You'll possibly want a DVD drive as well as mouse and kb. For most people, adding extra components is a nuisance. Adding a monitor means you're paying for a built in monitor that you don't need, and a keyboard and DVD drive aren't free.
Good points, but there's the main reason for wanting a netbook: highly portable computing. Unplug the monitor and the USB hub that has all of a keyboard, mouse, and DVD drive, and you're off... two things to unplug (well, power, too, I suppose).
Then when you get home you have an ultra efficient, ultra quiet "desktop" system.
If you need power, you need power, but if you don't, and you don't want redundant portable/desktop computers, I think the netbook (or low end laptop) is a great solution.
But I do have old (as from 2006) "home made" servers and still they support IPMI (supermicro boards). Anyway, you can't call them "departamental servers" if they are no more than glorified desktops.
Yes... glorified re-purposed desktops from around 1999/2000. One is an 800Mhz Duron.
And yes, our "department" is not thousands of people; it's a couple of hundred people dependent on a lot more important servers than the web-apps on my server (to create and archive projects... both of which can be delayed if there's a problem).
I guess all I'm saying is it doesn't behoove one to be condescending.
The screens on most netbooks are pretty cramped IMO even for use on the move.
I completely agree, but you put up with it for portability... that's why I annoyed at the "quiz," because I'd already previously had laptops (not now, though, I gave my last one to my wife) and that's how I used it...
In fact, I'd say the only thing holding me back right now is not knowing what the maximum external video dimensions are... I've spoiled myself with a large monitor, and wouldn't want to have to use a smaller size. Plus I'd like DVI. Few laptops have it, no netbooks have it.
But in a more general sense, I'm just saying most people simply don't need even average computers that are being sold now, most people are over-buying and ending up wasting a lot of money, like buying a Hummer to commute by yourself to work. I've got nothing against Hummers, but it makes no logical sense for that purpose.
Exactly, a netbook is not a cheap laptop, it was never intended to be.
It was intended to be a more portable solution for people who didn't want to lug around a laptop, which is why the first EePC was so successful, but if the vast majority of users are simply using their computers to keep in touch with people, do some surfing and looking at people's facebook and myspace pages, and there's the off-chance they might actually do some minor word processing or home accounting (not typical, though), then a netbook is everything they need, especially if, when at home, it's somehow "docked" to a large external screen and keyboard/mouse.
With bumped up RAM, they could do just fine even when doing something like photo editing, and it might be slower than more powerful computers when doing basic things like that, but it wouldn't be that slow for most people... more just slow by comparison.
Most people have simply been over-buying for years. They simply don't need that much power to use twitter.
I agree... when you get up to the $300 mark (considering all the netbooks I've seen require external optical drives that aren't included), then a $350 or $400 laptop is a downright bargain and usually offers a LOT more (except the portability).
I wouldn't have stated it that way, but I agree... people are realizing the race for powerful chips now exceeds the necessity of most people by magnitudes; most people just want to stay in touch and have access to the web. Even the usual word processing and home finance applications, which few average-Joes actually even use anyway, don't require squat for processing.
There was a netbook on display at Sam's Club that had a "is a netbook right for me" app running on it, so I took the test... the first question is if it was going to be your primary computer, and I said "yes," which ended the test with "this isn't powerful enough for your main computer, and the keyboard and display are too small!!!"
When I use a laptop as my "main" computer I don't like the keyboard or display, either... both external. Same thing I'd do with a netbook. I don't see the problem.
Sorry... maybe you have fancy servers, but I have an old "home made" box that got stuck on a shelf in a server room. I don't have a fancy rack mount system with "full blown remote control cards."
Does freedom of speech require that people not drown you out?
That's a tough one (it probably shouldn't be, though), I would have to say no... those people are not violating any right to free speech.
When the speaker asked "Don't you believe in free speech?" He should have instead phrased it "Why are you afraid of opinion that differ from yours? Why are you so close minded to alternative views?"
On the other hand, while no one is granted a "right" to a venue, when you are given a venue, then only the giver can take it away... those students shouting down the speaker were not given a venue; I would liken it to a competing radio station blasting it's signal and many times your wattage in your space.
I agree.. I think we ought to encourage MORE people to speak their minds to make it easier to figure out who the bigots, racists, and just plain jerks are.
Because it's not a myth. If I shop around, I can find Windows laptops a lot more expensive than apple, it's true, and I can come here and say "look, Windows Laptops are just as, if not more expensive, than Apples!"
On the other hand, I can find laptops with essentially the same specs as a Macbook for substantially less... a simple search on Newegg shows me a Toshiba (13.3 inch, 2.1Mhz Core 2 Duo, 4GB, 320GB HDD)to the lowest end Macbook (13inch, 2.26Mhz Core 2 Duo, 2GB, 160GB HDD) for $770 versus $1200.
I can also find a Sony Vaio for twice the price of the Macbook if I really want to, and at that price, I'd pick the Macbook, too.
It's disingenuous to just pick and choose to make your side look favorable, but the fact is I can find similarly spec-ed PCs for a LOT less than Macs. The article overwhelmingly favored Windows 7, it seems like they were really reaching to throw a check mark in the Snow Leopard category was my only point.
I think the whole price issue is bogus anyway. They compared nearly identical machines, but a nearly identical 1.86Mhz Core 2 Windows box is going to cost significantly less than a corresponding Mac; they didn't compare retail full version prices, they only talked about upgrade prices... because that's where you get a huge difference and can put a "check" in the MacOS column.
Most people simply don't upgrade. If Mac users are more likely to upgrade the OS, it's only because they don't get that huge benefit from trading up hardware at the same time.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not a fan of Windows. I have XP and use it sparingly (versus Ubuntu), and all things being equal would take a Mac in a heartbeat over a PC. But all things aren't equal, so giving the MacOS a win in price is disingenuous.
No, actually, I agree... but the raw number of dollars you're spending on the marketing they did to get you to buy it (regardless of how useless it was) isn't that bad... it's just that the raw number of dollars given to the development team is worse.
I don't get any of those magazines, either, and don't watch enough TV for the big game advertising... so I don't know what's good. I stand there at the store looking like an idiot because I refuse to sink $50+ on a game that I know nothing about simply because the box looks cool. The only ones I know of are the Guitar Hero (and variations) and some of the singing games (Sing Star and High School Musical) that my kids like.
There's very few games I know anything about. And as cheap as I am, I wouldn't buy a game based on marketing anyway (although it might peak my interest), I'd have to wait for reviews from real people (not paid off magazines).
So... marketing is worthless to me, but it doesn't hold true that if a game is good it will sell without marketing, either, it needs some, at least.
You might even be able to determine how good a game will be based on the amount of marketing: too much probably means it's a bad game.
No, but you can have 9 babies in 9 months instead...
Yes... this is true. But then the analogy would be you could use nine times as many developers and have nine different games in the same amount of time, you couldn't make any one of them be "finished" any sooner.
I don't think it's necessarily as bad as you make it out to be.
There's marketing costs, there's development costs... the article says the former is three times the latter, but that doesn't including other costs, DRM is something they usually purchase to add on, or it's a standard for the company (they don't redevelop it for each title); other costs are also involved that may not technically be considered "development" costs, like shipping, like the cost of the office space and so forth, licensing fees for many games, even much of the equipment... do the developers get new machines each title? Then a lot of what you pay is people skimming off the top... the retailer gets their cut, the publisher (not always the same as the developer) gets their cut, the CEO gets his cut and adds nothing to the title (not that I have anything against CEOs or executives, they have their place in companies, but they aren't part of "development" costs).
User "PainKilleR-CE" pretty much explained it, except, really, it shouldn't make doing your taxes any more difficult.... at the end of the year you still know what you owe, what was prepaid (through withholding), and then you either have to pay more or get a refund to make up the difference.
Frankly, I think withholding is a disgraceful scam.
Perhaps for people like Slashdot readers, but no, not in general.
In fact, while I enjoy being able to work at home a couple of times a week, and I get a lot of benefit from being able to use the internet, it's hardly a necessity even for me.
I wouldn't want to do without it, but in no way can it be considered essential.
Moreover, these kinds of actions wouldn't affect the basic use of internet service anyway... those uses that someone like you might consider essential.
Slashdot Mirror
You'll possibly want a DVD drive as well as mouse and kb. For most people, adding extra components is a nuisance. Adding a monitor means you're paying for a built in monitor that you don't need, and a keyboard and DVD drive aren't free.
Good points, but there's the main reason for wanting a netbook: highly portable computing. Unplug the monitor and the USB hub that has all of a keyboard, mouse, and DVD drive, and you're off... two things to unplug (well, power, too, I suppose).
Then when you get home you have an ultra efficient, ultra quiet "desktop" system.
If you need power, you need power, but if you don't, and you don't want redundant portable/desktop computers, I think the netbook (or low end laptop) is a great solution.
I specifically said "computer anecdotes."
But I do have old (as from 2006) "home made" servers and still they support IPMI (supermicro boards). Anyway, you can't call them "departamental servers" if they are no more than glorified desktops.
Yes... glorified re-purposed desktops from around 1999/2000. One is an 800Mhz Duron.
And yes, our "department" is not thousands of people; it's a couple of hundred people dependent on a lot more important servers than the web-apps on my server (to create and archive projects... both of which can be delayed if there's a problem).
I guess all I'm saying is it doesn't behoove one to be condescending.
The screens on most netbooks are pretty cramped IMO even for use on the move.
I completely agree, but you put up with it for portability... that's why I annoyed at the "quiz," because I'd already previously had laptops (not now, though, I gave my last one to my wife) and that's how I used it...
In fact, I'd say the only thing holding me back right now is not knowing what the maximum external video dimensions are... I've spoiled myself with a large monitor, and wouldn't want to have to use a smaller size. Plus I'd like DVI. Few laptops have it, no netbooks have it.
But in a more general sense, I'm just saying most people simply don't need even average computers that are being sold now, most people are over-buying and ending up wasting a lot of money, like buying a Hummer to commute by yourself to work. I've got nothing against Hummers, but it makes no logical sense for that purpose.
Exactly, a netbook is not a cheap laptop, it was never intended to be.
It was intended to be a more portable solution for people who didn't want to lug around a laptop, which is why the first EePC was so successful, but if the vast majority of users are simply using their computers to keep in touch with people, do some surfing and looking at people's facebook and myspace pages, and there's the off-chance they might actually do some minor word processing or home accounting (not typical, though), then a netbook is everything they need, especially if, when at home, it's somehow "docked" to a large external screen and keyboard/mouse.
With bumped up RAM, they could do just fine even when doing something like photo editing, and it might be slower than more powerful computers when doing basic things like that, but it wouldn't be that slow for most people... more just slow by comparison.
Most people have simply been over-buying for years. They simply don't need that much power to use twitter.
I agree... when you get up to the $300 mark (considering all the netbooks I've seen require external optical drives that aren't included), then a $350 or $400 laptop is a downright bargain and usually offers a LOT more (except the portability).
It's like the laws of physics applied to computer anecdotes: for every anecdote, there is an equal and opposite anecdote.
I wouldn't have stated it that way, but I agree... people are realizing the race for powerful chips now exceeds the necessity of most people by magnitudes; most people just want to stay in touch and have access to the web. Even the usual word processing and home finance applications, which few average-Joes actually even use anyway, don't require squat for processing.
There was a netbook on display at Sam's Club that had a "is a netbook right for me" app running on it, so I took the test... the first question is if it was going to be your primary computer, and I said "yes," which ended the test with "this isn't powerful enough for your main computer, and the keyboard and display are too small!!!"
When I use a laptop as my "main" computer I don't like the keyboard or display, either... both external. Same thing I'd do with a netbook. I don't see the problem.
Sorry... maybe you have fancy servers, but I have an old "home made" box that got stuck on a shelf in a server room. I don't have a fancy rack mount system with "full blown remote control cards."
Yup... I'm not really an administrator, but I have a couple of departmental web servers I need to run... and damnit, sometimes I gotta hit the button.
If they are surrounding you and not letting you move, they are violating your liberties.
"Menacingly harass" me? That's not the same as just using words. If you are physically threatened, call the cops.
Exactly... in order to be offended, you'd first have to value their opinions.
Does freedom of speech require that people not drown you out?
That's a tough one (it probably shouldn't be, though), I would have to say no... those people are not violating any right to free speech.
When the speaker asked "Don't you believe in free speech?" He should have instead phrased it "Why are you afraid of opinion that differ from yours? Why are you so close minded to alternative views?"
On the other hand, while no one is granted a "right" to a venue, when you are given a venue, then only the giver can take it away... those students shouting down the speaker were not given a venue; I would liken it to a competing radio station blasting it's signal and many times your wattage in your space.
I agree.. I think we ought to encourage MORE people to speak their minds to make it easier to figure out who the bigots, racists, and just plain jerks are.
You implied, no said straight out, that Macs were more expensive then when I point out Windows PCs that are more expensive you get defensive.
For anyone being cost conscious, Macs ARE more expensive than PCs, it's really just that simple.
Because it's not a myth. If I shop around, I can find Windows laptops a lot more expensive than apple, it's true, and I can come here and say "look, Windows Laptops are just as, if not more expensive, than Apples!"
On the other hand, I can find laptops with essentially the same specs as a Macbook for substantially less... a simple search on Newegg shows me a Toshiba (13.3 inch, 2.1Mhz Core 2 Duo, 4GB, 320GB HDD)to the lowest end Macbook (13inch, 2.26Mhz Core 2 Duo, 2GB, 160GB HDD) for $770 versus $1200.
I can also find a Sony Vaio for twice the price of the Macbook if I really want to, and at that price, I'd pick the Macbook, too.
It's disingenuous to just pick and choose to make your side look favorable, but the fact is I can find similarly spec-ed PCs for a LOT less than Macs. The article overwhelmingly favored Windows 7, it seems like they were really reaching to throw a check mark in the Snow Leopard category was my only point.
I think the whole price issue is bogus anyway. They compared nearly identical machines, but a nearly identical 1.86Mhz Core 2 Windows box is going to cost significantly less than a corresponding Mac; they didn't compare retail full version prices, they only talked about upgrade prices... because that's where you get a huge difference and can put a "check" in the MacOS column.
Most people simply don't upgrade. If Mac users are more likely to upgrade the OS, it's only because they don't get that huge benefit from trading up hardware at the same time.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not a fan of Windows. I have XP and use it sparingly (versus Ubuntu), and all things being equal would take a Mac in a heartbeat over a PC. But all things aren't equal, so giving the MacOS a win in price is disingenuous.
No, actually, I agree... but the raw number of dollars you're spending on the marketing they did to get you to buy it (regardless of how useless it was) isn't that bad... it's just that the raw number of dollars given to the development team is worse.
I don't get any of those magazines, either, and don't watch enough TV for the big game advertising... so I don't know what's good. I stand there at the store looking like an idiot because I refuse to sink $50+ on a game that I know nothing about simply because the box looks cool. The only ones I know of are the Guitar Hero (and variations) and some of the singing games (Sing Star and High School Musical) that my kids like.
There's very few games I know anything about. And as cheap as I am, I wouldn't buy a game based on marketing anyway (although it might peak my interest), I'd have to wait for reviews from real people (not paid off magazines).
So... marketing is worthless to me, but it doesn't hold true that if a game is good it will sell without marketing, either, it needs some, at least.
You might even be able to determine how good a game will be based on the amount of marketing: too much probably means it's a bad game.
No, but you can have 9 babies in 9 months instead...
Yes... this is true. But then the analogy would be you could use nine times as many developers and have nine different games in the same amount of time, you couldn't make any one of them be "finished" any sooner.
I don't think it's necessarily as bad as you make it out to be.
There's marketing costs, there's development costs... the article says the former is three times the latter, but that doesn't including other costs, DRM is something they usually purchase to add on, or it's a standard for the company (they don't redevelop it for each title); other costs are also involved that may not technically be considered "development" costs, like shipping, like the cost of the office space and so forth, licensing fees for many games, even much of the equipment... do the developers get new machines each title? Then a lot of what you pay is people skimming off the top... the retailer gets their cut, the publisher (not always the same as the developer) gets their cut, the CEO gets his cut and adds nothing to the title (not that I have anything against CEOs or executives, they have their place in companies, but they aren't part of "development" costs).
Exactly. But you'll have nine cars one mile away from the starting point, and none of them will be anywhere near the finish (9 miles away).
So if I combine your posts, what I get is that pregnancy is a regenerative cycle that ends in disaster.
Wait... what were we talking about?
User "PainKilleR-CE" pretty much explained it, except, really, it shouldn't make doing your taxes any more difficult.... at the end of the year you still know what you owe, what was prepaid (through withholding), and then you either have to pay more or get a refund to make up the difference.
Frankly, I think withholding is a disgraceful scam.
Perhaps for people like Slashdot readers, but no, not in general.
In fact, while I enjoy being able to work at home a couple of times a week, and I get a lot of benefit from being able to use the internet, it's hardly a necessity even for me.
I wouldn't want to do without it, but in no way can it be considered essential.
Moreover, these kinds of actions wouldn't affect the basic use of internet service anyway... those uses that someone like you might consider essential.