Maybe that's not what "does it" for that @ MS, but, I don't think it's going to hurt your chances on that note either, & it certainly WILL improve Windows, which IS what I am personally after here, & that's it.
People aren't stupid you know, & neither am I. Your attempts @ "placating" me? Pretty transparent, & I am ONLY POINTING THIS OUT TO MAKE A BETTER WINDOWS 7 MAINLY (because overall? It's NOT BAD, but per what I put in here?? It can be better!)... apk
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1467692&cid=30382742
You've had MORE than "ample time" to look into that... &, I suspect @ this point, you are running because your attempts @ "shooting down my points" on HOSTS on your blog, rather than here, only got YOU "shot down", quite quickly, right in that URL here above...
For those interested? Take a read in the URL from this website above... & here is a short summation of what I am reminding Mr. Foredecker of Microsoft about:
1.) Microsoft's removal of the ability to use 0 as a valid blocking "IP Address" in Windows VISTA, Windows Server 2008, & yes, Windows 7 from 12/08/2008 MS "Patch Tuesday" onwards, where VISTA @ least was able to use 0 before that in HOSTS files!
(Which on Windows 2000/XP/Server 2003, it STILL returns a 0.0.0.0 on sites blocked by 0 in the HOSTS file upon ping'ing they while they are blocked thus, in HOSTS files)
After all:
Using 0 in HOSTS files yields a FAR SMALLER HOSTS FILE than does using 0.0.0.0 even, & especially the default 127.0.0.1 "loopback adapter" - here, for example:
(656,000 entry HOSTS file)?
Using 127.0.0.1 yields a slower & larger 23mb sized HOSTS file + it adds a "loopback" operation to the mix (these others below, do not, on the latter point)
Using 0.0.0.0 yields an 18mb sized HOSTS file
Using 0 instead? ONLY A 14mb sized HOSTS file results!
Thus, 0 allows MUCH faster reads into RAM for caching it (due to up to 60% or more less filesize vs. 127.0.0.1), & more efficient internal operations as well (due to WHILE loop reads of files & their internal records, character-by-character, until the CR+LF (enter keypress) in hit on each line's ending, & lastly, until the EOF marker/trailer record is encountered...)).
----
2.) Problems in the local DNS Client caching service (which begins to "cough up badly" to say the least, when using HOSTS files that are relatively "largish" in size (over 1mb iirc))
----
3.) And, I would like to know the reasoning behind this being done too, because it makes NO sense (after all: MS put in the usage of 0 in HOSTS files somewhere after Windows 2000 released, in a service pack, altering the base BSD reference design & actually IMPROVING IT, & it was that way since then, up into VISTA even, until 12/08/2009, so why change it now?)
Again - simply because using 0 here in HOSTS files (or, any HOSTS for anyone really), yields a FAR SMALLER HOSTS FILE than using 0.0.0.0 or 127.0.0.1!
(Which, also again, yields the same valuable BLOCKING function as 0.0.0.0 or 127.0.0.1 do, & it also means faster reads up from disk into memory (be that the DNS client service, OR, the local diskcache subsystem (which takes over when the DNS client service is turned off, due to the faults in #2 above))).
APK
P.S.=> Now, YOU may not LIKE this? But... If you are indicative of management @ MS, & their skillset in this art & science? Your companies' in trouble... & your attempts @ placating me & stating you'd look into it? You NEVER intended to imo... Heck, to be completely STRAIGHT about this?
I hope it helps you get a promotion @ MS by pointing this out to your peers in mgt., especially those involved in the IP stack & how it works! Maybe that's not what "does it" for that @ MS, but, I don't think it's going to hurt your chances on that note either, & it certainly WILL improve Windows, which IS what I am personally after here, & that's it.
People aren't stupid you know, & neither am I. Your attempts @ "placating" me? Pretty transparent, & I am ONLY POINTING THIS OUT TO MAKE A BETTER WINDOWS 7 MAINLY (because overall? It's NOT BAD, but per what I put in here?? It can be better!)... apk
SymbolNOBODY: You said what's quoted below from you, here -> http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1476008&cid=30428430
"It's tolerated (perhaps encouraged) in part because these annoying actors are otherwised engaged in improving Linux. Major Debian and BSD contributors, for example, use slashdot as a workspace for their human-machine interaction side experiments, of which APK is probably one. In addition many of these trolls post links which, if you follow them, will completely hose a Windows machine. This is part of the game. - by symbolset (646467) on Monday December 14, @01:15AM (#30428430) Journal
I took offense to the BOLDED part... & ALL you EVER seem to have is "ad hominem" based attacks on people, not the points they make. So, "symbolNOBODY": The day you can make something like this (& that got you PAID for it, & that has done as well for others online):
http://www.tcmagazine.com/forums/index.php?s=b861a743aa23c4568b7d73e07ef7ecec&showtopic=2662
That's also gone over 250.000 views worldwide in 1++ yrs.' time online, & across 15 forums where that guide for Windows Security has been made either an:
1.) "Sticky/Pinned" thread
2.) An "Essential Guide"
3.) Rates 5/5 stars (etc.)
AND, gets "feedback" like this from users that have applied it:
----
http://www.xtremepccentral.com/forums/showthread.php?t=28430
PERTINENT QUOTE/EXCERPT:
"...recently, months ago when you finally got this guide done, had authorization to try this on simple work station for kids. My client, who paid me an ungodly amount of money to do this, has been PROBLEM FREE FOR MONTHS! I haven't even had a follow up call which is unusual. Now I don't recommend this for the average joe, but it if can work for a kids PC it can work for anything! Now, i substituted OpenDNS and activated the Adult Content filter with them for this kids computer. I know its not perfect, but will catch over 99.5% of said sites."
and
http://www.xtremepccentral.com/forums/showthread.php?s=10f9ba9ad5ff990aaae1e7ec91f593a2&t=28430&page=3
"Its 2009 - still trouble free! I was told last week by a co worker who does active directory administration, and he said I was doing overkill. I told him yes, but I just eliminated the half life in windows that you usually get. He said good point. So from 2008 till 2009. No speed decreases, its been to a lan party, moved around in a move, and it still NEVER has had the OS reinstalled besides the fact I imaged the drive over in 2008. Great stuff! My client STILL Hasn't called me back in regards to that one machine to get it locked down for the kid. I am glad it worked and I am sure her wallet is appreciated too now that it works. Speaking of which, I need to call her to see if I can get some leads. APK - I will say it again, the guide is FANTASTIC! Its made my PC experience much easier. Sandboxing was great. Getting my host file updated, setting services to system service, rather than system local. (except AVG updater, needed system local)"
Thronka - forums member @ xtremepccentral.com
----
THEN, when you have done so, on THAT account? THEN, you can talk (and, ESPECIALLY about that which you said about myself which I quoted from you above shows YOU, libelling ME, clearly. It's clearly immaterial & outright b.s. from you, vs. the kind of feedback my guide on securing Windows gets, quoted above from others? It CLEARLY disproved your outright b.s., period...)
Also?
When you have done all of this as I have over time in this Art & Science of computing:
"My Na
The problem is netbooks are no longer netbooks, and instead they are becoming watered-down laptops.
IMO a netbook should be durable and ultraportable, low footprint and no moving parts - day-long battery life, under 10 inches, under 3 lbs, passively-cooled, solid-state storage, built-in 3G. These things should be nonnegotiable standards (just like nobody builds a phone that can't fit in your pocket.) They should emphasize their specialty, which is that you can work from anywhere, or watch TV from anywhere (is HD video really necessary?) through various apps like YouTube. And the specs should be throttled back to maintain a low price point so long as the above features are kept to. That should have been the goal. Technology would allow for more powerful netbooks in time.
Instead, manufacturers have made durability and ultraportability negotiable and instead are making netbooks bigger, more powerful, and more expensive, and not trying very hard on the durability front. So they end up competing directly with laptops, which are coming down in price so rapidly that you can now buy a regular laptop for the same price as a netbook. Why would any consumer spend $500 for a system that uses an Atom, has 2GB RAM, 160GB HDD, 1024x600 screen, and 4 hour battery life when they can get a Core 2 Duo, 4GB RAM, 500GB HDD, much better screen resolution, and a slightly worse (advertised) battery life?
If it has a 3 hour battery life, a spinning HDD, and is 12 inches large, is it really a netbook anymore?