Travel Technology - 8.9" vs. 10" netbooks

There has been a lot of traffic on FT Travel Tech about the new 10" netbooks. While I can understand the natural interest in the "newest/hottest" equipment, I personally don't understand why these new netbooks-on-steroids would really appeal to travelers who want to pack light.

I wanted the smallest XP machine available that had a keyboard large enough for touch typing and a battery robust enough for a transcon flight. The 6-cell 8.9" Acer One fits those specs beautifully. Yes, the screen is small. I can use this keyboard comfortably for hours, however, and my typing speed is probably 90% of what I can achieve on standard size keyboard. I wouldn't want a 10" netbook -- that size seems like it's in a no-man's land between a "real" netbook and "real" laptop. At that point I might as well carry my full-size Dell with a built-in optical drive and a full-sized keyboard.

Am I missing something here?

I think you're too worried about the size difference. The 10" screened Net Books are just a tad bigger than the smaller screened ones. Still, the view is MUCH better. If you want to watch a movies or something, you way better off with the 10 inch.
I think the weight/size trade-off is trivial really. Especially with the new 6-8 cell batteries. JMHO.

I think it's all a matter of personal preference. I own a 8.9" Acer Aspire one and a 10" Asus eee and find just a minimal difference in size & weight between the netbooks as compared to the normal 14" T61 I sometimes carry. If you put the 8.9 on top of the 10 it only extends about three-quarters of an inch on both dimensions (note that the 8.9 has a pretty large bezel). That said, the little difference in size makes a large difference in comfort -- I touch type on the 10 much faster and more accurately and the larger screen causes less eye fatigue.

The 10 is a few ounces heavier than the 8.9 but this pales to the 3 lbs I'm saving over the conventional laptop (if you include the weight of the power bricks).

Bottom line for me is that I prefer the 10, I don't feel like there's much of a penalty at all over the 8.9. YMMV

The next generation of netbooks are just following the same path with saw with desktops and laptops. Bigger, better, faster = more sales.

It comes down to what the end user wants, and how much they want to pay. Netbooks have undoubtedly added a new niche, and one that appears to be very successful.

Until the 10" screens that also have higher resolution specs come into the pipeline I'm very happy with the 8.9" screen I have. My beef is with the 600px vertical resolution, not the size of the pixels or the size of the keyboard. The 10" screen doesn't get me much on that front.

At that point I might as well carry my full-size Dell with a built-in optical drive and a full-sized keyboard.

Now I've seen everything. Blasting other notebooks with a Dell comparison. :rolleyes: :D

...I can use this keyboard comfortably for hours....

Mileages vary, though. I found the keyboard completely unusable for touch typing. It's why I ended up choosing the HP Mini 1000.

Mileages vary, though. I found the keyboard completely unusable for touch typing. It's why I ended up choosing the HP Mini 1000.

I can't touch type, so it works well enough for us hunt-and-peckers.

(To be fair to me, I can do a lot without looking, and reasonably quickly, but it's still two fingers and not whole hands.)

Cheers.

There has been a lot of traffic on FT Travel Tech about the new 10" netbooks. While I can understand the natural interest in the "newest/hottest" equipment, I personally don't understand why these new netbooks-on-steroids would really appeal to travelers who want to pack light.

I wanted the smallest XP machine available that had a keyboard large enough for touch typing and a battery robust enough for a transcon flight. The 6-cell 8.9" Acer One fits those specs beautifully. Yes, the screen is small. I can use this keyboard comfortably for hours, however, and my typing speed is probably 90% of what I can achieve on standard size keyboard. I wouldn't want a 10" netbook -- that size seems like it's in a no-man's land between a "real" netbook and "real" laptop. At that point I might as well carry my full-size Dell with a built-in optical drive and a full-sized keyboard.

Am I missing something here?You're missing the fact that an Aspire One 8.9" and an Aspire One 10" are the same size. The 8.9" screen has a thicker bezel around it.

You're missing the fact that an Aspire One 8.9" and an Aspire One 10" are the same size. The 8.9" screen has a thicker bezel around it.

Yea, this was what I was going to say. I think if you have a 8.9" screen and you are happy there is no need to upgrade. With that said, if you are buying a new netbook the 10" screen is the way to go. You get a lot more for basically the price a 8.9" screen was last year, if not less. As well the keyboard is much larger. I think anything above 10" is not really in the netbook category. Though I think you will continue to see in the future more screens going very widescree so that the keyboard can grow (a la Sony Vaio P). You need about 1 more inch on the bottom for what could be considered a full size keyboard.

There has been a lot of traffic on FT Travel Tech about the new 10" netbooks. While I can understand the natural interest in the "newest/hottest" equipment, I personally don't understand why these new netbooks-on-steroids would really appeal to travelers who want to pack light.

The only one of the 9" models I can type on is the 9" Acer Aspire, which has a case pretty as big as many of the 10" models, just with a smaller screen (that's ignoring a few models like the Dell Mini 9 where the keyboard layout is also too funky to use, key size aside.)

That said, after playing with several netbooks, what I really want is a full-power subnotebook in the 10-12" range, and am going to wait for one I can afford.

I wouldn't want a 10" netbook -- that size seems like it's in a no-man's land between a "real" netbook and "real" laptop. At that point I might as well carry my full-size Dell with a built-in optical drive and a full-sized keyboard.

What full-size Dell do you have? My 14.1" D630 is too big to use in many coach seats, and is pushing 6 1/2lbs with both batteries in. The ~4lb 12" subnotebooks like the D4xx or the 3-4lb 10"-12" netbooks are still a heck of a lot smaller.

Many people I know have full-size notebooks in the 15.4" class, which are even bigger.

Until the 10" screens that also have higher resolution specs come into the pipeline I'm very happy with the 8.9" screen I have. My beef is with the 600px vertical resolution, not the size of the pixels or the size of the keyboard. The 10" screen doesn't get me much on that front.

There are a few 1280x800 netbooks at both 9" and 10" - some of the HP minis? There are also a few 10" subnotebooks with real processors and 1280x800 screens.

I think anything above 10" is not really in the netbook category.

I think at this point "Netbook" has more to do with a gutless Atom or similar processor and low price than size; I'd hesitate to call the Dell Mini-12 anything other than a netbook.

---

Now for those who want REALLY small there is the Fujitsu U820 (5.6" tablet, although kinda thick) ... for that matter the P1620 (8.9" tablet) is netbook sized with a much faster processor and tablet mode, although it sho' is pricey compared to a netbook.

The MSI has an official/unofficial overclock function, which brings it up to the 2 Ghz level, its pretty fast, in fact probably faster than any other laptop in the house. I truly believe that netbooks probably cover 98% of what people usually use their notebooks for just as efficiently if not moreso, especiallyif one is using the right software.

I had been eyeing the Acer 8.9" for 2-3 months, and my sticking point was the keyboard. I actually do type (did a class in high school, and it has been extremely helpful when I've needed work). Anyway, over the weekend I spied a Dell 10.1" with a ~90% keyboard, and I was sold. Picked it up and so far I like it.

The only sticking point I have is the touchpad seems extremely sensitive (or my hands are lazy when typing), as I keep hitting it by mistake, especially when I'm shooting for the spacebar.

The weight difference is marginal, and other than the size I think the specs were nearly identical. This did cost ~$50 more, but wasn't a big deal.

Of course ask me in another month, and I may have a different opinion. :D

Depends on what you use it for, but if sitting and watching a movie or spending a couple of hours on the internet while traveling for business or pleasure I definately appreciate the bigger keyboard and screen on mine.
I have the MSI U-140 and carry it in one hand like a book, it goes on flights, to the park and even around the house if say I'm sick and want to surf in my sickbed.....I nabbed one at less than $400 all in, right when they decided nobody wanted a white case and switched to black. I settled for white, no regrets at that price.

The MSI has an official/unofficial overclock function, which brings it up to the 2 Ghz level, its pretty fast, in fact probably faster than any other laptop in the house. I truly believe that netbooks probably cover 98% of what people usually use their notebooks for just as efficiently if not moreso, especiallyif one is using the right software.

De gustibus and all that; it totally depends on what software you're using and what you use it for, and for people who don't play games you may very well be right about that 98% mark.

That said, a single core Atom, even at 2ghz, is still a very slow processor by objective standards - I would bet on any speed Core 2 Duo against it, even the 1.2ghz ultra-low-voltage in some of the 12" models (ie a Dell D420/D430.)

De gustibus and all that; it totally depends on what software you're using and what you use it for, and for people who don't play games you may very well be right about that 98% mark.

That said, a single core Atom, even at 2ghz, is still a very slow processor by objective standards - I would bet on any speed Core 2 Duo against it, even the 1.2ghz ultra-low-voltage in some of the 12" models (ie a Dell D420/D430.)Lordy, how did we all survive the dark days of...say...2004, when everything was single core, less than 2ghz...and we were all saddled with Office 2003?

Oh, wait...that's now. :D :D :D

I think the 98% mark is probably closer to 99%.

nk, for 98% of users, so the single core means what, their spreadsheet will take .001 secs more to process? That it will take 2.4 secs to load a movie instead of 1.9 secs? Seriously I really sometimes laugh at the comments I read, the ones where obviously corporate users who never use anything more complex than a spreadsheet love to talk about how fast their newest Lenovo whatever is, etc.

Quite frankly unless you are into serious gaming, serious video editing and applications or serious engineering CAD type stuff almost any laptop/notebook/netbook made in the last five years will serve you well. It ultmately comes down to your software and usage, and in regards to netbooks vs. others physical comfort, whether you need or are just more comfortable with bigger screens, keyboards, etc. But in terms of performance for most there is little if any difference (I will add the caveat, with enough RAM, etc).

Lordy, how did we all survive the dark days of...say...2004, when everything was single core, less than 2ghz...and we were all saddled with Office 2003?

Speak for yourself; both of my home systems were > 2ghz in 2004 (by a good bit in the case of the Pentium 4, although the merely 2ghz AMD was actually the faster of the two), and a dual-processor (better than dual-core!) system at work. Hyperthreading, hardly a perfect solution, was already better than straight single core (and indeed, on responsiveness, this is noticeable as a difference between the N270/280 and Z520/530 atoms despite the latter's slower clock rate, although the 1gb memory limit is annoying with present software: I was running 1gb back in, you guessed it, 2004. Well, on my desktop.)

For that matter, in the aim of power efficiency, a 1.6ghz Atom is SLOWER than a 1.6ghz Pentium 4 was, which was already a very cheap entry level processor in 2003-4.

I think the 98% mark is probably closer to 99%.

I think you underestimate the number of gamers out there, and how processor intensive some javacript for web sites has gotten.

nk, for 98% of users, so the single core means what, their spreadsheet will take .001 secs more to process? That it will take 2.4 secs to load a movie instead of 1.9 secs? Seriously I really sometimes laugh at the comments I read, the ones where obviously corporate users who never use anything more complex than a spreadsheet love to talk about how fast their newest Lenovo whatever is, etc.

For those things, yeah, sure - although even there, given Microsoft bloat, program startup time can start being annoying. Otherwise, RAM amount makes a bigger difference than speed. That said, there are some annoying slowdowns even in routine useage that a single-core system makes worse: very javascript-heavy pages (which can peg one core at 100% for a few seconds even on a much faster system) and heavy multitasking between either different office apps or office apps and browsers.

And for personal use stuff... well... speed does still matter a bit. Want to shrink down a DVD so it actually fits on a flash drive? You're not going to do that on your netbook. If you've got a decent desktop, it's not a problem, but if your main machine is a laptop, speed still matters if you do anything like that.

Very few recent video games will play on Netbooks - given that even some of the emulators I play games on were slow (or at least basically hogged the whole thing) on my 2003-vintage 1.8ghz Pentium 4 notebook, my guess is that an Atom might be too anemic for it.

Quite frankly unless you are into serious gaming, serious video editing and applications or serious engineering CAD type stuff almost any laptop/notebook/netbook made in the last five years will serve you well.

I think you underestimate how much power even fairly casual games take. WOW will play on pretty much any Netbook, but it's the exception rather than the rule - even fairly old 3D strategy games like Civ 4 will lag very badly on netbook hardware, if they're playable at all.

Similarly, Netbooks are a sufficiently big step backwards in time that except for playback, even fairly casual video conversion/editing will be marginal at best.

Similarly, for serious professional software development work (and I'd imagine some CAD and similar) until VERY recently you still couldn't really get a laptop at any resonable price that really felt fast enough to be useable instead of a desktop.

It ultmately comes down to your software and usage, and in regards to netbooks vs. others physical comfort, whether you need or are just more comfortable with bigger screens, keyboards, etc.

But in terms of performance for most there is little if any difference (I will add the caveat, with enough RAM, etc).

Just depends on what you use it for. The mid-price Netbook-with-a-real-GPU models like the Asus N10 are a step in the right direction for gamers, but even there, an Atom processor is basically a step back more like 7 years than 5.

Of course, that's not what they're intended for - for one-app-at-a-time remote internet access and casual document review and preparation, they're near perfect.

But, again, for my own use, I don't find them practical enough to have bought one yet.

You are obviously in that 1-2%. Take a look around FT for example, and rack up what people use their laptops for, this really isn't your "gaming" niche around here. Next , when flying in Biz, take a look at what 99.9% of people are doing with their laptops (the 10% who actually take them out on a flight)........

You are obviously in that 1-2%. Take a look around FT for example, and rack up what people use their laptops for, this really isn't your "gaming" niche around here. Next , when flying in Biz, take a look at what 99.9% of people are doing with their laptops (the 10% who actually take them out on a flight)........

What people use laptops for onboard flights (although, frankly, I see quite a few people playing video games up front) and what people use their laptops for in general are only moderately-overlapping subsets - if nothing else, a lot of the "power user" usages will run down your battery PDQ if you don't carry 15 cells of weight with you (my solution, substituting a 6-cell secondary for the optical drive.)

It may be generational, or just the crowd I hang out with, but the number of people I know who use personal laptops for at least some gaming is probably around 1/3, not 1-2%.

Quite frankly unless you are into serious gaming, serious video editing and applications or serious engineering CAD type stuff almost any laptop/notebook/netbook made in the last five years will serve you well.
COmpletely untrue.

At one point, I owned a Pananic W5 Toughbook with a 1.2ghz Ultra lov voltage Core Duo CPU. Basically if I had two programs of any type open ( eg Firefox and Outlook) the thing became deathly slow.

It was however very light at 2.8 lbs and a legit 12 hour battery life....but on an near-worthless 12" screen of 10-something by 768. And that is better speced than many netbooks.

Which is why I get amused when folks say netbooks will do for everyone. No, they wont. But netbooks are cheap - and that is the real reason, for some people to buy them.

Today, I use a Panasonic Y5. At 3.5lbs it gives me a 14" LCD of 1400x1050 resolution, legit low voltage Core Duo CPU that can handle anything and a bulit in DVD-RW. It of course costs far more than a netbook, but if you want the utility, you pay. If you want cheap and restricted, get a netbook.

Which is not to say netbooks are useless. I bought one recently as a 2nd home laptop for my wife, whose computing usaging is literally only surfing the net and she doesnt mind a poky screen. All her "applications" are net-based eg facebook, gmail, smugmug. flickr etc. She wouldnt know how to sharpen a JPEG or RAW file and doesnt want to. MS Office? Not really, all her contacts are in Gmail and all sh does is use the world processsr (I got her Abi Word and Open Offfice) So for her, yes a netbook is great choice.

But for everybody? No, not really. You cant peddle netbooks like that.

Laptops are and have always been a compromise. A "good" laptop is one that fits your particular set of circumstances. And net books are no different. So one really should be very careful not to push netbooks as some sort of "fits everybody" solution. They arent.

Incidentally money is also the real reason than Intel is peddling the "Atom" for netbooks. In fact a low voltage mobile processor such as what is in the Pansonic Y5 is actually quite efficient and sips power carefully. There is no need to invent this "atom". But Atom is Intels neo-cash cow, technically a low power CPU but the real thign going on is that Intel takes this CPU that consumes like 3 watts and dumps in in a dirt cheap chipset that is cheap to producebut consumes 10x the power of the "low power" CPU it is hosting!

So the atomn is done at low prices but it is really rehashed dead-end and inherently limited old technologgy, while Intel continues to charge high price for more useful low power CPUS that fankly would better serve the public.

You two do realize that you are pretty much proving my point, right?