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."

Comments

For selfish reasons, I hope not

[davebarnes]

I have a vested interest in Netbooks being successful: http://www.netbooksummit.com/

Do the right thing (& do what you said you'd d

[Anonymous Coward]

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?

In fact, well... I actually hope it contributes to you perhaps getting 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. I state that, because like I said before: When MS does well? I DO WELL.

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