Originally Posted by Mootsfox
I have only used XP and 7 Starter on netbooks. I don't think that that would really matter though. It's the form factor that I don't like. I do not have big hands, but I still find the keyboard cramped to do any significant typing on. The only netbook that gets close to being acceptable in my book is the HP mini series.
Unless cost is the most important factor, an Ultrabook or similar is the best move in my opinion. There are 13" models that are lighter, thinner and almost smaller than 10" netbooks, while offering a full keyboard, and only run about $600.
Yes, it is, I'm typing on mine right now, the keyboard is excellent. Many of the posts I've typed on this forum were on my HP Mini. As to 13.3" Ultraportables, they are too big. You may find some that are thinner and weigh just as much, but the screen size means it will always be bigger than what I want to carry around.
Originally Posted by Brutuz
Originally Posted by tpi2007
Originally Posted by Rookie1337
Originally Posted by Mootsfox
Good. Netbooks suck.
^Must have only used Windows on a netbook. Still going strong with my 3 year old single core Atom N450. If Intel ever got their own IGPu on an Atom again I'd be down for that because Imagination (the PowerVR guys) are jerks with their closed and never going to be supported for Linux GPU. I keep looking at a N2600 and dying inside because I can't use it do to the stupidity of the company behind the GPU.
Intel will have its own IGP with the next 22nm Atom lineup, it will be Ivy Bridge based, and the CPU part will be out of order.
The Netbook was simply too early IMO, these new Atoms you're talking about should mean that performance won't be completely gimped with little benefits to running the Netbook platform like it was.
I don't agree, the Netbook came at the right time, you have to remember that when it came out it came with Linux, which was lighter on resources than Windows Vista, and then because people didn't get along with Linux and wanted the familiarity and compatibility of Windows, Microsoft decided that the best OS to compete against Linux was the lighter Windows XP, and indeed it performed very well with 512 MB and 1 GB of RAM. Also, YouTube videos were still only 480p at most back in 2008 so, for the most part, even though Intel did not invest in a whole platform (keeping the old 945 Mobile chipset), the CPU itself was a good match for Windows XP and what you should ask of it.
The problem is that Intel introduced the Atom with the best in class manufacturing process at the time - 45nm, and then didn't follow up on that, and kept manufacturing them with 45nm after having introduced the 32nm process. They probably feared that Netbook sales would eat into laptop sales, but in the end you can argue whether that was a bad choice or not - tablets are now eating into the same territory with the cheap ARM CPUs.
Also, they now keep insisting on selling Netbooks with only 1 GB of RAM (a few exceptions are starting to appear though, but most are based on AMD E series APUs, or Pentium Dual Core CPUs), when that is clearly the bare minimum for a heavier OS like Windows 7, not to mention the fact that the difference in cost between a 1 GB SODIMM and a 2 GB SODIMM is very small.
The 32nm Atoms were late to the market (I remember not postponing my purchase of my current Netbook because Intel kept postponing the release of the 32nm Atoms) and they should have already been out of order (AMD did it on a 40nm process), together with an Intel based IGP. I understand why they went with PowerVR this time around, because their focus was on tablets and smartphones and energy consumption would have to be as competitive as they could against ARM based offerings, so making the GPU the same would help equalise things.
I think that some manufacturers are saying that the Netbook is dead because, basically, the industry surrounding it hasn't seen much movement lately. I find it a bit ironic that they are talking about it now, when the conditions for it to become false again are coming. Until now both Intel and AMD consider this segment as a non priority and hence they are the last to get the latest manufacturing technlogy. Until now Intel has been selling basically the same CPU design since 2008, the current GPU does not follow their lineage, while AMD is still selling their Netbook APUs based on the oldest manufacturing technology, when all of their other products (except a few discrete GPUs based on older architectures) are manufactured with either 32nm or 28nm manuficturing process.
Hopefully, now that they both realised that ARM is a real threat, the coming to the current manufacturing process of both product lineups is here to stay, and they don't take as long in the future as they have now, even though I suspect that these lineups will still trail behind other products, after all they are low profit products.Edited by tpi2007 - 1/20/13 at 6:00pm