Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Is Intel Killing 12-Inch Displays On Netbooks?

timothy posted more than 5 years ago | from the 12"-seems-a-bit-easier-on-the-eyes dept.

Portables 297

HangingChad writes "Dell has retired their 12-inch Intel Atom-powered netbooks, they said today. The official reason — 'It really boils down to this: for a lot of customers, 10-inch displays are the sweet spot for netbooksLarger notebooks require a little more horsepower to be really useful.' Or is the real reason that 12-inch displays on netbooks cut into Intel's more profitable dual-core market and Dell's profit margins on higher-end machines?"

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

fp (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#29003927)

ladies, get your pussies ready for my 10".

burn karma, burn (1)

masshuu (1260516) | more than 5 years ago | (#29004599)

suck my 12" []

wait, dell just cut it off


12" = normal machine (4, Insightful)

tsa (15680) | more than 5 years ago | (#29003931)

I remember when I had a 12" iBook. Back then it was considered a normal laptop. OK, it wasn't wide-screen, but isn't 12" just too big for a netbook?

It doesn't matter to the average consumer. (1)

rolfwind (528248) | more than 5 years ago | (#29004049)

I'm eyeing the 11.6 notebooks, with ~1300x768 resolution, because they are the first workable machines for me (1024x600 res of the 10" just isn't enough although I would buy a smaller one if the resolution was up to par).

Anyway, at these sizes, it's not much cheaper than the cheapest full size notebooks - but it's still a lot easier than lugging around the average 15", has much better battery life than the cheapest notebooks, and with the typical browsing/email most people do, having max processing power isn't the biggest concern although having enough obviously is.

An iBook may have been the exception to some of these observations, but then they are more expensive, and were sleeker than the average plastic clunker.

Re:It doesn't matter to the average consumer. (4, Interesting)

digitalunity (19107) | more than 5 years ago | (#29004355)

For me, my 14" HP is the sweet spot. I got good resolution and great battery life.

A 12" seems to be right in the middle of two distinct classes - the netbook and the laptop.

At 12", its too big to have the convenience of a netbook, but its too small to serve as a fully functional laptop. I'm not sure how well the 12" was selling, but for myself at least I would never buy a 12" because it wouldn't be ideal for anything I want to do.

Re:It doesn't matter to the average consumer. (0, Flamebait)

node 3 (115640) | more than 5 years ago | (#29004767)

has much better battery life than the cheapest notebooks

I realize you qualified this by comparing it with "the cheapest notebooks", but do netbooks really get such great battery performance? Every netbook I've encountered has what I'd consider sub-par battery performance except for those with the oversized batteries. For example, all of Apple's MacBook Pros (yes, I realize this is not from the category of "the cheapest notebooks") get 7 or 8 hours (verified as accurate by various third party reviews, so not the standard industry "under imaginary conditions" you see with most notebooks). Most netbooks would be hard-pressed to get half that.

I suspect there's a lot of potential for longer lasting netbooks, but in order to get long battery life, you either need a very low powered chip system (Atom is not, mainly due to the rest of the chipset), or a larger and more expensive battery. The first is too underpowered to be really useful and the second is too expensive to fit into the netbook category (most people will not spend $500+ for a netbook, they'd just buy a larger notebook).

Which brings me to:

with the typical browsing/email most people do, having max processing power isn't the biggest concern although having enough obviously is.

I find this attitude to be extremely condescending. "Oh, this crap system is totally overkill for you". In what other realm of life is it normal to tell people to buy a crappy product because it's "good enough" for their simple needs? Most netbooks can't even play YouTube without stuttering often enough to be annoying. Who are these people that only check email and view a few static web pages that are perfectly viewable in 600 vertical pixels without annoyance? Netbooks are great as a secondary, crap computer for on-the-go, since a crap computer that's with you is better than a ultra-powerful computer that isn't. But just generally "good enough" is not a proper description for any netbook I've ever encountered (and yes, I do realize most people have lesser needs/demands from their computer than I (and most of us here) do, but netbooks go way beyond just being too slow for me (us) in general).

And yes, I did notice that, yet again, you carefully qualified your statement. "although having enough [power] obviously is [important]". But it's kind of like me saying I'm totally fast enough to run to wherever I need to go, for destinations that are sufficiently close.

Re:12" = normal machine (1)

djdavetrouble (442175) | more than 5 years ago | (#29004129)

No, no it isn't.
What we have discovered is that 10" is actually too small.
This is due to the fact that you look like a squinting hunched over idiot while using
it, especially if you are over six feet tall. Petite women, and very small men, netbook away!
Ya'll are so cute with those lil' 'puters!

Re:12" = normal machine (1)

tsa (15680) | more than 5 years ago | (#29004259)

I know what you mean. I have a very small lady friend who has a nice 10" Samsung. She is very happy with it.

Re:12" = normal machine (1)

node 3 (115640) | more than 5 years ago | (#29004623)

No, no it isn't.
What we have discovered is that 10" is actually too small.
This is due to the fact that you look like a squinting hunched over idiot while using
it, especially if you are over six feet tall.

That's, to an extent, what makes a netbook a netbook.

The way I look at it is, if its a perfectly usable, "just right" size computer for every day use without any severe complaints regarding size, hard drive speed, keyboard, etc, then it's not a netbook, it's just a notebook (regardless of the size). What makes a netbook a distinct category is that you're giving up on some (really, usually just about every) aspect of the computer in order to gain something that is extremely portable, and significantly cheaper than a regular notebook. That's what makes netbooks unique (hell, it even played a role in the origins of the name).

Re:12" = normal machine (5, Informative)

jones_supa (887896) | more than 5 years ago | (#29004143)

Exactly. And, there is already the term subnotebook [] for laptops of that size.

Re:12" = normal machine (4, Insightful)

harlows_monkeys (106428) | more than 5 years ago | (#29004197)

[...] but isn't 12" just too big for a netbook?

I find that the most important dimension when it comes to whether or not a computer is comfortable or is awkward and annoying when I'm carrying it loose is thickness, not length or width.

Same when it is in a backpack, as I use a backpack that has a padded divider to separate the computer from the other items in the backpack. The thickness of the computer is the only dimension that determines how much space the computer takes up in the backpack.

Re:12" = normal machine (5, Funny)

Kozz (7764) | more than 5 years ago | (#29004377)

I find that the most important dimension when it comes to whether or not a computer is comfortable or is awkward and annoying when I'm carrying it loose is thickness, not length or width.

Oh-ho! A computer, you say? Is that what the kids are calling it these days? I can read between the lines, mister.

Re:12" = normal machine (1)

dgatwood (11270) | more than 5 years ago | (#29004517)

Funny. I've come to the opposite conclusion. Flying in coach, the taller the laptop is off the table, the more likely you are to break the screen when the guy in front of you leans back. Thickness doesn't mean much because it is in a bag anyway.

As for twelve inches being too big, that's only be ause a 12 inch laptop is really almost 14 inches corner to corner because of the wide screen margins. Dump the built-in camera; a netbook isn't fast enough to do much with it anyway. Then, cut it down to the narrowest screen border that still allows you to hinge the screen. A near-borderless 12 inch laptop would be plenty small.

The problem is that instead of cutting stuff out, they keep trying to cram in crap like a webcam, flash reader, etc., none of which belong in an ultraportable. Clip your cell phone to the screen and use its camera over Bluetooth if you really need a webcam. Carry a reader in you bag or just use your camera with a USB cable in a pinch. Cut out all the wasted space and the 12 inch form factor will be the perfect size.

Re:12" = normal machine (1)

Johan Welin (1387129) | more than 5 years ago | (#29004415)

For a Netbook yes. What you want from a Netbook is the smaller footprint. Otherwise you should spend your money on the larger, higher-end, alternatives. But i still would appreciate seeing some Netbooks with a higher screen resolution than what you typically get today.

Re:12" = normal machine (4, Interesting)

moosesocks (264553) | more than 5 years ago | (#29004737)

I (still) have a 12" PowerBook.

IMHO, it's by far the best compromise I've seen between performance and portability. In fact, there wasn't much of a "compromise" at all -- it has the full array of ports that you'd expect (including FireWire), an optical drive, a decent battery, and surprisingly good speakers. At the time of its release, its CPU, memory, and hard drive were all on par with the top-of-the-line. Even today, it's still adequately fast for most tasks.

It's small enough to take anywhere, but not small enough that you have to squint in order to read what's on the screen. The new 13" MacBooks are actually quite a bit larger (albeit still very nice machines) -- I don't know of any machines today that offer the modern equivalent of performance and portability (even on the PC side of the fence, which I'd happily consider). There's also certainly something to be said for Apple's use of an all-metal chassis for its laptops.

My only complaints about it are the 1.25GB RAM limit, and 1024x768 display, although these are forgivable, given that it's a 5 year old machine.

Alternate Sources (3, Insightful)

im_thatoneguy (819432) | more than 5 years ago | (#29003937)

Now I might believe this "it's cutting into cash cow" theory if Dell was a monopoly like Apple. But if HP, Asus et all are offering 12" Netbooks then wouldn't they just be losing customers to their competitors--gaining 0 profit instead of less profit?

Re:Alternate Sources (1)

bschorr (1316501) | more than 5 years ago | (#29004069)

It's not Dell that's sweating it - it's Intel. Of course same argument could be made if the Via chip starts to cut into their business substantially.

Re:Alternate Sources (3, Interesting)

mewsenews (251487) | more than 5 years ago | (#29004081)

What do Dell, Apple, HP, and Asus have in common? Their relationship to Intel. AMD is a non-competitor in the netbook space right now, and Intel has enough clout to throw their weight around and get what they want.

Microsoft (4, Interesting)

TheLink (130905) | more than 5 years ago | (#29004165)

How about the relationship with Microsoft?

What are Microsoft's licensing terms and costs for 10" netbooks, 12" netbooks and >12" notebooks?

Re:Microsoft (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#29004661)

See here:

Re:Microsoft (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#29004763)

How about the relationship with Microsoft?

What are Microsoft's licensing terms and costs for 10" netbooks, 12" netbooks and >12" notebooks?

Microsoft's license terms?

Like getting fucked up the ass by a 10" gorilla's dick, then a 12" horse's dick, >12" elephant cock.

Re:Alternate Sources (1, Insightful)

Frosty Piss (770223) | more than 5 years ago | (#29004243)

If X size screen isn't profitable for Intel or Dell, why should they make it? Should they, as for-profit companies produce a money loser just because there are some people that want that size? No.

Re:Alternate Sources (4, Interesting)

c_forq (924234) | more than 5 years ago | (#29004293)

The point is that Intel charges more for the SAME ATOM CHIP if you are using it for a device with a 12" screen. That basically forces it to be less profitable.

Re:Alternate Sources (1)

JimboFBX (1097277) | more than 5 years ago | (#29004593)

Where do you get that info?

Re:Alternate Sources (5, Informative)

c_forq (924234) | more than 5 years ago | (#29004675)

Sorry, I assumed Slashdot was using the same sources at the TechCrunch article I read earlier. You can read it at their site. []

Re:Alternate Sources (1)

SecondaryOak (1342441) | more than 5 years ago | (#29004309)

What do Dell, Apple, HP, and Asus have in common? Their relationship to Intel. AMD is a non-competitor in the netbook space right now, and Intel has enough clout to throw their weight around and get what they want.

I think it's the other way around. I've worked at Intel, and the mindset was more towards "what can we do FOR our customers" (Dell, Apple etc.).
It's true they're leading the market now, but a good method to make sure it stays that way is to keep the customers happy.

Re:Alternate Sources (5, Insightful)

10Ghz (453478) | more than 5 years ago | (#29004201)

"if Dell was a monopoly like Apple"

How exactly is Apple a "monopoly"? Because the have 100% market-share in Macs? I guess Nintendo is a monopoly as well, since they have 100% market-share in the Wii-market....

Yes (-1, Troll)

Sycraft-fu (314770) | more than 5 years ago | (#29004325)

They have a 100% share of MacOS computers, they are a monopoly in that market. Or, if you say that's not the case, that their computers are just PCs and compete with all the others, well then you are hard pressed to call MS a monopoly at that point. While Apple doesn't have a major share of the computer market, they have a non-trivial one and that's really all that matters with regards to monopoly status. If you have realistic competitor(s), you aren't a monopoly. You are only a monopoly if you've got no competition, or your competition is so weak as to make no difference.

I really can't see a situation where MS is a monopoly, but Apple isn't. Either they compete, in which case neither is a monopoly, or they don't, in which case both are.

Re:Yes (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#29004425)

Hmmm.... Let's see where your logic leads. Apple has a 100% share of the market for Apple computers. Wow. That's so incisive. Read below to see where your logic takes you.

Dell has a 100% share of the Dell computer market. Ergo, Dell is now a monopoly. AMD has a 100% share of the AMD cpu market. Ergo, AMD is now a monopoly.

Your logic is so flawed, so "strawmanish", that it's not funny. Every company now qualifies as a monopoly because they hold a 100% share of their own sales, and no one else can manufacture and sell their brand.

Re:Yes (1)

Sheen (1180801) | more than 5 years ago | (#29004693)

Hmmm.... Let's see where your logic leads. Apple has a 100% share of the market for Apple computers. Wow. That's so incisive. Read below to see where your logic takes you.

Dell has a 100% share of the Dell computer market. Ergo, Dell is now a monopoly. AMD has a 100% share of the AMD cpu market. Ergo, AMD is now a monopoly.

Your logic is so flawed, so "strawmanish", that it's not funny. Every company now qualifies as a monopoly because they hold a 100% share of their own sales, and no one else can manufacture and sell their brand.

someone mod this man up!

Re:Yes (4, Informative)

RedK (112790) | more than 5 years ago | (#29004563)

The case is Microsoft holds 90% of the entire PC market. Apple holds 10%. Hence why Microsoft is a Monopoly, and Apple isn't on the OS side. Apple also competes in the hardware business with Dell, HP and other OEMs. They don't have even near a controlling interest.

As for your other comment, the MacOS market, MacOS isn't a market, it's a product. PCs are the market and Apple doesn't even come close to having a monopoly on it. You'd have to be retarded to think otherwise.

Re:Yes (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#29004703)

"Monopoly" does not mean "owns 100% of the market". It means they have an overwhelming majority of a market. Microsoft is a monopoly, which is not illegal, immoral, unethical, or whatever. They only ran afoul of the law when they abused their monopoly status with OEMs and vendors.

People around here throw around "monopoly" like it's some inherently bad thing or illegal. It's neither.

What could they be protecting? (1)

symbolset (646467) | more than 5 years ago | (#29004349)

The $300 laptop is already here - an HP at Trying to limit what people put in a netbook to protect the price of laptops is just chasing the unicorn.

People want our netbooks with the new low power processors and a screen as big as the lid. And maybe the new cellular wireless tech embedded. There's no good reason to deny us what we want, except that Microsoft is having trouble running from that tiny SSD. That's an antitrust issue begging for attention.

Re:Alternate Sources (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#29004453)

Apple is a monopoly as much as Porche is a monopoly. It's a brand, with its own features.

When did they stop teaching elementary business concepts in college?

Fail atom chipset (1)

Knoeki (1149769) | more than 5 years ago | (#29003939)

That might be a reason. Most netbooks have the Intel chipset which sucks a lot more power than the NVidia one. That might be a reason to want smaller screens, seeing as that would save *some* power...

Re:Fail atom chipset (0, Troll)

calidoscope (312571) | more than 5 years ago | (#29004027)

You're probably on to something here. Without a decent battery life, the whole netbook concept doesn't make a lot of sense. Along those lines, my first laptop purchase was the 13" MacBook Pro since it was small and has a long battery life.

Re:Fail atom chipset (3, Informative)

0123456 (636235) | more than 5 years ago | (#29004149)

Most netbooks have the Intel chipset which sucks a lot more power than the NVidia one. That might be a reason to want smaller screens, seeing as that would save *some* power...

I think you're confusing the desktop Intel Atom chipsets (which suck major ass) with the mobile Intel chipsets. I believe the Ion chipset takes less power than the desktop Intel chipset for the Atom, but more than the mobile Intel chipset for the Atom.

If I remember correctly, it's something like 22W for the Intel desktop chipset vs 6W for the mobile, with the Ion somewhere in between (I've seen claimed idle consumption around 20-25W for Ion-based desktop systems).

Re:Fail atom chipset (1)

Hatta (162192) | more than 5 years ago | (#29004641)

Most netbooks have the Intel chipset which sucks

You could have stopped there.

Re:Fail atom chipset (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#29004689)

that's not totally true. not by the announcements..
atom + 945 and Nvidia Ion design? yeah ion has at least 17% less power consumption...

but atoms are to be delivered with a new chipset till the end of the year, GN40, which it might be still with worse 3d capabilities than nvidia, but, how much will it cost?

i totally see 12 inches netbooks coming with the new chipset and atom n280. maybe they will relaunch those again later at the end of the year.
the few Nvidia Ion notebooks i saw were quite expensive, Netbook Italia says the Samsung N510 (11.6 inches TBR btw) will be just under 600 euros... and you can get a decent Acer D150 for 350... very hefty price tag on nvidia offering, that's why many manufacturers are not going that way.

but i really have hope with the new GN40 chipset for netbooks, with gma x4500 running graphics and a tdp near of nvidia's solution...

intel is not killing 12 inches netbooks. They are just not quite there yet... probably will come huge next gen!

No need for a conspiracy (4, Insightful)

temojen (678985) | more than 5 years ago | (#29003943)

The whole reason for having a netbook is that it's tiny and portable. If you don't need super portability, you might as well get a more powerful machine. Market forces at work.

Because 12'' screens are counterproductive (2, Insightful)

The_mad_linguist (1019680) | more than 5 years ago | (#29003951)

It seems a bit weird to choose to make a twelve inch screen on a netbook, since the entire point of picking a netboo over a beefier laptop is that you highly value lightness and compactness.

Re:Because 12'' screens are counterproductive (1)

pantherace (165052) | more than 5 years ago | (#29004329)

I use a 14.1" laptop right now. It was the best fit for the following: Graphics Card (Nvidia), Size, and Price.

Since I use it at home mostly on a higher-resolution display, I do think that the display doesn't matter as much (It matters, just not hugely, compared to the portability I want when I'm not at my desk. It's got a single fan and doesn't get too hot with the 2.2GHz Core 2 duo, and the 8600GT (unless you block the intake, then it can get hot, before shutting down.) The only drawback on my model was a 1280x800 resolution, which is low for my taste, but not enough to be worth 33% more money for a higher resolution one. (At the time) The prices on a similarly speced laptop have dropped about 25% since then (assuming sales).

Ideally, I'd like to see something like a 10" with a higher resolution, say 1280x800 or 1440x900, a good graphics card, and decent CPU, where I can use it on a higher resolution monitor at home, but have it as portable as a netbook. However, I don't expect to see anything closer than the Ion for a while, and I have yet to see that in a netbook.

Notebooks were originally big because they had to be, the netbook phenomenon is just manufacturers realizing that people want smaller things that can be made cheaply. I still have a Toshiba Libretto 50CT, which is thicker than an EEE (900), but smaller in other dimensions. It's screen has close to the same size as the first gen EEEs, when you account for widescreen (In other words, vertically it's about the same). It served until a few years ago, and was a damn useful machine. The main difference with netbooks is that netbooks are cheap. Librettos, even for their time, were expensive. The mouse on the Libretto seemed more useful than the touchpad of the EEE, as it seemed to be a design thought of for that size, rather than just scaling down a notebook as EEEs seem to more or less be.

Re:Because 12'' screens are counterproductive (1)

rossifer (581396) | more than 5 years ago | (#29004447)

Actually, I value long battery life and low cost. Since this is a DVD player first and emergency laptop second, that really is the order of things. If they can keep the battery life up and the cost down while upgrading to a higher-res 12" screen, I'll take two!

Re:Because 12'' screens are counterproductive (1)

msgyrd (891916) | more than 5 years ago | (#29004597)

What about those who choose netbooks for their price and battery life? Wouldn't a larger screen add value to those people? Surely I'm not alone in thinking that netbook's compactness is overrated. They're smaller, but still awkward to carry unless you're just aiming to pack as much crap in a bag as possible. My smartphone overlaps my netbook needs so much that the only real difference in functionality is what the smartphone screen space limits me with. I also get the feeling that Intel feels this cutting into their C2D profits, and that they're the victim of their own success in the netbook realm.

Re:Because 12'' screens are counterproductive (1)

BikeHelmet (1437881) | more than 5 years ago | (#29004653)

But a 12" netbook has a really nice resolution on it, and is magnitudes cheaper than most other 12" notebooks.

The niche is 12" in $400-500

Re:Because 12'' screens are counterproductive (1)

Narishma (822073) | more than 5 years ago | (#29004771)

Not everybody chooses netbooks for their size. I picked mine mainly for the price and battery life. If 12" netbooks were available I would have prefered that to my 10".

conspiracy theories (2, Insightful)

TheSHAD0W (258774) | more than 5 years ago | (#29003957)

There's a trade-off between convenience and power, and once you get over a certain size, you might as well have something with a really workable screen.

Re:conspiracy theories (2, Interesting)

Locutus (9039) | more than 5 years ago | (#29004535)

those backlights use a lot of power so there is probably something to power usage considerations for netbooks. Larger displays would also require larger batteries. But, as we've seen in the smart phone and desktop markets, Microsoft dictates many of the hardware specs, not the OEM's hardware design people.


Re:conspiracy theories (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#29004719)

Stop blaming everything on Microsoft. Microsoft dictates SHIT in the smartphone market. Please stop trying spew this crud to us, it simply isn't true. Oh, by the way... Lick my ball sack.

12" too large? (3, Insightful)

mr_flea (776124) | more than 5 years ago | (#29003965)

Isn't the point of netbooks to be small and light? 12" screens start to defeat that; I wouldn't doubt that most netbook purchasers prefer 10" screens (of course, any smaller than that and the keyboard gets pretty cramped). If you're going to get a 12" machine, you might as well make the jump to a full notebook...

I'm actually on a 12" laptop right now, and love it very much.

Re:12" too large? (1)

temojen (678985) | more than 5 years ago | (#29003999)

Aspire one 8.9" works for me. It makes a bitchin router console/portable manual viewer. Also, it's pretty cool for some of the minor projects I'm experimenting with as a temporary (very low power) server.

I am not even sure battery is a concern (1)

aepervius (535155) | more than 5 years ago | (#29004063)

I bought a 11 inches 6 small netbook. Mostly for watching film while travelling or play old dosbox games or playing usic while on train. Nothing really special. I was searching for long battery time (some train travel can be up to 8 hours). I found 10' and 11'6 netbook. The 11'6 was less powerful but a longer time (8 hours versus as low as 360-420 minutes for more "powerful" netbook). At that point when we are speaking of 6 to 8 hours, the screen power consumption for 11'6 to 10' is probably not too different (11'6x9 to 10'x9' make a difference of 6%, so assuming for a first approximation that the surface of the LCD give the same power per cm^2, that is a 6% difference in surface, so 6% differenfce in power. For a 8h or ~500 minutes netbook battery power that is a difference of 30 minutes in minus).

No it isn't (1)

Krommenaas (726204) | more than 5 years ago | (#29004105)

12" is the perfect size for many people who want the smallest possible laptop that they can still be productive on (i.e. type on comfortably). 12" laptops are a product with a market and that market probably doesn't care whether the product is called a netbook or a notebook or whatever.

Smaller netbooks impossible to use (resol. and kb) (3, Interesting)

electrosoccertux (874415) | more than 5 years ago | (#29004133)

I used a friend's 10" netbook for a few minutes and immediately knew I couldn't buy one with a screen that small. 600 pixels is not nearly enough for vertical resolution.

I researched all of the netbooks and just purchased (2 days ago) an Acer AO751h. It has an 11.6" display (1366x768), a full sized keyboard and a 6 cell battery that lasts ~7-8h depending on drivers [] .

FYI, if you decide to get one as well, be sure to update the GMA500 drivers to the versions this guy is talking about [] because other versions will cause it to lock up, and also have terrible performance.

weight, too (1)

electrosoccertux (874415) | more than 5 years ago | (#29004169)

Oh, and it only weighs 3lbs, too, with the 6-cell battery.
I used to have a full 6-7lb laptop, it was fine at first but I soon got sick of having to carry it around. This thing being only 3lbs, I can just throw into my bag and go. And, because of the 7-8h battery life, I don't have to worry about bringing the charger with me (before this brought the laptop up to 7-8lbs)

Re:weight, too (1)

mr_flea (776124) | more than 5 years ago | (#29004281)

I completely agree about the weight. Anything over 5 pounds starts to be inconvenient. This laptop is just under 4 pounds, which keeps it relatively easy to carry.

Battery life, on the other hand, is rather disappointing on here. I usually get about 3 hours, possibly 4 (partially due to the age of the battery, but it also didn't last that long to begin with). I will definitely be looking for longer battery life in my next laptop purchase. Unfortunately, I really need the power, so netbooks are out of the question.

This one's actually got a 1024x768 screen, too, but there was a higher-resolution option that I didn't buy because I'm a fool.

Re:12" too large? (1)

nxtw (866177) | more than 5 years ago | (#29004223)

Isn't the point of netbooks to be small and light? 12" screens start to defeat that; I wouldn't doubt that most netbook purchasers prefer 10" screens (of course, any smaller than that and the keyboard gets pretty cramped). If you're going to get a 12" machine, you might as well make the jump to a full notebook...

Netbooks seem heavy compared to high end (=expensive) lightweight laptops. The Dell Latitude E4200 [] has a 12" diagonal screen, a faster GPU, and a dual core CPU, and yet it weighs 2.2 lbs - as much as the lighter 10" netbooks, all which have much slower hardware.

Unfortunately, it's 5-8x as expensive.

Re:12" too large? (1)

Vu1turEMaN (1270774) | more than 5 years ago | (#29004611)

The keyboard should be the first thing that people look at on netbooks. I don't care what anyone says, but the Gateway LT3103u keyboard is 1000x more comfortable than anything smaller than the 11.6 screen at 1366 x 768. Its just a low-power 1.2ghz athlon with 2 gigs of ram, a 250gb hdd, a radeon x1270, and a 3.5 to 5hr battery life, and at 350$ shipped its worth every penny. Being able to watch 720p on the go once in a blue moon is all i need, and if i wanted more features i would spend more money. Plus with 2GB I can throw Windows 7 or LinuxMint or anything on there and enjoy it.

Two cynical observations (0, Redundant)

Dr_Ken (1163339) | more than 5 years ago | (#29003969)

I. Cui bono? 2. Follow the money.

Doesn't matter (1)

uassholes (1179143) | more than 5 years ago | (#29003977)

The market will decide this.

Rediculous resolution (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#29003981)

These netbooks even when they have 10" or 12" screens all have the most pathetically low resolution possible.

It's kind of funny how terrible these screens are, but like always the joke is on us.

No 12" LCD can fit cargo pocket (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#29004001)

why have a 12" screen when you can pack all those pixels into 10" or 8"?

If you want extra-large print, buy a 24" LCD and run it at 800x600.

Re:No 12" LCD can fit cargo pocket (3, Insightful)

0123456 (636235) | more than 5 years ago | (#29004107)

why have a 12" screen when you can pack all those pixels into 10" or 8"?

That might be fine when you're 18, but when you're 40 and your eyesight is starting to go you'll be glad of the larger pixels; I'm not sure about today with larger LCD screens but most of the old farts I know used to run at 800x600 on their 17" CRT monitor so that they could actually read the text.

If you're using a cut-down 'social networking' interface that's designed to show one web site at a time then a 10" display at 1024x600 is probably OK, but the 1280x800 display on my 15" laptop is already too small for programming in an IDE. For web-browsing, email and document processing (i.e. things which don't need much processing power) I'd really want 1280x800 or similar on a 12" display for a netbook. I've been looking at buying one so I could carry it around in my gear bag but finding a good compromise between resolution, display size and price is not easy.

At the other end of the scale I've noticed a few small netbooks appearing at work plugged into racks or manufacturing gear for intelligent equipment monitoring, and an 8" display should work well for those applications.

Re:No 12" LCD can fit cargo pocket (3, Insightful)

Mprx (82435) | more than 5 years ago | (#29004315)

Unless you're using some obsolete OS like Windows XP, screen DPI has nothing to do with text size. Higher DPI will actually be more readable on any modern system because the letter shapes will be more clearly defined.

Re:No 12" LCD can fit cargo pocket (1)

0123456 (636235) | more than 5 years ago | (#29004375)

Unless you're using some obsolete OS like Windows XP, screen DPI has nothing to do with text size.

The fact that I was talking about CRT monitors might have given you a hint that they weren't running Vista.

Personally I really, really hate GUIs that scale text with resolution, precisely because it eliminates the benefit of fitting lots of text on a big, high-resolution screen: if I wanted huge text I'd be running at 800x600. Why should I have to change all the font sizes just to get more text onto a 1920x1080 display than I would at 800x600?

Re:No 12" LCD can fit cargo pocket (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#29004417)

Because 800x600 looks blurry as fuck on a 1920x1080 display?

Re:No 12" LCD can fit cargo pocket (1)

SomeKDEUser (1243392) | more than 5 years ago | (#29004715)

Because he said nothing about font sizes? Font sizes are absolute. They do not depend on the amount of pixels you have. More pixels means sharper fonts, that is all.

Basically what you are saying is that you _are_ using an obsolete OS. If I buy a larger screen, I expect more surface and the same font size, not some bizzarro effect where my fonts become tiny. If I buy a monitor that is the same size but with better resolution, then maybe small font sizes become more legible. But in my experience, they are tiring pretty fast anyway.

In fact I expect my whole interface to scale.

Unlikely (1)

bconway (63464) | more than 5 years ago | (#29004019)

The Dell Mini 12 had a horrible graphics chipset and 1 GB memory soldered onto the motherboard, which couldn't be upgraded. It wasn't cutting into profits *anywhere*.

At some point... (4, Insightful)

bschorr (1316501) | more than 5 years ago | (#29004041)

Putting larger screens and larger keyboards in a netbook...the device ceases to BE a netbook. When you start getting into 12-13 inch screens you're starting to get into a form factor that is...well...a laptop.

The whole point of a netbook is that it's small, compact, light, low-battery...but that's harder and harder to do when your netbook gets to be the size of your laptop. You can call a dog's tail a leg, but that doesn't make it a leg. Just because you call a device that's 5 lbs and has a 12" screen a netbook doesn't make it a netbook.

So where do you draw the line? I have a netbook and a laptop and a desktop. They serve three distinct purposes (though I rarely use my laptop anymore because my netbook, with the 10" screen, does just fine for most of those tasks).

Perhaps the reason more people are moving to netbooks instead of laptops is that most people have realized that an Atom processor is just fine for their tasks. That spending more to have a dual-core processor that spends 99% of its time idle and sucking up battery life was wasteful.

Re:At some point... (4, Insightful)

Carrot007 (37198) | more than 5 years ago | (#29004099)

> The whole point of a netbook is that it's small, compact, light

That used to be true of a laptop.

Re:At some point... (2, Interesting)

Renraku (518261) | more than 5 years ago | (#29004231)

Did it?

Have you seen some of the laptops of yesteryear? Ten pounds? That's only small, compact, and light when compared to the old mainframes of the same era..

Re:At some point... (1)

Ironsides (739422) | more than 5 years ago | (#29004545)

Ten ponds? Try twenty. My old 286 laptop was 3 inches thick, had a lead acid battery and a removable keyboard that attached by a wire.

Re:At some point... (2, Insightful)

basementman (1475159) | more than 5 years ago | (#29004289)

That used to be true of a desktop.

Gna)a (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#29004091)

else up their ases are there? Oh, surprise to the be a lot slower

All depends on what's there for the $'s, really... (2, Insightful)

King_TJ (85913) | more than 5 years ago | (#29004101)

Most people I know buying netbooks are doing so because they already own 1 or more computers (often already own a notebook, even), and they just like the idea of having something cheap that could really be brought around anywhere they go without many concerns.

(EG. I have a custom configured Macbook Pro I bought new, last year. Great machine, and I maxxed out the RAM in it, upgraded the hard drive to a 500GB, and got a great carrying bag for it and its accessories. I take it to work regularly and on vacation trips, etc. But with a value of close to $3000 for all of that, possible theft or loss is a big worry. I'm definitely not going to lug it all over the place without a care in the world.... So I got a $200 or so closeout model of eeePC, and that one is pretty disposable by comparison. It's less functional and the screen gives me eyestrain after a while - but it works in a pinch, in places I'd just do without a portable otherwise.)

I suspect a 12" screen netbook is approaching the size where it's a little less convenient to take everywhere. (I can throw my eeePC in my car's glovebox .. but don't think a 12" display netbook would fit.) It also has to carry a bit higher price-tag than a 9" or 10" screen model would carry.

Re:All depends on what's there for the $'s, really (1)

Mista2 (1093071) | more than 5 years ago | (#29004659)

The real kicker with a netbook would be cheap 3G data. For something I take everywhere, it is useless on its own but makes a great citrix or X11 terminal, but it needs network! I just need a 3G card that works for Linux. The machine only has 7GB flash and 512 MB ram so is not suitable for Windows (this is what makes it a netbook to me, not just a small laptop)

Re:All depends on what's there for the $'s, really (1)

amiga3D (567632) | more than 5 years ago | (#29004787)

That's what I use my old iBook for. It's powerful enough to do mobile computing without a problem and gets great battery life but it's old and I don't worry too much about it. I'd hate the thought of having to worry about where my $3000 computer was. It's got a 12 inch screen which is about the biggest I'd want to lug around. I've thought about getting a netbook but really they don't have any more power than the old G4.

Newt Gingrich: Sarah Palin's Bitch +1, Inspiring (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#29004117)

I realize that everyone is entitled to his opinion, and I respect this. I also hope that you will all respect mine as you read this letter. You see, I obviously believe that annoying clods, more than any other segment of the population, like to snooker people of every stripe into believing that cannibalism, wife-swapping, and the murder of infants and the elderly are acceptable behavior. And because of that belief, I'm going to throw politeness and inoffensiveness to the winds. In this letter, I'm going to be as rude and crude as I know how, to reinforce the point that Newt Gingrich truly yearns for the Oriental despotisms of pre-Hellenic times, the neolithic culture that preceded the rise of self-consciousness and egoism. By the same token, he abhors the current era, in which people are free to sound the bugle of liberty. It's really amazing, isn't it? We can put people on the Moon and send robot explorers to Mars, but there are those who are informed and educated about the evils of charlatanism, and there are those who are not. Gingrich is one of the uninformed, naturally, and that's why I have a scientist's respect for objective truth. That's why I'm telling you that a great many of us don't want Gingrich to place benighted manipulators of the public mind at the head of a nationwide kakistocracy. But we feel a prodigious societal pressure to smile, to be nice, and not to object to his ruthless indiscretions.

This may be water under the bridge by now, but society must soon decide either to reveal some shocking facts about Gingrich's catch-phrases and encourage others to do the same or else to let Gingrich muzzle his critics. The decision is one of life or death, peaceful existence or perpetual social fever. I can hope only that those in charge realize that you don't know how tempted I am to slap the stuffing out of Gingrich. That concept can be extended, mutatis mutandis, to the way that griping about Gingrich will not make him stop trying to trivialize certain events that are particularly special to us all. But even if it did, he would just find some other way to blame those who have no power to change the current direction of events.

What we're seeing is a domino effect of events that started with Gingrich stating that individual worth is defined by race, ethnicity, religion, or national origin. That prevarication incited his confidants to control your bank account, your employment, your personal safety, and your mind. Unpleasant gasbags reacted, in turn, by causing riots in the streets. The next domino to fall, not surprisingly, was a widespread increase in wowserism, and that's the event that galvanized me to tell everyone that I can undeniably suggest how Gingrich ought to behave. Ultimately, however, the burden of acting with moral rectitude lies with Gingrich himself. I will do my best to examine the social and cultural conditions that lead him to conduct business in an abhorrent, dysfunctional way. Surely, he is not too brutish to realize that.

There's something fishy about Gingrich's expositions. I think he's up to something, something crude and perhaps even sinister. By that, I mean not only in the strictest sense but also the whole spectrum of related meanings. What we have been imparting to Gingrichâ"or what he has been eliciting from usâ"is a half-submerged, barely intended logic, contaminated by wishes and tendencies we prefer not to acknowledge. While I, for one, know very little about incontinent, tyrannical criminals, I do know that I want my life to count. I want to be part of something significant and lasting. I want to encourage opportunity, responsibility, and community.

Already, some hidebound pikers have begun to elevate the most pudibund misers you'll ever see to the sublime, and with terrifying and tragic results. What scare tactics will follow from their camp is anyone's guess. Please let me explain that Gingrich has no moral qualities whatsoever. Or, to express that sentiment without all of the emotionally charged lingo, if I try really, really hard, I can almost see why Gingrich would want to accelerate the natural tendency of civilization to devolve from order to chaos, liberty to tyranny, and virtue to vice. He keeps trying to provoke terrible, total, universal, and merciless destruction. And if we don't remain eternally vigilant, he will certainly succeed. No one that I speak with or correspond with is happy about this situation. Of course, I don't speak or correspond with inhumane philosophasters, Gingrich's faithfuls, or anyone else who fails to realize that while Gingrich has been beating the drums of exhibitionism, I've been trying to ensure that we survive and emerge triumphant out of the coming chaos and destruction. In doing so, I've learned that if he had his way, schools would teach students that Gingrich's bruta fulmina epitomize wholesome family entertainment. This is not education but indoctrination. It prevents students from learning about how Gingrich is extraordinarily brazen. We've all known that for a long time. However, his willingness to create new (and reinforce existing) prejudices and misconceptions sets a new record for brazenness.

As I make no claim to be an authority on the subject, I defer to the judgments of an Oxford University professor, who has observed that Gingrich refuses to come to terms with reality. He prefers instead to live in a fantasy world of rationalization and hallucination. Nature is a wonderful teacher. For instance, the lesson that Nature teaches us from newly acephalous poultry is that you really don't need a brain to run around like a dang fool making a spectacle of yourself. Nature also teaches us that I am hurt, furious, and embarrassed. Why am I hurt? Because when Gingrich yips about his accomplishment, he somehow fails to mention that he maintains a cozy relationship with cruel spoiled brats. The logical consequences of that are clear: Gingrich may bamboozle people into believing that we should all bear the brunt of his actions right after he reads this letter. Let him. In the immediate years ahead, I will take personal action and help you reflect and reexamine your views on Gingrich. Why am I furious? Because he spouts a lot of numbers whenever he wants to make a point. He then subjectively interprets those numbers to support his revenge fantasies while ignoring the fact that every time he tries, Gingrich gets increasingly successful in his attempts to create a global workers plantation overseen by transnational corporations who have no more concern for the human rights of those who produce their products or services than Gingrich has for his trained seals. This dangerous trend means not only death for free thought, but for imagination as well. And why am I embarrassed? Because I try never to argue with him because it's clear he's not susceptible to reason.

What Gingrich does in private is none of my business. But when he tries to subvert our country's legal system, I object. I didn't want to talk about this. I really didn't. But he recently went through a racialism phase in which he tried repeatedly to crush the will of all individuals who have expressed political and intellectual opposition to his personal attacks. In fact, I'm not convinced that this phase of his has entirely passed. My evidence is that Gingrich asserts that you and I are objects for him to use then casually throw away and forget like old newsprint that's performed its duty catching bird droppings. That assertion is not only untrue but a conscious lie.

Gingrich must have recently made a huge withdrawal from the First National Bank of Lies. How else could he manage to tell us that ethical responsibility is merely a trammel of earthbound mortals and should not be required of a demigod like him? It is deeply unfortunate that he has the gall to withhold information and disseminate half truths and whole lies, because he recently stated that divine ichor flows through his veins. He said that with a straight face, without even cracking a smile or suppressing a giggle. He said it as if he meant it. That's scary because I have to wonder where he got the idea that it is my view that he acts in the public interest. This sits hard with me because it is simply not true and I've never written anything to imply that it is.

Gingrich once tried to prevent people from thinking and visualizing beyond an increasingly psychologically caged existence. If you consider this an exception to the rule then you really don't understand how Gingrich operates. I hope, however, that you at least understand that I correctly predicted that he would force me to waver between the alluring promises of an inimical "new morality" and the sound dictation of my own conscience. Alas, I didn't think he'd do that so effectivelyâ"or so soon. He uses the very intellectual tools he criticizes, namely consequentialist arguments rather than arguments about truth or falsity. Gingrich has a talent for inventing fantasy worlds in which fascism brings one closer to nirvana. Then again, just because Gingrich is a prolific fantasist doesn't mean that he has a duty to conceal the facts and lie to the rest of us, under oath if necessary, perjuring himself to help disseminate the True Faith of negativism. And if you think that superstition is no less credible than proven scientific principles, then you aren't thinking very clearly.

Now, I hope Gingrich was joking when he implied he was going to curry favor with discourteous prima donnas using a barrage of flattery, especially recognition of their "value", their "importance", their "educational mission", and other rapacious nonsense, but it sure didn't sound like it. While he and other abominable, cocky misogynists sometimes differ on the details and scale of their upcoming campaigns of terror they never fail to agree on the basic principle and substance. Hence, it is imperative that you understand that I'm not a sappy person. I'd like nothing more than to extend my hand in friendship to Gingrich's chums and convey my hope that in the days to come we can work together to free Gingrich's mind from the constricting trammels of conformism and the counterfeit moral inhibitions that have replaced true morality. Unfortunately, knowing them, they'd rather perpetrate acts of the most revolting character because that's what Gingrich wants. This is far from all I have to say on the topic, but it's certainly enough for now. Just remember one thing: Investigators who have spent many years attempting to penetrate the dark recesses of Newt Gingrich's randy underworld frequently conclude that he doesn't adequately realize the irritations that he inflicts.

Netbook Tablet (2, Interesting)

minijedimaster (1434893) | more than 5 years ago | (#29004135)

I'm still waiting on the 9" or 10" netbook tablet type to be put on the market. That way I can spend the $300 for it and be able to use it as an ebook reader as well as a laptop instead of spending the same amount on just the ebook reader from Sony or Amazon or any of the others out there.

intel varies the charge based on destination (5, Informative)

bogotronix (1586717) | more than 5 years ago | (#29004137)

I think Atom purchasers have to declare the destination of the chip and intel charges more if the destination is a 12" display. The idea being every 12" sold is a desktop CPU sale lost. AMD, NVIDIA, VIA don't have the necessary market share to impose this kind of restriction on the manufacturers using their chips. Dell is probably surrendering now rather than continue with a platform that's had its profit margins hobbled from the start.

Seeking outrage (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#29004151)

This makes sense for Dell without inventing a conspiracy with Intel; Dell would have you upsold to a bigger machine because you want the better display. Display size is crucial to a laptop; it's probably the most important specification. Dell knows this. This is why you are made to run a gauntlet of low prices and bundled crap before you're shown the real, disappointing, resolution and realize you'll have to dramatically increase the price to get a usable screen.

Without the unsubstantiated Intel angle this wouldn't warrant a look on Slashdot so this amounts to a conspiracy story. Could we have some grownup editors, please?

It was the chipset, stupid (1)

Amigori (177092) | more than 5 years ago | (#29004177)

I've been looking for a replacement for my 12" G4 Powerbook and looked at the Dell Mini 12. Good dimensions and screen resolution, but what killed it for me was the Intel GMA 500 chipset and Atom N530. Underpowered and overpriced, plus flaky compatibility and lousy battery life. Its like a TFT maker had leftover panels and Intel had the junk leftover from making "quality" GMA 9x0 and N2x0 parts and sold it to Dell real cheap.

Roll in a candy coating and sell it for $100+ more than the good Mini 10 series and presto! A line that will be quickly discontinued because the geeks that actually buy netbooks know better.

Windows starter editon (1)

merlin3000 (1576087) | more than 5 years ago | (#29004253)

Isn't it more probable that they're taking them down so their whole netbook line is allowed to run windows 7 starter editon? That's one of the main limitations imposed by microsoft.

Re:Windows starter editon (1)

Frosty Piss (770223) | more than 5 years ago | (#29004667)

Take your tinfoil hat off.

What they are doing is trying to better defne their product line. Big screen / processor = Laptop. Small screen / processor = Netbook. It's as simple as that.

Market Research Failure (3, Insightful)

dokebi (624663) | more than 5 years ago | (#29004273)

I chalk this up to bad market research. Dell probably asked a focus group how they could improve on the 10" netbook. The focus group probably said a bigger screen and faster cpu. How much more will they pay for it? $150 bucks.

Now Dell goes and makes one at that price point and screen size. Except the 12" is heavier and eats into the already mediocure battery life, it's waaay more expensive than the the 7" models that are practically being given away. No wonder it doesn't sell well.

I think Dell market research here forgot that the real desirable factor in netbook is the low, low price, portability, and long battery life. Ignore the core features customers love, and they will ignore you. How shocking!

Who knows for sure... (1)

nulled (1169845) | more than 5 years ago | (#29004277)

Remember, that even tho Intel is huge, the ARM chip set is nothing INTEL should ignore. So, saying it is cutting into their profits, well ARM can replace ATOM in a heart beat. SO, I honestly think 'market forces' are at work here.

Remember, the point ( and conciquently the actually name ) of a Netbook means SMALL in every way... portable. Laptops of 10+ inches are much more bunky and the only reason you know need a bigger screen, really, is for gaming and whatever we all do on a Laptop. ( play EVE on my laptop... I know a Netbook would be utterly useless in that regard. )

No, the Netbook is a Netbook and NOT a laptop for a reason. SIZE. Also remember that adding just 2 inches is based on cross diagonal size, not width. So adding 2 more inches is actually adding much more overall size.

Tired of Intel's Crap (0, Troll)

Nom du Keyboard (633989) | more than 5 years ago | (#29004291)

I am tired of Intel's crap. Dozens and dozens of different processors that vary by speed, features, and price, and completely artificial restrictions on which processor(s) can be put into which products. How does even Intel keep them all straight? All if it is designed to do nothing more than screw the consumer.

What I would like to see is it all simplified down to a couple processor families -- Low End and High End, with one processor in each of those families with maybe 4 or 5 different speed grades with all the features in all of the processors. I cannot believe that Intel wouldn't make more money mass producing a few models with greater economies of scale than this huge number that vary only by who has virturalization here and who has hyper-threading there, plus who actually has both. And eventually the High End is replaced by the New High End, and the old High End becomes the New Low End.

I'm in the market for a netbook to buy over the next few months. I need something to take on the road to be small, inexpensive, handle e-mail, browse the web, and allow me to write with a reasonably full-sized standard keyboard and acceptable battery life. I am so disgusted with Intel's phony restrictions that I'm going to wait and see what the ARM-powered netbooks turn out like before I make my final decision. I don't fear a unix machine.

The ugly (to Intel) truth is that even lower end processors these days are all most people need if they don't buy into the Microsoft garbage that you can't enjoy the Windows 7 experience without a top-end processor from no longer than 6 months ago, 4GB minimum of memory, and a DX11 graphics card that isn't even out on sale yet.

Re:Tired of Intel's Crap (1)

mxh83 (1607017) | more than 5 years ago | (#29004665)

Microsoft never made those claims for Windows 7.

Re:Tired of Intel's Crap (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#29004775)

Lick my ballsack, seriously.

I Am Not Aware... (1)

Nom du Keyboard (633989) | more than 5 years ago | (#29004313)

I am not aware of how required processor power is directly related to screen size. While the case might be made that GPU power should be scaled up to match the number of pixels being handled, ATI and NVidia are already nicely handling that end of the equation. To say that a 12" laptop requires a full Core Duo or better, while 11.6" screens run just fine on Atoms, is beyond bogus.

I am aware of how much I hate Dell for lying.

I want a 12" before they quit making them. (1)

Hillview (1113491) | more than 5 years ago | (#29004337)

I'm a light pc user when I'm working. I don't use a lot of computing power, I'm either using ssh or a lightweight text editor, maybe a web browser. I would like to be portable enough to pick it up and go sit on my back porch and do this via wifi, because it's such a nice day outside. A 10" screen is a tad small for what I'd like to do. A decent 12" screen would be just about right, for me, to work comfortably at arm's length, not to mention the more useable sized keyboards that are typically on a 12" netbook. I've tried a few of them out, in stores, and find that I can comfortably touch type on most of them. The 8-10" ones kind of defeat the purpose of doing real work with the tiny keyboards.

Sue me, I'm a hamfisted/half blind old fart, who doesn't want to pay $1000+ for a text editor/ssh terminal to go sit on his back porch and work.

I know regular 12" notebooks have been around for $1000 for a while now, but I'm picky. I saw the first netbooks and thought "that's ideal for me, now if they'd only make one a little bigger so it's more of a workspace and less of a glorified IM/email client, I can throw a simple distro on it and go.

Manufacturers seem to hate 12" machines (1)

briggsl (1475399) | more than 5 years ago | (#29004345)

All I wanted a month ago was a 12" notebook with a dual core chip for under £350. Everything else I could have survived without. The only thing that seemed to be available was 12" netbooks and ridiculously expensive 12" laptops. I eventually found a refurbed machine that fit my needs, but it was originally released almost 18 months ago. Am I missing something with the 12" screen market? People who've used 10" screens must know the pain of constantly scrolling down because web pages don't fit as much height wise the screen. Now the 12" netbooks are going, I doubt anything is going to come in and fill the gap, and its a real shame, because 12" screens, as far as I'm concerned, are the sweet spot for portability and usability in laptops.

Problem (1)

sonicmerlin (1505111) | more than 5 years ago | (#29004361)

The problem with netbooks is that you need to stop what you're doing, open up the netbook, load up the OS, and finally begin what you wanted to do in the first place. The process of operating it is the same as a normal laptop, which for me defeats the purpose of having one. This is unlike mobile phones which are essentially instant-on devices. As for the 10-inch displays, the only "sweetspot" I can think of that applies to those displays is the exact size that suckers customers into squinting at their screens long enough for them to develop astigmatism.

Price Differential? (1)

Ian.Waring (591380) | more than 5 years ago | (#29004433)

Didn't Techcrunch allege that Intel charge more for their chip if it's destined to a machine with a 12" laptop rather than A 10" one? Or that it was because the lowest spec Windows 7 distribution only works with screens up to 10" in size, so a 12" one, for cost reasons, would effectively be Linux only??

is it really Intel or is it Microsoft? (1)

Locutus (9039) | more than 5 years ago | (#29004477)

hint: max spec for Windows XP Home on netbooks was 12.1", max spec for Windows 7 Starter on netbooks is 10.2"

This does lead into the question of how fearful of Microsoft are the hardware manufacturers who get hired to build ARM based netbooks with screens larger than 10.2"? I would not be surprised to see ARM products constantly bumped to the back of the production queue for 'mysterious' reasons this holiday manufacturing season. Remember, Microsoft once forced Intel to fold one of their software divisions in the 90s because it threatened Windows and promoted Java. More recently, the head of the Thai manufacturers association publicly said they fear Microsoft... So is it really Intel doing the strong arming here?


I've got one of these (1)

kyle5t (1479639) | more than 5 years ago | (#29004523)

If you want a thin and light notebook with a decent-sized screen that doesn't cost an arm and a leg, a 12" netbook is perfect. The price jumps straight from around $500 to around $1500 for higher-powered subnotebooks in the same form factor. Aside from the terrible GPU, I like the Mini 12. I'm not saying I buy the argument that Intel forced this on Dell. I think it's more likely Dell is ready to come out with a better alternative in the very near future. It's just marketing: they probably don't want to distract from a new product launch by canceling a product at the same time.

finally (1)

gintoki (1439845) | more than 5 years ago | (#29004529)

Good riddance I say. Netbook shouldn't be larger than 10 inches. I would expect a lot more from a 12 inch laptop like the hp dv2 laptops. I wonder when this race to the bottom is gonna level out. Hopefully soon considering theres a netbook offering from every manufacturer. I would encourage this if it wasn't for the fact that almost every single netbook is exactly the same when it comes to the actual computing. I'm all for those ARM processor based ones though. A 7-10 inch version with 720p video and full flash support would be awesome. Hopefully tegra delivers on its promise.

Too bad... (1)

jshackney (99735) | more than 5 years ago | (#29004559)

My 10" netbook is wonderful. The only problem I really have with it is the 1024x600 screen. If a 12" screen would make for a 1280x750 screen I'd be all over it. I've been wanting to buy a few more of these computers for my kids and that size would be my sweet spot. As it is, since the 10" models are all that is available, I'm just going to wait for prices to bounce off the pavement before I pick up any more.

12" is no mans land (1)

ElitistWhiner (79961) | more than 5 years ago | (#29004669)

Owned 3",4",12",15" computers and DEFINATELY 12" is the technical tipping point at which the display supports desktop functionality. 12" was the perfect form factor in the embodiment of Apple's MacBook Pro 12.

BUT...the display drives retail pricing and Apple dumped the 12. It has been my thought that the margins didn't support all the same components necessary to drive the larger displays. Profit bought us the widescreen displays.

netbooknotebook is just naming (1)

majid_aldo (812530) | more than 5 years ago | (#29004747)

we don't need to limit ourselves to naming. there is a continuum between netbooks and notebooks. if there is a market for low-power 12in notebooks (higher end "net"books)..let it be.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?