To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Actually, some manufacturers have started to do just that with their MiniITX, Atom-based, small footprint desktops. I saw a few MSI machines of this sort labeled as "nettops" while I was browsing for parts today.
I used to hate small screens myself, but in reality, netbooks are meant to be used for basically doing one thing at a time and being ultra-portable. Turn it on, select text editing, web browsing, etc, and the program is launched to take up as much of the screen as possible. Sound familiar? A lot of people did this in the earlier low-resolution days of Windows by maximizing their windows to fill the screen. And a lot of people probably still use their computers that way. Those people with Windows XP-based netbooks probably make sure almost every window is maximized.
Now that I think of it, my entire Firefox window is only 988x775 pixels on my 20" 1680x1050 screen. It has been around that size for years now, and could likely be shrunk even more (especially the horizontal size). I could save space reorganizing the toolbars, or even hitting F11 for fullscreen mode. NoScript + Adblock guarantees there's no ads wasting screen space. Text too small? Just hit Ctrl++, and Firefox even remembers your text size per site. Other browsers have similar features.
I don't yet have a netbook, but I imagine it being great for the things I would use it for:
-Run Stellarium and go outside to look at the sky, possibly with a telescope (need to get a new one, though
). -Run a text editor and manage certain lists I have. I have beer lists I frequently go over before deciding which beer to buy, and often maintain a list of games I'm interested in. No need to print, and just edit the file if I see a new beer to try.
-Run a Web browser and do a quick lookup (ie. look at the score and read the review of a game before buying it at the store).
-Compare prices at Amazon and other stores so I don't get screwed buying an overpriced HDTV or something.
On the other hand, anything much smaller than a 20" screen for a full-fledged desktop system intended to do multitasking would be a *very* bad idea.
In a perverse sort of way I actually like the small screens because hopefully it will force vendors to realise that it is the users screen space and not a place where they can either plaster advertisements on it (I'm looking at you Microsoft Live Messenger, which is impossible to use on a Acer Aspire One with Windows XP) or worse, focusing on making it big and bulky for the sake of branding and differentiation when all one is concerned about is getting some damn work done.
Case in point, Firefox and other browsers; how many people actually use the bookmark bar? really? come on, I've never ever used it once in the 12-13 years I've been on the internet. That is how useful the screen hogging thing actually is - it is of no use what so ever. That is the first thing I disable when I load up Firefox. The ribbon; lovely idea, too bad its designed for screens that are 20inchs in size and not 8.9inches (which funny enough OpenOffice.org 3.0.1 runs pretty damn good on ArchLinux on my Acer Aspire One).
So I am hoping that with the rise of constrained environments like the Netbook that it will force vendors to focus on the content of their products rather than making bloatware - either in the form of large unjustified memory and hard disk space usage or just simply a bloated GUI because the marketing department thinks that big bulky borders, mega sized icons and skinning are 'cool'.
Edited 2009-03-15 04:10 UTC
I don't hate small screens in general. The problem I have with calling these things netbooks is it gives the impression that they are suited better for using the web then a normal sized desktop/laptop.
As in A choice between a sub-notebook with a 9" screen for 300, or a full sized 14+" laptop for 350* what would be better for someone who just wants to browse the web.
The 14" laptop would give a much more enjoyable web experience. Sure the sub-notebook is great for taking it around with you and being able to check something on line real quick but you really do sacrifice a lot of ergonomics for such a small price difference particularly sense most people do web browsing at home or work and the advantages of the smaller laptops go out the window. Small screens are just poorly suited for web browsing in the majority of situations
*on a side note- prior to the sub-portable craze full sized laptops were dropping below 300 (my laptop with a dual core 15" screen and dvd burner went for 400). now they are back up to 500+ with the only things cheaper listed under netbooks outside of the occasional sale
guess the price difference is a bit larger now






Member since:
2005-10-01
according to this flow chart my 15" 5lb laptop is an ultra portable because it sold for less then 500...
I hate the term "netbook" for many reason, for starters the screens on most of them are so small that most web pages can be painful to read, taking the net out of netbook. Secondly, there is already a classification for small laptops --sub-notebook and/or ultra-portable.
The fact that tech has become cheep enough to make and sell them for less then 300 shouldn't change the name at all. The entire "netbook" thing is just a marketing attempt to keep people buying sony viao's and macbook airs and the like (ohh those cheep laptops over there with the same screen and specs for 1/4 the price? you don't want those those are "netbooks" what you want is an ultra-portable)
We don't call desktops "nettops" just because you can buy them for less then 200 now, why should we do the same for laptops