Prev: Which is the best laptop in the town?
Next: A lenovo USB kvm port replicator question.
From: P.V. on 18 Mar 2010 13:39
"gargoyle60" <gargoyle60(a)example.invalid> kirjoitti
viestiss�:3nr3q5dqi9b1i7j6vcsdgpba39fltk88tu(a)4ax.com...
>> Is there a reason you'd prefer to have a smaller device than a
>>standard notebook?
....
> The main reason is cost. A new netbook can cost as little as half the
> cost of a new laptop. Additionally, I just don't want to have excess
> weight on my lap for extended periods.

Yes, a netbook _can_ be a lot cheaper than an ordinary laptop but only when
the netbook has lower specs too. If you want same features, just in smaller
package, you'll actually have to pay more.

P.V.


From: gargoyle60 on 18 Mar 2010 16:13
On Thu, 18 Mar 2010 08:08:32 -0400, John Doue <notwobe(a)yahoo.com>
wrote:

>On 3/17/2010 5:40 PM, Barry Watzman wrote:
>> Your question is so subjective and so much a function of the user in
>> question that I'm not sure that anyone else's experience would be
>> relevant or applicable to any other person.
>>
>> gargoyle60 wrote:
>>> I use a desktop at home and want to get a small laptop or netbook for
>>> use of up to 4 hours. The spec doesn't have to be fancy - just enough
>>> to run Windows/Ubuntu, don't need massive disk storage, to be honest
>>> 80GB is more than enough, but 2GB ram would be useful for running
>>> multiple apps or having about ten windows open. I will probably be
>>> running of mains adaptor so battery life is also not a major factor.
>>>
>>> My concern is screen size - I have sensitive eyesight that means I
>>> suffer from eye strain quite quickly. I am concerned that a small
>>> screen, i.e. 10.1" as with many netbooks, is likely to lead to
>>> eyestrain after only a couple of hours.
>>>
>>> Can anyone comment on their own experiences along these lines?
>
>Indeed, but one reasonable thing can be said, I believe. Screen size is
>only one factor, the other being resolution. A smaller screen can be
>easier on the eyes if its resolution is lower than that of a larger screen.
>
>A good examle of this is the R51 Thinkpad which came in two screen
>flavors. The one I have is called Flexview and its resolution of
>1400x1050, the other one only 1024x768. Since I work mostly with text
>documents, I was hesitant to take the higher resolution. But I thought
>that going from 1.50d to 1.75 for my reading glasses was worth the
>additional quality.
>
>So, as Barry said, your eyes will tell you which one suits you best, but
>keep in mind my experience if you have reached the age, your arms are
>getting too short ...

I also work mostly with text (programming code). I have special
computer glasses as well as reading glasses, so I have the option of
whichever is best for comfort. But yes, I'm at that age too!

Switching to a low resolution could be one option, but then the
workable space is much less, especially when using a multi-section
programming IDE as I do.

I guess I'll have to borrow a friend's laptop and see for myself.

Thanks to everyong that contributed.
Gary
From: Ryan P. on 17 Mar 2010 21:27
On 3/18/2010 4:15 AM, gargoyle60 wrote:

>> Is there a reason you'd prefer to have a smaller device than a
>> standard notebook? You mention being able to have 10 or so windows open
>> over multiple apps. What do you intend on doing with this netbook? If
>> its 10 windows between email and a web browser, it'll be fine. If
>> you're talking productivity software, you might run into an issue.
>
> The main reason is cost. A new netbook can cost as little as half the
> cost of a new laptop. Additionally, I just don't want to have excess
> weight on my lap for extended periods.

Understandable. But be sure to shop around. Some of the real cheap
netbooks don't have optical drives, making it a bit more difficult
getting the software you want on there.

There can be some pretty good deals on laptops, as well as higher-spec'd
netbooks. For example, Newegg has a Toshiba laptop (6 pounds) on sale
for only $400.

But, whatever you decide on, its best to personally see them if you can!
Sometimes what sounds good on paper, isn't so good in person.
From: Ralph Mowery on 18 Mar 2010 23:52

"Ryan P." <rdeletepaque(a)wi.rr.comm> wrote in message
news:hnujuj$1eb$1(a)news.eternal-september.org...
> On 3/18/2010 4:15 AM, gargoyle60 wrote:
> Understandable. But be sure to shop around. Some of the real cheap
> netbooks don't have optical drives, making it a bit more difficult getting
> the software you want on there.
>

I think if you look, most of the netbooks do not have an optical drive built
in no mater what the price. The drive can be bought seperate.

I usually put a CD in the main computer and link with the wireless router to
install programs.

Netbooks are made to be small portable computers. They are not made to be a
main computer for any big applications. Biggest usage is to get on the
internet for email and other internet applications while away from the main
computer.
Most have a built in wi-fi and some have the camera and microphone for net
usage.

If they are bought for any major applications (think the OP was going to run
about 10 programs at once) you are wasting your time. It is like sending a
boy to do a man's job.
I have a Asus that was sort of the top of the line when it came out about a
year ago. I like it very much to carry with me, but don't use it at home.
I also like the $ 60 plugin that makes it a portable TV.


From: BillW50 on 19 Mar 2010 08:52
In news:VImdndTkv5suez_WnZ2dnUVZ_qydnZ2d(a)earthlink.com,
Ralph Mowery typed on Thu, 18 Mar 2010 22:52:36 -0500:
> "Ryan P." <rdeletepaque(a)wi.rr.comm> wrote in message
> news:hnujuj$1eb$1(a)news.eternal-september.org...
>> On 3/18/2010 4:15 AM, gargoyle60 wrote:
>> Understandable. But be sure to shop around. Some of the real cheap
>> netbooks don't have optical drives, making it a bit more difficult
>> getting the software you want on there.
>
> I think if you look, most of the netbooks do not have an optical
> drive built in no mater what the price. The drive can be bought
> seperate.
> I usually put a CD in the main computer and link with the wireless
> router to install programs.
>
> Netbooks are made to be small portable computers. They are not made
> to be a main computer for any big applications. Biggest usage is to
> get on the internet for email and other internet applications while
> away from the main computer.
> Most have a built in wi-fi and some have the camera and microphone
> for net usage.
>
> If they are bought for any major applications (think the OP was going
> to run about 10 programs at once) you are wasting your time. It is
> like sending a boy to do a man's job.
> I have a Asus that was sort of the top of the line when it came out
> about a year ago. I like it very much to carry with me, but don't
> use it at home. I also like the $ 60 plugin that makes it a portable
> TV.

I had taken a trip away from home for two months and I grab one of my
netbooks and that was it. No external monitor, keyboard, mouse or
anything. And the screen is only 7 inches with these Asus EeePC 701/702.
And I was worried that I would regret not taking one of my laptops along
with me. But no, it worked well for two months straight and I was
probably using it 18 hours a day.

I also had my netbooks hooked up to external monitors, keyboards, mice,
and external storage. And too be honest, I don't think most people would
know they were using a netbook vs. a desktop. As performance is about
the same for browsing, email, and other modest tasks. Although the tasks
that eat up max CPU usage like heavy intensive games and such, would
only notice the difference. Although I think it might run The Sims2
fairly well. And I plan on testing this game on one of my netbooks. It
will peg the CPU during the game play, but I believe it will be enough
to still play okay.

--
Bill
Gateway MX6124 ('06 era) 1 of 3 - Windows XP SP2


First  |  Prev  |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 1 2 3
Prev: Which is the best laptop in the town?
Next: A lenovo USB kvm port replicator question.