Netbook question please
Bob Newman
mb ram (2 GB virtual memory). 60 GB HD. (Unsure of processor).
I am considering replacing it with a Toshiba netbook NB205-N210 (2 GB ram
(maxed out), 160 GB HD, Atom N 280processor.
2 Questions please. If I use this to replace my laptop as my only computer
(with external monitor & keyboard) can I expect a substantial speed
increase? Also, would it be possible for this machine to run Windows 7?
I realize the netbook probably was not intend to be your primary computer,
but can it do it?
--
Thanks in advance... Bob
Mike S.
In article <9Z3Cm.17051$gf1....@newsfe19.iad>,
It would probably be faster but you could probably speed up your older
HP for less money by adding more RAM - if it will accept 1GB of RAM - and
stay with XP.
It is possible to use the netbook as a primary computer although that is
not the marketing intention for those machines. One has to ask, though,
whether you have any need for portability? If you're intending to use it
with external monitor, keyboard, etc exclusively, you'd get better value
by getting a desktop machine. If, on the other hand, you intend to
actually use the netbook as a portable, it would help to try one out to
see if you can cope with the keyboard and screen size for as long as you
intend to actually use it as a portable.
Most netbooks will run Windows 7 even with 1 GB of RAM (though not
optimally). A 2 GB machine will run it just fine. There are still
some driver issues, especially for power management, as many have
reported reduced battery life compared with XP. There have also been
issues with some of the specialized hardware capabilities like hotkeys
for certain functions and the like where the XP driver model code doesn't
function properly under Windows 7.
In the case of the Toshiba, however, they have recently released a set of
real Windows 7 drivers that might give better performance and
compatiblity. Haven't seen anything posted about actual performance,
though - it's too new. Toshiba seems to be the first out of the gate to
actually release Windows 7 specific drivers for any of its models, ahead
of the October 22 go-live date.
Bob Newman
"Mike S." <rets...@xinap.moc> wrote in message
news:hbait0$vp$1...@reader1.panix.com...
out at 512! While I will be using the notebook 85% at home I do need
occasional portable use (6 hour run time on this one). For the limited
portable use I'm sure I could put up with the keyboard. Might there be a
durablity issuse (not from portableness but from leaving it on virtually all
the time)?
Thanks... Bob
Mike S.
In article <ai4Cm.1370$MZ1...@newsfe11.iad>,
Sure, have been through a number of older (WinME/2000 era) laptops that
max out at 512 MB - that's why I asked.
I doubt you'd have issues with leaving it on all the time as long as it
doesn't overheat (i.e. don't block the vents).
BillW50
Bob Newman typed on Fri, 16 Oct 2009 16:01:18 -0400:
I use netbooks as my main computer all of the time. And they are far
better than many laptops just a few years ago. Mainly because they can
accept more RAM. I usually connect one of my netbooks to an external
monitor and wireless keyboard/mouse, and it is hard to tell you are not
using a desktop.
I do have Windows 7 on one of them. It might be just me and that slow
MLC SSD, but Windows 7 is just too slow for me on a netbook. Using 50%
of the CPU at idle. While Windows XP is very quick and uses less than 5%
at idle. Thus allowing 95% for your applications. While Windows 7 only
leaves 50% of the CPU for applications.
--
Bill
Asus EEE PC 701G4 ~ 2GB RAM ~ 16GB-SDHC
Windows XP SP2
Bob Newman
"BillW50" <Bil...@aol.kom> wrote in message
news:hbak86$s10$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
support for XP. Would they be rethinking this with the advent of netbooks?
Bob
BillW50
Bob Newman typed on Fri, 16 Oct 2009 17:32:52 -0400:
> Another thing I was thinking of. I thought Microsoft was
> discontinuing support for XP. Would they be rethinking this with the
> advent of netbooks?
Well XP support was already extended to August 4, 2014. Which should be
good enough for most people. And currently over 70% of all Internet
users are still using XP. And 1/3 of new computer buyers have downgraded
to XP. So I would imagine in a few years if the numbers are high enough,
support will be extended again. ;-)
Larry
news:ai4Cm.1370$MZ1...@newsfe11.iad:
> Thanks for the prompt reply. Believe it or not the current laptop is
> maxed out at 512! While I will be using the notebook 85% at home I do
> need occasional portable use (6 hour run time on this one). For the
> limited portable use I'm sure I could put up with the keyboard. Might
> there be a durablity issuse (not from portableness but from leaving it
> on virtually all the time)?
>
> Thanks... Bob
>
Bob, make SURE the netbook DOESN'T have a GLOSSY SCREEN! Those slick
screens are horribly hard to see in any light, damned near impossible
outside in the sunshine.
I recommend the Samsung NC10, not the new one. They're dropping to around
$300, N270 1.6Ghz processor and just swap the 1GB RAM for a 2GB ($20 at
buy.com) through the one-screw door in the bottom very easily. The NC10s
all have a matte screen I defy you to find a better netbook or even a
laptop in daylight conditions.
I have this awful hatred of glossy screens some marketing idiot tries to
impress the girls with. What a horrible thing to have to look through a
damned mirror to see the movie! There's no reflection, at all, on the
Samsung NC10s. Too bad the idiots at Samsung switched to the girly glossy
screens on the newer netbooks....(d^:)
Your netbook portable will never been in the dark unless you're on night
shift at the plant.....
--
Larry
Larry
september.org:
> I do have Windows 7 on one of them. It might be just me and that slow
> MLC SSD, but Windows 7 is just too slow for me on a netbook. Using 50%
> of the CPU at idle. While Windows XP is very quick and uses less than 5%
> at idle. Thus allowing 95% for your applications. While Windows 7 only
> leaves 50% of the CPU for applications.
>
>
Wow! Didn't know it was THAT bad.....marking that off the wishlist.
XP and Ubuntu Netbook Remix .....a great combination on netbooks.
http://www.canonical.com/projects/ubuntu/unr
--
Larry
m...@privacy.net
>I use netbooks as my main computer all of the time.
I do so as well
No problems here!
=========================================================
Try to make me, fuckwit - I'll shoot you dead, and laugh about it over a
beer later. Then I'll stub a cigar butt out on your orphan child's head.-Wilson Woods
Barry Watzman
you could do for it would be to increase it's memory and do a clean
reinstall of Windows.
The Atom CPUs are somewhat similar to Celerons in the 900MHz to 1.2GHz
range. They are not fast processors by modern standards, but they are,
in most cases and for most purposes, "fast enough".
A netbook is not a laptop, and I do not recommend them as general
purpose computers, or as "only" computers. The processors ARE slow (by
desktop and even laptop standards) and the screens are small (in
physical size, certainly, but equally as important in resolution).
Is a netbook powerful enough to run Windows 7? Generally, most are. I
have an early Acer Aspire One, with the 8" screen, XP and a 160GB drive.
It came with 1GB of memory and I upgraded it to 1.5GB, which is the
limit for my unit. It IS powerful enough to run Windows 7 or even
Vista. The chipset is a varient of the Intel 945, and it has GMA950
video. That will not only run Vista, but it will run the "Aero" interface.
Can it do it? Sure, but a motorcycle or even a bicycle can go from New
York to LA. That doesn't mean it's a fun way of making the trip.
Barry Watzman
don't yet exist for Windows 7. Including power management drivers.
MANY laptops are showing horrible results with Windows 7 ... UNTIL the
proper (model specific) drivers are installed.
Larry
@news.eternal-september.org:
> Keep in mind that XP probably has model specific drivers installed which
> don't yet exist for Windows 7. Including power management drivers.
> MANY laptops are showing horrible results with Windows 7 ... UNTIL the
> proper (model specific) drivers are installed.
>
>
>
Keep in mind Win7 will be in "user beta test" until at LEAST 2012 when the
world is supposed to come to its end, according to the fundies.
--
Larry
~misfit~
Yep. MS have just about got XP to where it's a good, reliable OS so
obviously it's time to drop it.
--
Shaun.
"Give a man a fire and he's warm for the day. But set fire to him and he's
warm for the rest of his life." Terry Pratchet, 'Jingo'.
~misfit~
My 2004 (5 year old) 14" IBM ThinkPad R40 1.6GHz Pentium M has 2GB of RAM in
it and has approximately 1.5 x the processing power of an Atom 270. I
wouldn't swap it for *two* new netbooks.
--
Shaun.
"Give a man a fire and he's warm for the day. But set fire to him and he's
warm for the rest of his life." Terry Pratchet, 'Jingo'.
> I usually connect one of my netbooks to an external
BillW50
Barry Watzman typed on Fri, 16 Oct 2009 20:51:34 -0400:
> Keep in mind that XP probably has model specific drivers installed
> which don't yet exist for Windows 7. Including power management
> drivers. MANY laptops are showing horrible results with Windows 7 ...
> UNTIL the proper (model specific) drivers are installed.
I don't doubt that. But the only driver problems I have is switching
problems between the internal and external screens. And I won't hold my
breath in hoping that it would be ever fixed.
On a side note, my Asus EeePC comes with drivers that supposedly work
from Windows 98 to Vista.
> Larry wrote:
>> "BillW50" <Bil...@aol.kom> wrote in news:hbak86$s10$1...@news.eternal-
>> september.org:
>>
>>> I do have Windows 7 on one of them. It might be just me and that
>>> slow MLC SSD, but Windows 7 is just too slow for me on a netbook.
>>> Using 50% of the CPU at idle. While Windows XP is very quick and
>>> uses less than 5% at idle. Thus allowing 95% for your applications.
>>> While Windows 7 only leaves 50% of the CPU for applications.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Wow! Didn't know it was THAT bad.....marking that off the wishlist.
>>
>> XP and Ubuntu Netbook Remix .....a great combination on netbooks.
>> http://www.canonical.com/projects/ubuntu/unr
--
BillW50
~misfit~ typed on Sun, 18 Oct 2009 00:06:52 +1300:
> My 2004 (5 year old) 14" IBM ThinkPad R40 1.6GHz Pentium M has 2GB of
> RAM in it and has approximately 1.5 x the processing power of an Atom
> 270. I wouldn't swap it for *two* new netbooks.
I would and have already. Many experts said the same as you Shaun. And
they believed there wouldn't be any market for netbooks at all. That all
changed when Asus started selling them by the millions. Now it seems
like everybody is jumping on the netbook revolution. It just takes some
people longer than others. ;-)
BillW50
m...@privacy.net typed on Fri, 16 Oct 2009 19:19:33 -0500:
> "BillW50" <Bil...@aol.kom> wrote:
>
>> I use netbooks as my main computer all of the time.
>
> I do so as well
>
> No problems here!
Pretty amazing that you can be practically as efficient with a 20 watt
supply as you are with a 450 watt supply. ;-)
Happy Oyster
>In news:0c3id517498a04tue...@4ax.com,
>m...@privacy.net typed on Fri, 16 Oct 2009 19:19:33 -0500:
>> "BillW50" <Bil...@aol.kom> wrote:
>>
>>> I use netbooks as my main computer all of the time.
>>
>> I do so as well
>>
>> No problems here!
>
>Pretty amazing that you can be practically as efficient with a 20 watt
>supply as you are with a 450 watt supply. ;-)
Perhaps the netbook at work consumes less power in total than the big iron loses
because of its power conversion losses...
--
How a sect kills YOUR children
http://www.pharmamafia.com
Mahlon Wagner
Windows 7 when it comes out. You mention a lack of proper drivers--
and where might I go to find those model specific drivers--Lenovo?
Many thanks
Mahl
m...@privacy.net
>My 2004 (5 year old) 14" IBM ThinkPad R40 1.6GHz Pentium M has 2GB of RAM in
>it and has approximately 1.5 x the processing power of an Atom 270. I
How do you measure this?
Or is it just a guess?
m...@privacy.net
>> I do so as well
>>
>> No problems here!
>
>Pretty amazing that you can be practically as efficient with a 20 watt
>supply as you are with a 450 watt supply. ;-)
>
>--
Yep!
For the bulk of people who just surf the Net, write
some docs, do some programming..... the Atom is just
fine
Mike S.
In article <Xns9CA7306E25...@74.209.131.13>,
That's one way of looking at it.
A more realistic way, perhaps, is that Win7 is really Vista SP3, so it's
actually been out of beta for a couple of years now.
Barry Watzman
For some uses (travel being one), netbooks are wonderful.
For other uses, they are inadequate, although they may not be absolutely
incapable of getting the job done.
Barry Watzman
manufacturer's perspective, they don't want you to upgrade, they want
you to buy a new laptop).
Barry Watzman
available for that purpose, and Intel as well as tech web sites publish
benchmarks of CPUs that allow comparisons (e.g. a "Core 2 Duo ?.??GHz
vs. an Atom 270). Most of "processing power" is just a function of the
CPU although there are slight impacts from the chipset and memory. For
some applications, graphics power as well as processing power is
significant.
BillW50
> It's a matter of intended use.
>
> For some uses (travel being one), netbooks are wonderful.
>
> For other uses, they are inadequate, although they may not be absolutely
> incapable of getting the job done.
On the contrary, I often connect up my netbooks to an external monitor,
keyboard, and mouse and most people wouldn't even know that they were
using a netbook at all. That is why I believe these things are great. As
they can act like a desktop, laptop, netbook, PDA, MP3 player, video
player, security camera, etc. There is just no way my desktop can
compete with my netbooks. ;-)
> BillW50 wrote:
>> In news:hbc8gg$dre$1...@news.eternal-september.org,
>> ~misfit~ typed on Sun, 18 Oct 2009 00:06:52 +1300:
>>> My 2004 (5 year old) 14" IBM ThinkPad R40 1.6GHz Pentium M has 2GB of
>>> RAM in it and has approximately 1.5 x the processing power of an Atom
>>> 270. I wouldn't swap it for *two* new netbooks.
>>
>> I would and have already. Many experts said the same as you Shaun. And
>> they believed there wouldn't be any market for netbooks at all. That
>> all changed when Asus started selling them by the millions. Now it
>> seems like everybody is jumping on the netbook revolution. It just
>> takes some people longer than others. ;-)
--
Bill
Asus EEE PC 702G4 ~ 2GB RAM ~ 16GB-SDHC
Xandros Linux (build 2007-10-19 13:03)
BillW50
> Yes, the laptop manufacturer. Which may or may not offer them (from the
> manufacturer's perspective, they don't want you to upgrade, they want
> you to buy a new laptop).
Don't forget to check the OEM too for drivers if the laptop manufacture
fails to have them. Also with luck, Windows might already have them
build in. As Windows 7 had most of the drivers for both my Gateway
laptops and my Asus netbooks.
> Mahlon Wagner wrote:
>> Barry--I was planning to upgrade my Lenovo X200 (business Vista) to
>> Windows 7 when it comes out. You mention a lack of proper drivers--
>> and where might I go to find those model specific drivers--Lenovo?
>> Many thanks
>> Mahl
>>
--
Bill
~misfit~
I measured it using a utility called CPUMark. As the name would suggest, it
benchmarks the CPU.
~misfit~
> ~misfit~ typed on Sun, 18 Oct 2009 00:06:52 +1300:
>> My 2004 (5 year old) 14" IBM ThinkPad R40 1.6GHz Pentium M has 2GB of
>> RAM in it and has approximately 1.5 x the processing power of an Atom
>> 270. I wouldn't swap it for *two* new netbooks.
>
> I would and have already.
Good for you.
> Many experts said the same as you Shaun.
What did I say?
> And
> they believed there wouldn't be any market for netbooks at all.
I've never believed that. In fact I predicted that they'd take off long
before they ever actually shipped. How is it that you have all this
inaccurate information about me?
> That
> all changed when Asus started selling them by the millions. Now it
> seems like everybody is jumping on the netbook revolution.
"Just seems" is right. Do you have figures? I know quite a few people who
bought them (and thus would contribute to these figures) as a third or
fourth machine. I know others (with more disposable income than I) who
bought one out of curiousity. Of all the people I know who bought netbooks
maybe 30% of them use them more often than they use their main machine. I
don't know anyone who subsequently got rid of their main machines.
> It just
> takes some people longer than others. ;-)
Does implying that I'm slow give you gratification? Yeah, I can see the
smiley but I see you do this a lot, infer less-than-flattering things about
people and hide behind a smiley. I'll have you know that I'm very
cutting-edge. I was talking about netbooks in some computer groups I
frequent long before most had heard of them, even before they were
available.
You are the exception Bill, (albeit a very loud, very evangelical one)
rather than the rule. As I said, most people I know who've bought netbooks
either did it for a specific (secondary) purpose where size *is* important
or they've relegated them to the shelf.
If they're so popular how come there isn't a comp.sys.netbook? (And if there
is WTF are you doing here?)
BillW50
> Somewhere on teh intarwebs BillW50 wrote:
>> In news:hbc8gg$dre$1...@news.eternal-september.org,
>> ~misfit~ typed on Sun, 18 Oct 2009 00:06:52 +1300:
>>> My 2004 (5 year old) 14" IBM ThinkPad R40 1.6GHz Pentium M has 2GB of
>>> RAM in it and has approximately 1.5 x the processing power of an Atom
>>> 270. I wouldn't swap it for *two* new netbooks.
>> I would and have already.
>
> Good for you.
>
>> Many experts said the same as you Shaun.
>
> What did I say?
>
>> And
>> they believed there wouldn't be any market for netbooks at all.
>
> I've never believed that. In fact I predicted that they'd take off long
> before they ever actually shipped. How is it that you have all this
> inaccurate information about me?
Odd, I thought you said you wouldn't trade your laptop for two netbooks?
Why would you believe they would be very successful, yet wouldn't trade
your laptop for two of them? That is very interesting. As why would you
say that?
>> That
>> all changed when Asus started selling them by the millions. Now it
>> seems like everybody is jumping on the netbook revolution.
>
> "Just seems" is right. Do you have figures? I know quite a few people who
> bought them (and thus would contribute to these figures) as a third or
> fourth machine. I know others (with more disposable income than I) who
> bought one out of curiousity. Of all the people I know who bought netbooks
> maybe 30% of them use them more often than they use their main machine. I
> don't know anyone who subsequently got rid of their main machines.
I am actually using two netbooks at the moment. One is playing streams
(Windows does better here) and this one is doing newsgroups and RSS
feeds (Linux does this so-so here).
I use my main machine about once a month. That is to do backups on it
and to make it sure still works okay. Also when I want to convert a
video file, my main machine does that faster.
Figures? Last I heard was 33 million per year and growing. And I am
hearing that netbooks maybe outselling laptops very soon. And laptops
are already outselling desktops now. Some are already predicting the end
of the desktop era.
http://www.reuters.com/article/technologyNews/idUSTRE50601320090107
>> It just
>> takes some people longer than others. ;-)
>
> Does implying that I'm slow give you gratification? Yeah, I can see the
> smiley but I see you do this a lot, infer less-than-flattering things about
> people and hide behind a smiley. I'll have you know that I'm very
> cutting-edge. I was talking about netbooks in some computer groups I
> frequent long before most had heard of them, even before they were
> available.
Nope, that is wasn't what I was implying. You are taking things the
wrong way. I meant that it is probably inevitable. As people may not
have a choice in the future. Thus it takes some people longer than
others. Understand it now? Sorry you where offended, but that was never
my intent. :-(
> You are the exception Bill, (albeit a very loud, very evangelical one)
> rather than the rule.
Well I guess some people take what I say the wrong way. As that isn't my
intent.
> As I said, most people I know who've bought netbooks
> either did it for a specific (secondary) purpose where size *is* important
> or they've relegated them to the shelf.
>
> If they're so popular how come there isn't a comp.sys.netbook? (And if there
> is WTF are you doing here?)
No there isn't a netbook newsgroup, this is it. And I why do you have a
problem of me posting here and helping others?
--
Bill
m...@privacy.net
>If they're so popular how come there isn't a comp.sys.netbook?
I wish there was !!
~misfit~
Same here. I'm sick of posts here about the dinky little toys. ;-)
BillW50
> Somewhere on teh intarwebs m...@privacy.net wrote:
>> "~misfit~" <sore_n...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
>>
>>> If they're so popular how come there isn't a comp.sys.netbook?
>> I wish there was !!
>
> Same here. I'm sick of posts here about the dinky little toys. ;-)
Really? A laptop and a netbook are the very same thing. They run the
same OS, same applications, and do the same things. They even have the
same problems. The *only* real difference is that a large screen, large
keyboard, and an optical drive is optional for a netbook. Otherwise they
are actually the same thing. ;-)
--
Bill
~misfit~
> ~misfit~ wrote on Mon, 19 Oct 2009 15:53:06 +1300:
>> Somewhere on teh intarwebs BillW50 wrote:
>>> In news:hbc8gg$dre$1...@news.eternal-september.org,
>>> ~misfit~ typed on Sun, 18 Oct 2009 00:06:52 +1300:
>>>> My 2004 (5 year old) 14" IBM ThinkPad R40 1.6GHz Pentium M has 2GB
>>>> of RAM in it and has approximately 1.5 x the processing power of
>>>> an Atom 270. I wouldn't swap it for *two* new netbooks.
>>> I would and have already.
>>
>> Good for you.
>>
>>> Many experts said the same as you Shaun.
>>
>> What did I say?
>>
>>> And
>>> they believed there wouldn't be any market for netbooks at all.
>>
>> I've never believed that. In fact I predicted that they'd take off
>> long before they ever actually shipped. How is it that you have all
>> this inaccurate information about me?
>
> Odd, I thought you said you wouldn't trade your laptop for two
> netbooks? Why would you believe they would be very successful, yet
> wouldn't trade your laptop for two of them? That is very interesting.
> As why would you say that?
Is English not your first language Bill? (I don't mean that in an impolite
way.)
I believed that they would be successful as at least 50% of people (probably
far more) who have computers just use them for email, word processing and
web browsing, things that netbooks can handle easilly. They also take up
little space so, for some people for whom computing is a very peripheral
part of their lives a netbook that can be used on the kitchen table or their
lap and literally put in a bookcase when not in use would be useful.
I have a desk and a docking station with multiple peripherals attached. For
a lot of people who just want to check emails and upfdate their facebook
page that's overkill and they may not have room in a small appartment for my
set-up. Can you even get docking stations for netbooks?
I use my laptop computer for far more than that, therefore a netbook (or
two) doesn't suit my needs. Just because I say that I think that pink tutu's
will sell well doesn't mean I'm going to buy one. I use every bit of my
2.2GHz Core2Duo CPU's power and it's 4MB of L2 cache and really enjoy my
SXGA+ matte IPS screen on my T60 ThinkPad. I like the fact that it has a
discrete GPU with it's own 128MB of RAM so I can play some quite demanding
games should the urge take me (and it does). A netbook for me would just be
something that I'd sell...
>>> That
>>> all changed when Asus started selling them by the millions. Now it
>>> seems like everybody is jumping on the netbook revolution.
>>
>> "Just seems" is right. Do you have figures? I know quite a few
>> people who bought them (and thus would contribute to these figures)
>> as a third or fourth machine. I know others (with more disposable
>> income than I) who bought one out of curiousity. Of all the people I
>> know who bought netbooks maybe 30% of them use them more often than
>> they use their main machine. I don't know anyone who subsequently
>> got rid of their main machines.
>
> I am actually using two netbooks at the moment. One is playing streams
> (Windows does better here) and this one is doing newsgroups and RSS
> feeds (Linux does this so-so here).
>
> I use my main machine about once a month. That is to do backups on it
> and to make it sure still works okay. Also when I want to convert a
> video file, my main machine does that faster.
>
> Figures? Last I heard was 33 million per year and growing. And I am
> hearing that netbooks maybe outselling laptops very soon. And laptops
> are already outselling desktops now. Some are already predicting the
> end of the desktop era.
I've been doing that for years. IMO desktops will be a niche thing for
gamers, most of whom will end up using consoles anyway (as much as they hate
to admit it right now) and geeks. Personal machines will almost all be
laptops by 2015. Just a few geeks will still have their desktop machine,
probably as well as their day-to-day laptop.
> http://www.reuters.com/article/technologyNews/idUSTRE50601320090107
>
>>> It just
>>> takes some people longer than others. ;-)
>>
>> Does implying that I'm slow give you gratification? Yeah, I can see
>> the smiley but I see you do this a lot, infer less-than-flattering
>> things about people and hide behind a smiley. I'll have you know
>> that I'm very cutting-edge. I was talking about netbooks in some
>> computer groups I frequent long before most had heard of them, even
>> before they were available.
>
> Nope, that is wasn't what I was implying. You are taking things the
> wrong way. I meant that it is probably inevitable. As people may not
> have a choice in the future. Thus it takes some people longer than
> others. Understand it now? Sorry you where offended, but that was
> never my intent. :-(
Ok, undertsood, You have an odd way with words. (See question above..)
>> You are the exception Bill, (albeit a very loud, very evangelical
>> one) rather than the rule.
>
> Well I guess some people take what I say the wrong way. As that isn't
> my intent.
See above.
>> As I said, most people I know who've bought netbooks
>> either did it for a specific (secondary) purpose where size *is*
>> important or they've relegated them to the shelf.
>>
>> If they're so popular how come there isn't a comp.sys.netbook? (And
>> if there is WTF are you doing here?)
>
> No there isn't a netbook newsgroup, this is it. And I why do you have
> a problem of me posting here and helping others?
You don't just help others Bill, you preach the cult of the netbook as
fervently as a TV evangelist preaches his brand of religion. You tell most
everyone that netbooks will do everything that they want. It just gets old
seeing it over and over and over and over and over and over and over....
Cheers,
~misfit~
>> Somewhere on teh intarwebs m...@privacy.net wrote:
>>> "~misfit~" <sore_n...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
>>>
>>>> If they're so popular how come there isn't a comp.sys.netbook?
>>> I wish there was !!
>>
>> Same here. I'm sick of posts here about the dinky little toys. ;-)
>
> Really? A laptop and a netbook are the very same thing. They run the
> same OS, same applications, and do the same things. They even have the
> same problems. The *only* real difference is that a large screen,
> large keyboard, and an optical drive is optional for a netbook.
> Otherwise they are actually the same thing. ;-)
Then why do you talk about then using the term 'netbook'? To use your logic
a Cray and my desktop are the same thing because a netbook certainly doesn't
and couldn't run the 'applications' (games mainly) I run on this T60.
I did mention a docking station right? Plonk it in and I'm hooked up to A/C,
printer, USB drives, ethernet network, mouse (and keyboard, monitor / second
monitor, digital audio amp etc. if I wanted).
Cheers,
BillW50
> Somewhere on teh intarwebs BillW50 wrote:
>> ~misfit~ wrote on Sat, 24 Oct 2009 13:01:52 +1300:
>>> Somewhere on teh intarwebs m...@privacy.net wrote:
>>>> "~misfit~" <sore_n...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> If they're so popular how come there isn't a comp.sys.netbook?
>>>> I wish there was !!
>>> Same here. I'm sick of posts here about the dinky little toys. ;-)
>> Really? A laptop and a netbook are the very same thing. They run the
>> same OS, same applications, and do the same things. They even have the
>> same problems. The *only* real difference is that a large screen,
>> large keyboard, and an optical drive is optional for a netbook.
>> Otherwise they are actually the same thing. ;-)
>
> Then why do you talk about then using the term 'netbook'? To use your logic
> a Cray and my desktop are the same thing because a netbook certainly doesn't
> and couldn't run the 'applications' (games mainly) I run on this T60.
>
> I did mention a docking station right? Plonk it in and I'm hooked up to A/C,
> printer, USB drives, ethernet network, mouse (and keyboard, monitor / second
> monitor, digital audio amp etc. if I wanted).
>
> Cheers,
No I don't think so. A Cray isn't even a single user computer like
desktops, laptops, and netbooks are. Crays also doesn't have a video
card or sound card AFAIK either.
A docking station? Yeah I suppose they are nice, but I only have three
cables connected to my laptops and netbooks without a docking station. I
never got into docking stations thing. As I can't see not plugging or
unplugging three cables is worth 100 or more bucks. Plus you are locked
into a proprietary piece of hardware. Buy a new machine and that docking
station is totally useless.
Not so with three cables (video, power, and USB), it works with
anything. Macs, Linux, Windows, whether desktops, laptops, netbooks, or
whatever.
BillW50
> Somewhere on teh intarwebs BillW50 wrote:
>> ~misfit~ wrote on Mon, 19 Oct 2009 15:53:06 +1300:
>>> Somewhere on teh intarwebs BillW50 wrote:
>>>> In news:hbc8gg$dre$1...@news.eternal-september.org,
>>>> ~misfit~ typed on Sun, 18 Oct 2009 00:06:52 +1300:
>>>>> My 2004 (5 year old) 14" IBM ThinkPad R40 1.6GHz Pentium M has 2GB
>>>>> of RAM in it and has approximately 1.5 x the processing power of
>>>>> an Atom 270. I wouldn't swap it for *two* new netbooks.
>>>> I would and have already.
>>> Good for you.
>>>
>>>> Many experts said the same as you Shaun.
>>> What did I say?
>>>
>>>> And
>>>> they believed there wouldn't be any market for netbooks at all.
>>> I've never believed that. In fact I predicted that they'd take off
>>> long before they ever actually shipped. How is it that you have all
>>> this inaccurate information about me?
>> Odd, I thought you said you wouldn't trade your laptop for two
>> netbooks? Why would you believe they would be very successful, yet
>> wouldn't trade your laptop for two of them? That is very interesting.
>> As why would you say that?
>
> Is English not your first language Bill? (I don't mean that in an impolite
> way.)
Math and logic is my first language. Why are you the Language Police?
> I believed that they would be successful as at least 50% of people (probably
> far more) who have computers just use them for email, word processing and
> web browsing, things that netbooks can handle easilly. They also take up
> little space so, for some people for whom computing is a very peripheral
> part of their lives a netbook that can be used on the kitchen table or their
> lap and literally put in a bookcase when not in use would be useful.
>
> I have a desk and a docking station with multiple peripherals attached. For
> a lot of people who just want to check emails and upfdate their facebook
> page that's overkill and they may not have room in a small appartment for my
> set-up. Can you even get docking stations for netbooks?
>
> I use my laptop computer for far more than that, therefore a netbook (or
> two) doesn't suit my needs. Just because I say that I think that pink tutu's
> will sell well doesn't mean I'm going to buy one. I use every bit of my
> 2.2GHz Core2Duo CPU's power and it's 4MB of L2 cache and really enjoy my
> SXGA+ matte IPS screen on my T60 ThinkPad. I like the fact that it has a
> discrete GPU with it's own 128MB of RAM so I can play some quite demanding
> games should the urge take me (and it does). A netbook for me would just be
> something that I'd sell...
I believe if you got one, your views would be much different. And your
claim that you use every bit of power from your 2.2GHz Core2Duo is very
interesting. As that means that you are running the CPU at 100% all of
the time.
I personally have a few tasks that drives my computers to 100%.
Converting videos is one of them. Although I find multitasking is pretty
useless when the processor is in this state. So I use one computer to do
that one task and continue to use others for other tasks.
I also believe most people don't need powerful processors like many
believe they do. As much if the complaints on the newsgroups about slow
computers has nothing to do with the processing power. But they usually
has something to do with a process that is hogging all of their CPU
power and causing the computer to seem slow. Usually it is malware,
virus or something. But sometimes it is a driver, anti-virus,
application or something.
99.9% of the time, my processors run at 20% or less. And this is on 6
slow Celeron processors. The fastest ones can just keep up with my
flight simulators. Although the newest Flight Simulators like Plane-X
v9, they just can't handle. I need something faster than you have to
play that well.
By the way, if you are the Language Police, I won't tell your spelling
needs some work. ;-)
Yes I see this coming as well.
Sorry, I just get annoyed by people saying netbooks are not real
computers when in fact they *never* used one.
S. Fishpaste
<massive snip>
> Sorry, I just get annoyed by people saying netbooks are not real
> computers when in fact they *never* used one.
I agree with your sentiment. Recently I configured an ASUS Netbook for my
brother-in-law. Other than the small screen; it was bloody quick as long as
one isn't running Photoshop or anything requiring heavy graphics GPU I/O
they're great. He had it upgraded to a SATA HD as the SSD are just too small
and flaky at this point in their development. O yeah this thing boots real
quick on GNU/Linux. ;-)
Of course if one is doing Graphics or 3D/CAD work then a desktop is a
necessity to; but for the busy business traveller; a netbook is hard to beat
in terms of portability to performance ratio.
~misfit~
See below.
Your (mis)understanding of the English language, your lack of comprehension
skills in particular, has lead you from the statement "I use every bit of my
2.2GHz C2D CPU's power" to "that means that you are running the CPU at 100%
all of the time". Wow!
This is obviously (to most speakers of English) an incorrect interpretation
of what I said, bent to your own ends. When I said that I use every bit of
my CPU's power I meant in the sense that I can have Firefox open with 12+
tabs, my email client open, my newsgroup client open, Azureus handling 25
torrents, Paint Shop Pro going with a couple pics open, an mp3 playlist
running and still open a pdf in Acrobat quickly [The CPU would be running at
100% for a short time, hence I would be using "every bit of it"]. You'd
likely need all of your six netbooks (and their attendant cables) running at
once to achieve what to my machine is an effortless thing.
What it *doesn't* mean is that my CPU is running at 100% all of the time.
> I personally have a few tasks that drives my computers to 100%.
I doubt that very much. In fact I suggest that almost every task you do
'drives' your CPU to 100% as you open the application at the very least. The
difference between my machine and yours is that my CPU has 6x the power of
yours over two cores and would take one-sixth of the time at 100% to
complete the task. Mine could be the blink of an eye while yours could be
two seconds.
Do you not have a monitoring utility that you can check this with? From all
of your posts I thought that you knew a bit about how computers work yet you
claim that your CPU is used to 100% rarely. Odd.
> Converting videos is one of them. Although I find multitasking is
> pretty useless when the processor is in this state. So I use one
> computer to do that one task and continue to use others for other
> tasks.
So you're saying that, with netbooks, if you want to multitask you need a
bunch of them? Thank you for making my point for me.
> I also believe most people don't need powerful processors like many
> believe they do.
Ahhh, so it's "belief"? That explains everything. You write about netbooks
like a religious zealot and now you admit that the basis for at least some
of your stance is belief. Got it.
> As much if the complaints on the newsgroups about
> slow computers has nothing to do with the processing power. But they
> usually has something to do with a process that is hogging all of
> their CPU power and causing the computer to seem slow.
Let me get this right: You say that slow computers have nothing to do with
the processing power, rather it's something that's "hogging" the CPU?
Do you not understand that if the CPU were faster and had two cores (ie.
have more "processing power") then whatever is "hogging" the CPU would
likely be done already or would only be using a fraction of the CPU's power?
> Usually it is
> malware, virus or something. But sometimes it is a driver, anti-virus,
> application or something.
>
> 99.9% of the time, my processors run at 20% or less.
99.9% of the time my CPU runs at 3% or less. However, it's that other 0.1%
that's actually important. That's when you appreciate the actual power of
your CPU. Otherwise why would your machines not have CPUs that are only 20%
as fast as they are? I mean, going by your 'logic' if that other 80% extra
power is only needed for one thousandth of the time that you are using your
computer you could probably do without it. It might as well have a 180MHz
Celeron (or a 126MHz Celeron if you bought one of the first models that ran
at 630MHz.) What a waste having a CPU that can do 5x what you use it for
999% of the time!
> And this is on 6
> slow Celeron processors.
It sounds like you need them. As my machine has 6x+ the processing power of
one of your machines I only need one.
> The fastest ones can just keep up with my
> flight simulators. Although the newest Flight Simulators like Plane-X
> v9, they just can't handle. I need something faster than you have to
> play that well.
>
> By the way, if you are the Language Police, I won't tell your spelling
> needs some work. ;-)
Wow! What odd grammar in the previous sentence. Are you going to 'tell my
spelling' or did you miss a word out?
I am not the "Language Police", once again you're demonstrating your lack of
comprehension and your tendancy to over-exaggerate in the extreme.
When I asked if English is your first language it wasn't because of the odd
typo or spelling mistake. After all, this isn't a test. I asked because you
don't seem to grasp what the other person is actually saying. Your replies
tend to be only slightly related to what you're replying to, if at all. You
seem incapable of following a discussion, prefering instead to misinterpret
a single statement and focus on that.
Actually, I'm beginning to suspect that it's deliberate.
Is this aimed at me? I've used a netbook (although I didn't buy one). I've
spent quite a bit of time at a friends place using the one he bought that
now sits unused from one week to the next (unless someone drops in and asks
"What is this little thing?").
Also, I don't think I've ever said that a netbook isn't a real computer.
I've got a 486 DX2/66 that is a real computer and would be about as much use
to me as my friend's netbook is to him; A curiousity, but definitely a real
computer.
BillW50
~misfit~ typed on Thu, 29 Oct 2009 12:51:50 +1300:
Wow! You don't understand a hyperbole! And you want to pretend you are
some sort of expert on the English language? You have to be kidding?
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_are_some_examples_of_hyperbole
> This is obviously (to most speakers of English) an incorrect
> interpretation of what I said, bent to your own ends. When I said
> that I use every bit of my CPU's power I meant in the sense that I
> can have Firefox open with 12+ tabs, my email client open, my
> newsgroup client open, Azureus handling 25 torrents, Paint Shop Pro
> going with a couple pics open, an mp3 playlist running and still open
> a pdf in Acrobat quickly [The CPU would be running at 100% for a
> short time, hence I would be using "every bit of it"]. You'd likely
> need all of your six netbooks (and their attendant cables) running at
> once to achieve what to my machine is an effortless thing.
You don't understand performance. You don't use every bit of it, not
even close to it. There is nothing CPU intensive in your example at all.
1) Firefox with 12+ tabs only needs RAM
2) Email client only needs RAM
3) Newsgroup client only needs RAM
4) Azureus handling 25 torrents needs fast I/O bus speeds
5) Paint Shop Pro in a few windows requires a beefy video card RAM
Nothing you mentioned requires a speedy processor at all. Beef up a
video card and 2GB of RAM on a netbook and it should have no problems
handling all of those tasks at once.
> What it *doesn't* mean is that my CPU is running at 100% all of the
> time.
Of course not! I was using humor with an oblivious use of a hyperbole.
>> I personally have a few tasks that drives my computers to 100%.
>
> I doubt that very much. In fact I suggest that almost every task you
> do 'drives' your CPU to 100% as you open the application at the very
> least.
You can doubt all you want too. But video converting uses every ounce of
CPU power it can get. And no matter how fast your processor is, it will
peg the CPU and it stays there until the converting is done. I convert
quite a few videos from one format to another all of the time. And this
process requires pure processing power. RAM and decent I/O speeds also
helps, as you are moving GBs worth of data in and out.
> The difference between my machine and yours is that my CPU has
> 6x the power of yours over two cores and would take one-sixth of the
> time at 100% to complete the task. Mine could be the blink of an eye
> while yours could be two seconds.
Yes! And so I would lose about 1.6 seconds compared to you. If it
happened once or even a hundred times a day, this is so insignificant it
is meaningless.
> Do you not have a monitoring utility that you can check this with?
> From all of your posts I thought that you knew a bit about how
> computers work yet you claim that your CPU is used to 100% rarely.
> Odd.
Yes I do monitor the CPU use all of the time. And this computer it is
averaging 5% at the moment (Celeron 1.5GHz). And here is a graph of the
last 15 minutes. Sorry about the poor color combinations, they are the
default. And I don't think they are changeable without recoding somebody
else's program.
http://img94.imageshack.us/img94/7076/20091029174324.jpg
I have the following applications running.
Process Explorer
Word
Outlook Express 6
6 Internet Explorer windows opened
AltDesk (5 virtual desktops running)
WMP 10 playing stream
Glucose database
And 21 icons in my System Tray
And 99% of the time, this is what the CPU graph looks like. And as you
can see, I am not even coming close to be hitting 100% at all. If fact,
I can use a 633Mhz CPU and not even see any performance loss at all. And
guess what? My netbooks are under clocked at 633 MHz with the same
amount of RAM and the same chipsets as this laptop. And I don't see any
performance difference running them side to side.
>> Converting videos is one of them. Although I find multitasking is
>> pretty useless when the processor is in this state. So I use one
>> computer to do that one task and continue to use others for other
>> tasks.
>
> So you're saying that, with netbooks, if you want to multitask you
> need a bunch of them? Thank you for making my point for me.
No! That isn't what I am saying! I am saying when I am converting
videos, not even your computer is enough! Not even a Cray is fast
enough! Although a Cray would get the job done faster. And your computer
would get the job done hopefully 6 times faster. But there isn't a CPU
around that is fast enough. As it is pure number crunching time.
>> I also believe most people don't need powerful processors like many
>> believe they do.
>
> Ahhh, so it's "belief"? That explains everything. You write about
> netbooks like a religious zealot and now you admit that the basis for
> at least some of your stance is belief. Got it.
Nope, I can't speak for millions of computer users. Although the vast
majority of computer users I know of, doesn't understand performance
issues. Much like you don't. And thanks btw for proving it to all of us.
>> As much if the complaints on the newsgroups about
>> slow computers has nothing to do with the processing power. But they
>> usually has something to do with a process that is hogging all of
>> their CPU power and causing the computer to seem slow.
>
> Let me get this right: You say that slow computers have nothing to do
> with the processing power, rather it's something that's "hogging" the
> CPU?
No! I am saying a slow computer is usually caused by a faulty process.
One that needs to be terminated and found out the cause. Usually it is a
buggy driver, dll, or exe file. Which can be fixed by either going up or
down a version, or removing it altogether. So many people complain about
slow computers and believe it is their slow hardware. When it is some
useless process which is the true cause. Just visit the Windows
newsgroup to see examples upon examples of such.
> Do you not understand that if the CPU were faster and had two cores
> (ie. have more "processing power") then whatever is "hogging" the CPU
> would likely be done already or would only be using a fraction of the
> CPU's power?
Yes I understand! Say if your car brake is stuck engaged on one wheel,
your fix is to get a bigger engine. But my fix is to fix the faulty
brake. No need for a bigger engine at all.
>> Usually it is
>> malware, virus or something. But sometimes it is a driver,
>> anti-virus, application or something.
>>
>> 99.9% of the time, my processors run at 20% or less.
>
> 99.9% of the time my CPU runs at 3% or less. However, it's that other
> 0.1% that's actually important. That's when you appreciate the actual
> power of your CPU. Otherwise why would your machines not have CPUs
> that are only 20% as fast as they are? I mean, going by your 'logic'
> if that other 80% extra power is only needed for one thousandth of
> the time that you are using your computer you could probably do
> without it. It might as well have a 180MHz Celeron (or a 126MHz
> Celeron if you bought one of the first models that ran at 630MHz.)
> What a waste having a CPU that can do 5x what you use it for 999% of
> the time!
See my example above. Remember, the one with the CPU graph?
>> And this is on 6
>> slow Celeron processors.
>
> It sounds like you need them. As my machine has 6x+ the processing
> power of one of your machines I only need one.
If I had your one machine, start doing video converting. I couldn't do
anything else. Nope, that wouldn't work at all. You don't really
understand computers too well, do you Shaun?
>> The fastest ones can just keep up with my
>> flight simulators. Although the newest Flight Simulators like Plane-X
>> v9, they just can't handle. I need something faster than you have to
>> play that well.
>>
>> By the way, if you are the Language Police, I won't tell your
>> spelling needs some work. ;-)
>
> Wow! What odd grammar in the previous sentence. Are you going to
> 'tell my spelling' or did you miss a word out?
>
> I am not the "Language Police", once again you're demonstrating your
> lack of comprehension and your tendancy to over-exaggerate in the
> extreme.
There you go misspelling once again. "Tendancy" isn't even a word. I
noticed you clipped out the paragraph with the other two misspellings.
> When I asked if English is your first language it wasn't because of
> the odd typo or spelling mistake. After all, this isn't a test. I
> asked because you don't seem to grasp what the other person is
> actually saying. Your replies tend to be only slightly related to
> what you're replying to, if at all. You seem incapable of following a
> discussion, prefering instead to misinterpret a single statement and
> focus on that.
> Actually, I'm beginning to suspect that it's deliberate.
Funny you can't spell, don't understand English hyperboles, don't
understand computers, and believe that one computer would solve all of
my processing needs. And I am sitting here realizing you don't have a
single clue.
It is aimed at most computer users who don't have a clue about the
internal workings of computers. What you and many others listen too, is
all of the computer hype the manufactures want you to believe. They want
you to believe you need more than you really do. And it is so easy for
me to see you bought into it. Don't feel bad though, they convince most
people too.
> Also, I don't think I've ever said that a netbook isn't a real
> computer. I've got a 486 DX2/66 that is a real computer and would be
> about as much use to me as my friend's netbook is to him; A
> curiousity, but definitely a real computer.
"Curiousity" isn't even a word for a start. And you really have no idea
what you are talking about. As a 486 DX2/66 can't even handle playing a
DVD movie for one. And one netbook is dozens of times better than any
486 DX2/66.computer to a modern computer user. You could have the
craftiest marketing department known to man. Offer people a free 486
DX2/66 computer or a $300 netbook and I am sure most people would go for
the $300 netbook instead. Especially once they tried to do something on
a 486 DX2/66.
While netbooks are selling 33 million a year and growing as more and
more people are learning what all you can do with them. It would never
work even giving 486 DX2/66 for free. As you couldn't even find 33
million to take them.
--
Bill
Gateway MX6124 ('06 era) - Windows XP SP2
BillW50
BillW50 typed on Thu, 29 Oct 2009 21:08:16 -0500:
> There you go misspelling once again. "Tendancy" isn't even a word. I
> noticed you clipped out the paragraph with the other two misspellings.
Oops, sorry! Before pissy Shaun jumps all over it, Word claimed it was
misspelled. So bad example. But just in two of Shaun's paragraphs we
have.
~misfit~ wrote on Sat, 24 Oct 2009 13:22:56 +1300:
> I believed that they would be successful as at least 50% of people
> (probably
> far more) who have computers just use them for email, word processing
> and
> web browsing, things that netbooks can handle easilly. They also take
> up
> little space so, for some people for whom computing is a very
> peripheral
> part of their lives a netbook that can be used on the kitchen table or
> their
> lap and literally put in a bookcase when not in use would be useful.
>
> I have a desk and a docking station with multiple peripherals
> attached. For
> a lot of people who just want to check emails and upfdate their
> facebook
> page that's overkill and they may not have room in a small appartment
> for my
> set-up. Can you even get docking stations for netbooks?
Easilly, upfdate, and appartment are not real words. This is the point I
was trying to make. People who live in glass houses should not throw
stones. ;-)
~misfit~
> BillW50 typed on Thu, 29 Oct 2009 21:08:16 -0500:
>> There you go misspelling once again. "Tendancy" isn't even a word. I
>> noticed you clipped out the paragraph with the other two
>> misspellings.
>
> Oops, sorry! Before pissy Shaun jumps all over it, Word claimed it was
> misspelled. So bad example. But just in two of Shaun's paragraphs we
> have.
Cool, resorting to insults. I think I've made my point.
> ~misfit~ wrote on Sat, 24 Oct 2009 13:22:56 +1300:
>> I believed that they would be successful as at least 50% of people
>> (probably
>> far more) who have computers just use them for email, word processing
>> and
>> web browsing, things that netbooks can handle easilly. They also take
>> up
>> little space so, for some people for whom computing is a very
>> peripheral
>> part of their lives a netbook that can be used on the kitchen table
>> or their
>> lap and literally put in a bookcase when not in use would be useful.
>>
>> I have a desk and a docking station with multiple peripherals
>> attached. For
>> a lot of people who just want to check emails and upfdate their
>> facebook
>> page that's overkill and they may not have room in a small appartment
>> for my
>> set-up. Can you even get docking stations for netbooks?
>
> Easilly, upfdate, and appartment are not real words. This is the
> point I was trying to make. People who live in glass houses should
> not throw stones. ;-)
No they're not real words, they're called typos. I can spell pretty damn
well, I just don't type so good.