WorldRef wrote:
Netbooks are small and light but they are limited. ... you can get a nice 14" laptop for $350 now a days. They run circles around the little netbooks. Those little 8" to 10" screens are hard on my eyes.
Like I said:
Prolijo wrote:
Naturally, like anything else, a netbook computer is a compromise solution. It won't have all the strengths of a desktop or even full-sized laptop solution, but IMHO the much more convenient size and weight for travel more than makes up for any trade-offs.
Naturally, YMMV. Everyone has their own priorities when if comes to which aspects are most important and what they are willing to trade-off. The primary appeal of netbooks is not that they cost so much less than full-sized laptops (though they ARE also somewhat cheaper). It is that they're so much smaller and lighter (easily less than half the size and weight).
Of course, that also means that they have smaller screens. Hey, it would be great if I could do all my computing on a 60" wall-mounted plasma screen but we all know that would be impossible to lug on our trips. YMMV, but I find with the incredibly sharp screen resolution factors available these days, I have no trouble at all being able to read the slightly smaller screens of a netbook. If anyone really thinks that would be a concern, I suggest they just take a serious look at one of these netbooks for themselves and would bet most guys, while they might prefer a larger screen won't have any trouble with the netbook screens either or at least won't mind that tradeoff so much when they consider the much greater portability for traveling. But, like I said, I'll concede that is something each person will need to assess for themselves rather than based just on what Worldref or I say.
Where I'll dispute what Worldref just wrote more is his statement that the full-sized laptops run circles around the little netbooks. That is simply NOT true. Today's processor speeds have vastly surpassed the computing needs of most programs in use today. Unless you're running something like a heavy duty engineering CAD program or computing Shuttle re-entry flight paths for NASA or something, you don't really need anything faster than a 1.6GHz processor. For most of things the typical guy would ever want to do while traveling to CR (e.g. going on-line, playing movies, music and most games, or perhaps running basic app programs like Word or Excel) the difference in performance vs. a higher speed processor will be NEGLIGIBLE, particularly when you consider the much smaller size and weight of the device.
Where you MIGHT have performance issues is in terms of the minimal RAM you sometimes get with netbooks. If you get a device with just 512MB of RAM AND you try to run the newer Windows Vista OS on it, you're going to get sluggish performance regardless of whether you're using a netbook or a full-sized laptop. Fortunately, these netbooks ARE available with a full 1GB of RAM and, again, that is nearly always enough for most of us for the types of programs we typically run. Even if you don't have the 1GB of RAM, 512MB is still enough to run Linux or the older Windows XP OS (which is why some people actually prefer the older OS and wish MS just left things well enough alone). Of course, more RAM is usually better, but even there you reach a point where it becomes overkill, just as it does with these newer high speed CPU's.
RAM, CPU speed, computing performance, even HD size? I'm sorry I just don't see those as valid issues with these netbooks for anyone but the most demanding hard-core computer users. OTOH, smaller screen size, smaller keyboard and lack of a CD/DVD player (unless you get a seperate USB peripheral) are certainly more valid issues for SOME people, but those are understandably the necessary trade-offs of such a much smaller and lighter machine. Personally, I think those trade-offs are well worth it, not so much (or at all) for home use, but certainly for lugging with me on international trips. Of course, YMMV.
Login
Register
FAQ
Search
Calendar
