From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Computing / Hardware (Rated C-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by Computer hardware task force (marked as High-importance).
WikiProject Electronics (Rated C-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is part of WikiProject Electronics, an attempt to provide a standard approach to writing articles about electronics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. Leave messages at the project talk page
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Size doesn't matter[edit]

The term "netbook" is a portmanteau of Internet and notebook - it has nothing to do with size as evidenced by the rapid trend towards large devices such as the 13.4 inch MSI X320.

Those of you who insist that size and weight are in any way relevant to netbooks (except in a historical sense) by reverting anything in anyway related to the larger devices should stop. If this is a problem for you then you might find the subnotebook article (which does pertain to size) a better outlet. -- samj inout 13:37, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

So if it's not size, what does distinguish a netbook from a subnotebook, or indeed a laptop? Is there any industry consensus on this? Letdorf (talk) 23:04, 23 February 2009 (UTC).
A netbook is more like a single-purpose device which sheds "legacy" hardware including optical and magnetic drives and "abundant" resources (cpu, memory). Laptops are general-purpose and as such are like computing swiss army knives, complete with general purpose operating systems like Windows. Previous assumptions about price and cost have been broken by large screen (e.g. 13.4") netbooks running out to the late-hundreds of dollars. Asus, arguably the pioneer of the space, recently dropped sub-10" models altogether. -- samj inout 23:35, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
Some netbooks run Windows and have hard disks, some laptops don't have optical drives. Even Ubuntu could be called So netbooks are just low-performance laptops? Letdorf (talk) 17:43, 24 February 2009 (UTC).
There's definitely a grey area in the middle which you can be sure will be increasingly exploited by manufacturers, but for the most part it's pretty obvious. Other examples include the presence of an internal 3G card or the use of flash memory (which, with only 100k or so write cycles, is definitely not designed for general purpose OS use). And then of course there's the operating system which is more like a basic launcher than a general purpose tool (when was the last time you consulted the OS except to fix something that didn't work as it should anyway?). I'm not aware of a definitive list of netbook features but such a thing could be an interesting addition if and when it appears.
A low powered laptop on the other hand will typically have XP or Vista, a celeron chip, barely enough RAM to boot the OS and will more often than not be virtually unusable. At the other end of the scale, subnotebooks (air? vaio?) tend to be surprisingly powerful but can be staggeringly expensive - I'd probably be more inclined to put the Psion Netbook into the subnotebook category. Both are general purpose. -- samj inout 19:51, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
But laptops can be bought configured with internal 3G cards or SSDs too. My point is that, if you don't consider physical size/weight to be the defining attribute, the whole netbook/subnotebook/laptop thing does becomes a very grey area. Letdorf (talk) 18:24, 25 February 2009 (UTC).
Well less bits means you can have a smaller box (perhaps lighter and/or thinner) but they do range from very small to quite large (and growing) so trying to pigeon hole as you might a MID/UMPC them is conflicting with reality. -- samj inout 04:15, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Netbooks are designed to be a small form factor laptop. Do not mistake this for the physical size, as this can be misleading. What this means, basically, is that the device contains a lesser amount of hardware. Specifically, netbooks are designed to have, as their name may imply, only the hardware specifically needed to browse the internet. Cheer, ✎ Peter M Dodge (Talk to Me) 19:00, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

For me small form factor applies to desktops only and is all about physical size, small motherboards, less bays, etc. From the article "Small form factor (SFF) computers are housed in smaller cases than typical desktop computers.". While I'm sure you could scratch up a couple of references to support it, I'd be wary of introducing the term here. -- samj inout 19:54, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

There are plenty of instances in IBM and Microsoft literature that refer to such terms, even in my own collection of programming and computer engineering texts. It would be confusing in the article, so I have refrained from making reference to it in the article, but it is nonetheless used independant of the type of computer involved. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge (Talk to Me) 20:44, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure how one could interpret "small form factor", other than referring to physical size! I also can't think of any hardware that would be specific to "browsing the Internet" - web browsers are pretty indistinguishable from any other application software as far as hardware goes. Letdorf (talk) 18:24, 25 February 2009 (UTC).
Right but the context is almost always desktops so trying to apply it to laptops will cause confusion moreso than clarity. Hardware can absolutely be tuned for Internet browsing - less CPU, more memory, less disk, more pixels, less 3D, more networking, etc. -- samj inout 04:20, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
Less disk space maybe, but less CPU? Are you saying playing a YouTube video (a pretty common web-browsing activity) needs less processing power than, say, wordprocessing? More pixels are always welcome, but most netbooks have far fewer pixels than mainstream laptops, and no more RAM either. More networking? LAN/WLAN interfaces have been pretty much standard fit for most desktops and laptops for years now. And 3D graphics aren't really that useful for lots of applications. Letdorf (talk) 12:31, 26 February 2009 (UTC).
All these things are observations from the current group of netbooks. The point is that there are both hardware and software customisations that can be made to tune for this specific purpose. Installing Office, say, on a flash based netbook could well *dramatically* reduce its useful life, and would likely not run very well anyway. Regardless, it's our job to report on trends, not make them. -- samj inout 13:44, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
Hmmmm...what do you base your opinions about Flash SSDs on? Solid-state disk cites this article which suggests Flash SSD lifetime may be a non-issue nowadays. Letdorf (talk) 14:39, 26 February 2009 (UTC).
Right, I was going to mention that but I didn't consider it relevant in a discussion about device size but in any case the rubbish that goes in netbooks is a different animal from that in high end disk drives you might find in a server or the macbook air. -- samj inout 15:51, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
Are you going to go on to propose that we merge the netbook and laptop articles? Surely we're better off to highlight the differences than focus on the grey areas in the middle. -- samj inout 15:52, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
No, I wouldn't suggest that, but my point is that I think we have to be careful not to include spurious and insignificant distinctions when trying to define something in an encyclopedia article. If something is not a well-defined concept, then it should be presented as such. Letdorf (talk) 16:02, 26 February 2009 (UTC).

Solid state drives were used in the first netbooks (Asus EEE PC and Cloudbook and such) because they have a smaller form factor than say a 2.5" laptop drive, and use less energy, and for small capacities they are slightly less expensive than the smallest capacity 2.5" laptop drives you could buy. The latest SSD's come with intelligent techniques to extend the life cycle of the Flash storage, and as such lifetime of an SSD is now almost no issue, certainly not to the extend that using office software is a problem. Many linux based netbooks come with open-office included. There are netbooks that do NOT have the capability (flash player) to play youtube video's they are just for basic internet access, but what more defined the EEE PC was the absence of a CD-player, it wasn't needed, because Linux distributions are set up to install software from the internet (from software repositories), and the basic idea was that the whole thing was pre-packaged to include everything you would normally need for your daily use anyway, such as office software, PDF viewer, Browser, Word processing and spreadsheets, music and video player, basic "time spending" games etc etc. were all already installed, so you wouldn't need to install extra software anyway. What was NOT supported, was extensive 3-D gaming, and creating content with tools like Video editors or layout-editors or CAD software, the really CPU intensive and RAM hungry software. Laptops nowadays have the same amount of processing power and RAM as the typical desktop systems that were used for these tasks, and therefore the same price-tag. By leaving out these capabilities netbooks can be smaller, lighter, and get by with less battery capacity (bulk and weight) while still being able to power it for a reasonable amount of time. Manufacturers, seemingly scared of the "freefall of prices" (pejoratively often referred to as "race to the bottom") are trying to oppose the trend by trying to market more capable and more expensive "netbooks". we will have to wait to see if such attempts will turn the tide. Mahjongg (talk) 16:12, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Nice summary. Fortunately it's consumers who define the marketplace moreso than the manufacturers and now they've got the taste for blood. -- samj inout 17:24, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, its only a pity they now think the crappy extremely limited "simple mode" linux derivatives are what now defines "Linux" for most uninformed users. Even more so because these implementations often did not allow easy switching to a normal more powerful GUI, and also didn't support any upgrading (by allowing default systems like Synaptic), so the possibility of installing software from repositories, one of the best features for netbooks, was instantly lost. They probably did not like the idea of supporting such a system, so they locked everything down. too bad. Mahjongg (talk) 23:15, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
This is bad for a general purpose device but not so much for a single purpose netbook. I'd rather give my [grand]parents, kids, etc. a device (like a set top box) they can't break. Those that care can easy enough install a general purpose operating system, within the limits of the hardware. Summary: this is a feature, not a bug. -- samj inout 12:06, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
Discussions about the state of the art and the state of the market are all well and good, but what we're supposed to be doing is reporting usage. I haven't yet seen any good reason for excluding the MacBook Air, except that it is perhaps too capable. rowley (talk) 16:51, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
Technically it's a general purpose device with high performance processor, lots of RAM, general purpose OS, large (if optionally SSD) disk. Also, while I don't see price being an absolute requirement for a "netbook" category device, a grand and a half is taking the piss. Find an WP:RS that says air is a netbook and we'll consider it. -- samj inout 17:29, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
So is a MacBook Air too high-performance to be a netbook? Have we come back to "netbooks are just low-performance laptops"? (see above) I'm not convinced about the "general purpose OS" criterion - are Windows XP or Ubuntu or Fedora or SuSE not general purpose? These are all shipped with netbooks of one kind or another. Some netbooks might come with Linux-based OSs with simplified GUI environments, but that is hardly a defining feature. Letdorf (talk) 23:40, 5 March 2009 (UTC).
Netbooks are designed/tuned/optimised/whatever for a single purpose: Internet browsing. A laptop-like device that's *only* capable of browsing the internet passes as a netbook and you'll see soon that the cheaper ones will do exactly that... instant on to a web browser. The more you spend the more you get and there's a grey area where it's probably not easy to determine if it's a netbook or a notebook. The comparison article is a good place to get a 'feel' for netbook specs. Anyway a customised 'launcher' OS is a common attribute of a netbook but by no means an absolute requirement. Neither's cost. Neither's performance. Apple might bring out a reasonably performant, expensive netbook with the iPhone OS for example, and Asus are looking at running android on non-Intel architectures. Definitely exciting times ahead. -- samj inout 01:35, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
The Register have attempted to sort out the confusion here... It's about as useful as any other attempt at a definition I've seen - and funnier too. Letdorf (talk) 00:14, 14 March 2009 (UTC).
Hilarious. Do you think they'll license the image so we can include it in the article? ;) -- samj inout 17:33, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

User:842U Blocked[edit]

As User:842U took it upon themselves to demote and rename the trademark section to something about a "genericized trademark" and then revert "citation needed" tags relating to the unjustified claim that the trademark is indeed "genericized" (without edit summary no less), despite having been warned half a dozen times, they were banned for two weeks for disruptive editing. I have archived their rants and old discussions so as we can start again with a clean slate. -- samj inout 04:22, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

842U's request for review was denied: "Based on the response of the blocking admin here: [1] I see a clear pattern of edit warring and other evidence of tendentious editing. You appear to have been warned multiple times for your problematic editing of the netbook article, and have refused to comply with these warnings to desist. Based on that, I am declining this request." -- samj inout 19:39, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
I have explained to 842U what led to the block and hope trust that they will return when unblocked. -- samj inout 12:19, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Psion Trademark[edit]

User:842U has consistently rejected the Netbook trademark but it really should be included here. There is no proof that "netbook" is a genericized trademark and there likely won't be for another 6 months so in the mean time the article should reflect *reality*, not what we want reality to be. The whole Psion trademark debacle should be covered concisely (eg the c&d letters, save the netbooks, dell, etc.) and Psion should probably get some credit for the Psion Netbook (even if it wouldn't necessarily be classed a "netbook" by today's standards). -- samj inout 05:03, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't have the time to tend to this section right now so I'm tagging it with disputed-section so as we're not telling people psion's trademark actually is generic (even if it probably is). -- samj inout 18:14, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

I've tried to cut to the quick, so to speak, of the trademark status of the term. While it certainly is appealing to try to include comprehensive coverage of contentious issues, it is probably best to keep the section succinct and unbiased (not that a section should be biased to begin with!). To that end I've edited that contentious section quite a bit. Also, it's bad form to include inline "See also" links unless they are links to a "main article", so I have removed those. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge (Talk to Me) 09:34, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

842U forced this distinction of "netbook" as a trademark for a product name vs category of laptops, yet the trademark *is* for "laptop computers". The distinction remains but it should probably go, as should the statement that it is genericized. The save the netbooks article cites expert legal opinion saying it is, which might be a good idea for this article too. -- samj inout 10:59, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Probably best to merge that information into this main article. Legal opinions can be noted, but we shouldn't be trying to present legal opinions (however well founded they may be!) as fact. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge (Talk to Me) 11:02, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Agreed 100%. -- samj inout 15:48, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
Note: "trade mark law expert at Pinsent Masons" != "activists" :) -- samj inout 19:40, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
I thought it was referring to the text of the Save the Nextbook people, my bad! But I think the reason for my edit still holds ground - we should be clear that this is an expert opinion and not necessarily a fact. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge (Talk to Me) 19:42, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
Hows "Trademark experts have asseted that [...] sound? Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge (Talk to Me) 19:44, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
I think "attest" is a bit strong... went for "Trademark experts believe". -- samj inout 20:33, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
Psion's trademark was for "netBook". rowley (talk) 16:49, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
Actually it was for the word "NETBOOK" - case doesn't matter. -- samj inout 17:26, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

UPenn reference[edit]

I'm confused! How does the reference support the assertation if it's not about environmental impact? Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge (Talk to Me) 19:48, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

You're right, sorry removed the stale ref: The Net Impact of Netbooks? It Depends on Who Uses Them for What. There were a bunch of facts dependent on this ref before but they must have been stripped out :( -- samj inout 20:28, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm sure we could work it in, but it doesn't really support the assertation it was placed by! Hrm, on that note, do we have anything a little more academic to support the whole "more environmental" idea? I'm not entirely comfortable with asserting something as fact -- even if I know it to be fact -- with just a teritiary source. We should probably provide some references to support that instead of just saying "well I know it's true", you know? :-) Hrm, when I get back from work I'll research a bit, but feel free to add anything you find in the interim! Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge (Talk to Me) 20:52, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I realise that people freak out whenever one tries to class something "environmentally friendly" but I don't see why we should insist on a higher standard of proof for this point alone. It's true that we can't just say "because it's $%@#ing obvious" so if you find something better then what we have then add away. -- samj inout 22:07, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Credit Psion[edit]

Just because Psion has a dedicated article for the Psion Netbook doesn't mean they shouldn't get credit for the term here. I would go so far as to say (given the high quality of the device) that some of the more positive reviews should be included, though I admit I'm yet to see a bad one. -- samj inout 22:51, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Done. -- samj inout 02:23, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Technology section[edit]

With the exception of the technology section (tagged with cleanup-section) the rest of the article is in pretty good state. If you're looking for something to do then the technology section would be a good place to start. -- samj inout 02:54, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

A suggestion[edit]

It occurs to me that the external links we have may be better used as citations, as they are not so much general sites related to the article, but articles containing things such as history about the netbook, and so on. What do you think? ✎ Peter M Dodge (Talk to Me) 22:14, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Anything which reduces the number of external links is good by me :) Any links we have should be very high quality and ideally non-commercial (e.g. not individual reviews, "buying guides", etc.) -- samj inout 05:43, 28 February 2009 (UTC)


So I'd like to see some debate on the "origins" of the netbook. Don't you think it really dates back further than just the OLPC project and at least to the Handheld PC? Both are attempts to make cheaper, more portable computing devices with technology that sacrifices speed for lower energy usage. Just a thought on how to perhaps flush out the history of them. I know the current "netbooks" have only been around for about a year, but surely there's more to their origins than what's currently up there. So what do you all think, is it important enough to devote time to? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tonytnnt (talkcontribs) 05:13, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

No, its simple! The Asus Eee PC 4G was the first netbook, (in the sense we know of it today) all other current netbooks simply copied its design ideas. Its true the OLPC, (or rather the idea of a $100 laptop) was an inspiration for Asus to design the EEE PC, but only an inspiration. Asus did not market their system as a "netbook", but after some competitors made very similar devices the market started calling the class of these devices "netbooks". Mahjongg (talk) 11:58, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
Agreed, the Asus was the first truly successful product. If Psion's numbers are correct they only sold 1/2 a dozen netbooks (as in 6 @ $1,299) in the first 2 years! -- samj inout 12:23, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
The history of really small yet fully functional folding PCs capable of running Microsoft Windows goes back to the Toshiba Libretto series and others like the Palmax. Most of these were smaller than the smallest of the current netbooks. Some computer magazines named them "palmtops". Since they were made mostly in the late 1990's they predated WiFi. Internet connectivity had to be through a modem or ethernet connection, which could be built in, a proprietary accessory or a PCMCIA or CardBus card. Models with a PCMCIA or CardBus slot may use a WiFi card, which would make them a sort of proto-netbook. The palmtop died out as the market began to demand ever larger and more powerful notebooks and laptops, peaking with beasts like the Dell Inspiron 9100 series that stretched the meaning of "laptop" to more than 10 pounds. Bizzybody (talk) 07:52, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

1GB limit[edit]

Microsoft will only allow XP to be installed by the manufacturer on netbooks with no more than 1 GB of RAM, requiring Windows Vista otherwise. Does anyone know whether this is still valid? I couldn't find any official word on the MS website to cite. -- (talk) 09:46, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

The various arbitrary limits for access to discounts and cheaper hardware/software (e.g. atom) has been a moving target - have a look for stuff about ULCPC at -- samj inout 12:40, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Microsoft has confirmed upper hardware limits for XP, set out as follows: 1. Main storage: Max built-in flash drive of 16GB and/or a hard drive of no more than 160GB. 2. Graphics: No greater than DirectX 9.0 capability. 3. Main memory: No greater than 1 GB. 4. CPU has to be single-core and no more than 1 GHz unless it’s one of the following: Intel Atom (N270, N230, Z500, Z510, Z520, Z530, Z540); or Intel Celeron 220; or AMD Geode LX, Athlon (2650e, Sempron 210U); or VIA C7-M (ULV), Neon (U2300, U2400, and U2500) CPU. 5. Screen size: NetBook: Up to 10.2 inches. Large screen NetBook: Up to 14.1 inches. NetTop: No limit given. From ITExaminer, 12 May Jamesfpeacock (talk) 09:11, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

External link spam[edit] How to buy a mini laptop or netbook keeps appearing in the external links from seemingly random IP numbers. I keep warning the IPs but I'm considering seeking a blacklist for the domain. -- samj inout 13:57, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Ok so I've requested the offending site be blacklisted. -- samj inout 16:27, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Yes check.svg Done. Guy (Help!) 20:12, 25 February 2009 (UTC) also listed after various anon IP insertions -- samj inout 12:19, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Wired Article[edit]

Netbooks Offer a Chance to Challenge Windows' Long Reign - good ref for the software section. -- samj inout 02:30, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Samj possible conflict of interest[edit]

Samj should be barred from editing the Netbook article - he has a one man campaign against the registered copyright/trademark holder (Psion) and is doing his damndest to push this agenda on the article which can be seen my his attitude online. He is pretty much excluding mention of Psion from the article, even though I for one heard of and knew about the Netbook device in 1999/2000 when released. I believe he is corrupting the facts and bullying other people when they attempt to make the article less biased.


samj's wikipedia account info

The "savethenetbook" campaign owners details

Noting they are one and the same person.

My opinion: Without complete removal of bias, this article is corrupt and inaccurate, until the trademark has been REMOVED, the body of the article should contain information about the Psion Netbook with a link to current content in another article.

I, personally, disagree, as the redefinition has become blatantly obvious in my opinion. Even the New York Times uses the term in the same way, and, as one who pays attention to the blogosphere, I have seen it in nearly exclusive use in this article's sense. It has gotten to the point that while the trademark still exists, hearing or seeing the word 'netbook' does not, at least for me, and I suspect, the majority of people who have seen or heard the word, bring Psion's netBook to mind, but rather the group of small, low cost, laptop-like computers. -Pyro3d (talk) 03:23, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
All I can say is that this same editor has been tagging my discussion page with warnings of vandalism and conflict of interest, when I have done nothing but edit the article in good faith. As you will see from my edits, I've pushed to clarify that this is an article about the class of notebooks and not the specific Psion product. At one point, one section of the article read like a patent brief. Now Samj is adding fact citations to the section of the article in a gratitous manner. I feel very much that his behavior toward me regarding this article has been bullying. 842U (talk) 14:05, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
I wasn't aware that (outside of legal opinions) "netbook" had already been found to be generic as the article currently states. Please back up your assertions with citations. I do not see how highlighting errors is "bullying". -- samj inout 14:31, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
I also note that you are now banned for 2 weeks for Wikipedia:Disruptive_editing so let's bear that in mind. -- samj inout 03:33, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
When the redefinition is a FACT and Dell wins its attempt to cancel the Psion trademark, then and only then is this case proven. Obviously, *my* opinion, but also the logical reality of the situation. Else, why would anyone bother defending a trademark? Or, indeed registering one in the first place? At any juncture, SamJ is biased by definition of the term. How can he hope not to be, given his affiliation to the Save_The_Netbooks cult?
It's no secret who's behind the Save the Netbooks campaign - you act like it is. You also cite this as "evidence" but have given no examples of edits where I have done what you claim - indeed because it is not me doing it. For example, the last removal was done by User:Mahjongg citing (accurately I might add): rv, the PSION was not a netbook, in the sense that is now used. Furthermore the Psion Netbook already has its own article. Will there be anything else? -- samj inout 17:23, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
Simply put : my exact point. You have a conflict of interest.
Right, still no specific examples (likely because there are none), and no explanation as to why this constitutes a conflict of interest. Sign your posts in future please. -- samj inout 03:26, 22 February 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk)
Here's an idea: Two pages, netBook (Psion) and Netbook (popular term). Or something along those lines. This should allow both sides to separate, and stop changing the page back and forth. Such a fight is detrimental to the purpose. It could be argued that only the legal term is valid, but this is not consistent with the rest of Wikipedia. Should Psion win, they still cannot prevent the continuation of the term by the public for the type of laptops described here. It is important that we make the distinction, and link the two pages to each other. Volatar (talk) 02:50, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Mini notebook[edit]

Lets allow alternative naming... there is a clear evidnece some vendors use the preposition "mini" for netbooks. Go and beat me on it!--Kozuch (talk) 16:36, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

I only have found one, Dell, that does so. Which others in particular? Volatar (talk) 02:51, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
It's not universal. Apple uses "Mac mini" for its nettop. --Damian Yerrick (talk | stalk) 16:31, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
HP Mini 1000, HP 2133 Mini-Note PC. DisplaySearch analyst talked about mini-notes and I for sure could find many more references.--Kozuch (talk) 20:02, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
Toshiba calls their netbooks mini notebooks, as in the now near cult status device, the NB205. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 12:56, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Netbook OS Distribution[edit]

The reference for the stated 90% Windows XP, 10% Linux distribution of operating systems on netbooks no longer appears to exist. An alternative reference needs to be found, or the assertion should be removed from the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 12:01, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

I've changed the ref to the same article on the website. Letdorf (talk) 12:25, 4 May 2009 (UTC).

Elaboration of articles linked in Exteral links section[edit]

Does someone maybe want to elaborate some of the info in those links into the article? I think it is a pitty that high quality sources that cover the topic generally are not used as references right within the article itself.--Kozuch (talk) 20:02, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

What's the significance of web-based apps? Why not desktop apps?[edit]

I notice that web-based apps and "cloud computing" are always mentioned in the same breath with netbooks. But what's the special significance of them? Doesn't netbook have enough resources to run a small word processor, email client and so forth, let's say if the user has no internet connectivity or simply doesn't like that web-based stuff? So what is it big deal about web-based apps and netbooks? (talk) 04:53, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

This isn't a forum, but the main reason is limited resources. Using SaaS generally makes use of the cloud's resources rather than local. --Hm2k (talk) 10:48, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

The article is misleading in this regard. Netbooks are characterized by small size, economical hardware, and -- hence cheap pricing. They feature nothing that other laptops don't have to make them in some way particularly designed "for the internet" or "cloud computing." In fact, their specs outpace the specs of larger more expensive laptops of only a few years ago... which were readily used for applications hosted on the laptop. So the intro to the article is bogus in this regard: you can easily find forums devoted to netbooks, where all kinds of users readily use their netbooks for all kinds of apps installed on the netbook. 842U (talk) 16:27, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

One reason is that netbooks initially relied on downloading new applications from servers on the internet, (software repositories) and therefore did not need to rely on built in CD-players to install shrink-wrapped software. With the switch to using Windows XP as the OS this distinction was lost, although netbooks still do not support built in CD-players, and are still geared toward internet connectivity, hence the name "netbook". Mahjongg (talk) 23:45, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
I agree with 842U. Of course netbooks are intended for Internet connectivity, but that doesn't really differentiate their hardware spec from laptops in general. Letdorf (talk) 12:17, 7 July 2009 (UTC).

With respect to Netbooks and the Internet... "geared toward," "optimal for," or "suitable for," all ring accurately. "Designed for" is a falsehood. 842U (talk) 17:09, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

I disagree, at the launch of the eeePC (the first and canonical netbook) Asus commented
"This is a new line of PCs that focuses on providing users with the most comprehensive Internet application based on three Es:
 Easy to learn, work, play; Excellent Internet experience, and Excellent mobile computing experience."
Showing that portable Internet connectivity was indeed one of their biggest design criteria. [2] Mahjongg (talk) 01:40, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Mahjongg, that's company hype. Where's the independant evidence that any netbook contains something that makes it specifically "designed for" the internet or cloud computing? Netbook design is largely the act of leaving off what isn't absolutely necessary. That's all. Otherwise, the netbook is like every other laptop. This notion that netbooks are "designed for" the internet is persistent, but unsupported by facts. By parroting the hype, the article does a disservice to its readers.842U (talk) 11:36, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

You probably have never worked with an early netbook... Its clear they put in effort to put in internet related features to differentiate them from a normal laptop, if you turned one one you were greeted with a screen with icons for nothing than the browser and other internet related programs, for other programs you needed to go to another tab-page. Its also what they left out, and not left out of the design, obviously hardware wise there is only so much you can do to a design to differentiate it with a system not geared toward mobile internet use, but what they could do they did. The link I provided above (maybe you missed it) shows they were doing this on purpose, it was announced as designed for the internet, -before- the "hype" as you call it, so its not claimed with hindsight. Its also the reason the market started to call this class of systems "netbooks", it wasn't Asus itself who coined the term. Why do -you- think they are called netbooks? Also, did you read the news today, Google itself is busy with a netbook OS, called after their internet browser Google Chrome OS, coincidence, I think not.... Actually, this is a nonsense "discussion", you might as well try to convince people not to call these systems "netbooks", on the other hand......... -some- people even try to do that... good luck with that. Mahjongg (talk) 22:44, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

This discussion isn't about what these small computers are called... it's about the contention that they were "designed specifically for the internet."

If you are referring to the original Asus start up screen, it divided the computer's software into categories of work, play, internet, etc. So, because there is a splash screen that offered those choices, you infer that Asus "designed" the computer more for internet... than work or play? Lots of laptops and desktops highlight their internet accessibility -- that netbooks include features to access the internet doesn't make them any more "designed for" the internet than other computers that contain the same features. Nor does the manifest importance of the internet inversely make one subset of computers -- which is capable of accessing the internet -- any "more" designed for the internet than others. Netbooks are small, portable and cheap computers with lower specs than more expensive computers. The very features that suggest they have limited general purpose usefulness -- small screen size and small keyboard -- also limit their usefulness on their supposed central purpose, the internet. In the end, like any other computer, netbooks carry general purpose operating systems, they carry general purpose software, and they are in fact general purpose computers... just small and cheap,etc. Don't drink the kool aid. 842U (talk) 12:47, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

They were designed "specifically for the internet", in fact I don't know what else they could have done to make that more so, or do you know of a magical ingredient that makes a device "designed for the internet" they left out. The eeePC boots up in the internet related programs tab page. But I see I am wasting my time here... Mahjongg (talk) 01:22, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

We need to be clear whether we're talking about hardware or software. There isn't a great deal you can do to a typical current laptop hardware design to "gear it towards internet connectivity" more than it already is. Of course, you can customize or simplify the OS GUI (as some Linux netbook vendors have) to do that, but there's still a more-or-less general-purpose OS underneath. Letdorf (talk) 14:05, 10 July 2009 (UTC).
Exactly, Letdorf The rest is marketing... along with the possibility that "the internet" is the main destination for netbook users because it's the main destination for most computer users. What has not been supported (with fact) is the notion that netbooks, despite their name, are any more "designed for the internet" than other computers.
The first sentence of the article reads: "A netbook is a laptop computer designed for wireless communication and access to the Internet." It's a big statement -- and netbooks aren't so much designed for wireless communication — rather, wireless communication is one of their features, and not their most salient (small, inexpensive, lower level of hardware, etc). The opening sentence could apply to almost any laptop... given the preponderance of wireless communication features in laptops. And in the end, the reference for the first sentence is a single statement posted by Paul Bergevin (who is this?) on March 03, 2008 in an Intel blog. This doesn't meet the criteria for verifiability or reliability. This leaves the article opening with a specious statement that's poorly supported. 842U (talk) 21:43, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
Well, then lets agree than that nothing can be "designed for the internet" at all.... (but netbooks come close). As I said this discussion is nearly irrelevant. Mahjongg (talk) 16:13, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
Sorry not interested in this "discussion" anymore. Mahjongg (talk) 21:12, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Trends section[edit]

This section is extremely missleading. It seem to indicate that companies are moving away from Intel processors but all the evidence provided shows one brand releasing one model at a computer show. Also the whole hybrid processors things is backed up by some extremely weak evidence. Some guy talking about how it could be a good thing and making reference to a computer that runs an Intel processor? That doesn't prove anything. JB -- (talk) 18:18, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

== Trends == At the start of 2009, models based on [[ARM architecture|ARM]]<ref>[ LimePC: US$199 Freescale-powered netbook - Video]</ref><ref>[ Pegatron showcases prototype US$199 netbook]</ref> and [[PowerPC]]<ref>[ LimePC linux on Freescale MPC-5121e PowerPC CPU]</ref> architectures were released, indicating a shift away from [[Intel]] processors{{fact|date=July 2009}} like the [[Intel Atom|Atom]] (though some hybrid models contain both Intel and alternative architectures<ref>[ ARM processor runs applications in some Intel-based PCs, claims executive]</ref>). Models using a [[MIPS architecture|MIPS]] [[System-on-a-chip]] (SoC) architecture also appeared around the same time, resulting in very low-cost systems.<ref>[ Jz47xx SoCs descriptions]</ref> As modern versions of Windows require [[x86]]-family microprocessors, it will not run on these netbooks.<ref>Older versions of [[Windows NT]], up to and including [[Windows 2000]], ran on some non-x86 architectures: [[Windows NT]] 3.1 supported [[PC compatible]] Intel x86, [[DEC Alpha]], and [[Advanced RISC Computing|ARC]]-compliant [[MIPS architecture|MIPS]]. [[Windows CE]] also supports several non-x86 architectures.</ref> Linux, however, has fully supported non-x86 architectures such as MIPS, ARM, and PowerPC for many years. Also with the advent of better touchscreen technologies, and the Android operating system, many companies{{who|date=July 2009}} have recently{{when|date=July 2009}} begun development of touchscreen, tablet netbooks. There is at least one netbook running the Android operating system in pre-production stages in the Asian market,{{fact|date=July 2009}} and are expected to begin production of tablet netbooks in the American and European markets by the beginning of the third quarter 2009.{{fact|date=July 2009}}

This entire section need to be rewritten and probably integrated into the main article as it is not a trend but simply diversification. -- (talk) 18:23, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

On closer inspection it seem that most of this information is irrelevant as it is detailed under the "Hardware" and "Software" sections of the article. -- (talk) 18:28, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, and in the form presented its conclusion was purely original research. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 18:38, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

MIPS subsection removal[edit]

The MIPS section (posted at the end) was removed for two reasons.

1) It seem to indicate that Ultra-Low Cost netbooks is an article. It is a product description. (I found no other links to the product). Perhaps it would fit in a references section.

2) The parent section "Processor Architectures" is empty. We can avoid adding a subsection an empty parent section.

It was a misleading section, the MIPS section.

This article, Netbooks is a hot topic. I believe a money madness is safe bet. Witness the "trends" section removal. Witness the "Psion" issues.

Combining the subsections would cool things down for this hot topic. It's easier to edit a growing and hot topic when the material is within a single section rather that editing the entire article to remove a section.

Be There Do That (talk) 05:46, 2 August 2009 (UTC)


Some Ultra-Low Cost netbooks feature a MIPS CPU. [1] The 64-bit Loongson MIPS microprocessor is also used for higher-end applications. [2]

No operating system at all[edit]

Consider adding the subsection "No Operating System" under operating systems. After all, the lead paragraph admits that netbooks are minimalist.CpiralCpiral 17:47, 17 September 2009 (UTC) See Talk:Operating_system#Operating_System_Definition

Ha ha (laughing). I assume you are joking... :-) Only very simple micro-controller systems can do without an operating system, systems like routers and microwave ovens, but even a much simpler system than a netbook, like an Automotive navigation system needs an underlaying operating system. Especially systems that do any kind of multitasking need an OS with a scheduler, also any system which needs the option to have installable software parts like drivers. All there tasks are done by the operating system. By the way, the Cloud (operating system) isn't actually an OS in the classical sense, it is more an "extended BIOS", that is why it can act as a boot loader for the "normal" OS. It does NOT replace a normal classical OS, but complements it. It is Similar to some Asus motherboards that come with a built in (in ROM) extended BIOS with Linux, named Splashtop, for the same reason. The Google Chrome OS is much like the Cloud (operating system) but acts more like a classical operating system, and works without another (Main) OS. Mahjongg (talk) 20:49, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the education. I like how you explained Cloud. I agree with you about Cloud. But what is the name of the OS of the automobile?

That is what I meant by having a section "No OS" in the article here. I meant "no name", as in not 4.1.1 Windows, 4.1.2 Linux, Google Chrome OS, Android, or 4.1.3 Mac OS X, but 4.2 "No OS". I want instead of 4.1.4 "Other" to have an entirely new 4.2 section "No OS", and in it sew the seeds of the ideas in this discussion. It will be an education for them.

A name like "<name> OS" is, for me, an OS. An OS is a named category. (Stay with me, please). A category is fuzzy. (When does the shape of a bowl become a plate?) Now, an OS is fuzzy. when I said "No OS" I meant the fuzzy kind of OS, not the absolutist kind of OS, where anytime a software is loaded, well, it's an OS. Because certainly routers have "loadable software parts"? In fact, a micro-controller, in the strict use of that term, receives instructions. And if the set has more than one, well, that's loadable software! Another aspect of fuzzy is an OS's tendency toward or away from user space. Microkernel based OS means that the OS is not going to load any software. (Linux Kernel Internals, 2nd Ed, p16 "A microkernel... kernel provides only a necessary minimum of functionality—IPC and Mem mgmnt.")

I would propose to you that an OS is an app that performs a certain set of computer operations for another app. Thusly, if the app has an loadable part for itself, it's not an OS. If the same app loads a part for another app, outside itself it is an OS. The key concept here being autonomy. Internally, an application, at some level, must be continually perform that same set of computer operations for itself; because at some lower level it loads, schedules, manages (in some way) it's memory, virtualizes the external resources, and interrupts itself.

The level of abstraction would be a better an even better indicator of whether an app is an OS or not: If there is no computer control or computer resourcing except through one app, be it a web browser or a clock (he he he), that app is the only abstractor of the underlying hardware, and thus, the OS itself. The only constant is the level of necessary complexity of the app (OS or no) to run the underlying hardware. A programmer can code to an OS and ignore everything else like hardware or other apps. An OS facilitates many apps at once. If there is only one app, there need be no OS.

Whoever wrote Cloud had no OS to code to. Cloud was the OS. Cloud appears as a web browser. There is no OS, only Cloud. "Cloud just boots into a web browser" [3]. I assume it makes no offer to run any other apps, and the "desktop" is internal to itself. Cloud just is a web browser that operates a computer for itself only, and thus is not a named OS. It is a browser that is a (nameless) operating system. Cloud OS = browser + OS. The first OS was the appointment book at the computer center where you scheduled your use of the computer and loaded your own punch cards and language-compiling tapes. There was no OS, but there was a giant, sophisticated computer. Cloud has no OS. It is as if it has the whole computer center to itself all the time.

It has been widely discussed on the internet&mdasha sort of drama that is really a non-issue: Microsoft was said to be afraid of the "Browser as the Operating System" since that would mean "no more operating system" money for Microsoft. After all, the netbook is minimalist. Having no OS seems, to the popular imagination, like a real possibility. It isn't really. It's just built-in and because it's unnamed seems not to exist. Windows could be under some browser, unnamed.

All of life is all abstractions and, to us humans, words that name things: Just because there is no more "Kleenax" does not mean there is no tissue paper, however I aim to capitalize on the same popular imagination and just say "No OS". Technically there is not an OS. Popularly there is not an OS. But really, there is something operating the computer.
CpiralCpiral 15:38, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Android GNU/Linux[edit]

Doesn't Android just use the Linux kernel, but not the GNU library? Matty B 1000 (talk) 16:14, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Unclear sentence.[edit]

I'm not sure about how to fix it, word smithing is not my thing, but the sentence: "Often significantly less expensive than other laptops,[6] by mid-2009, netbooks had been offered to users "free of charge", with an extended service contract purchase.[7]" seems like two fragments from two different sentences spliced together. Reading it makes me ask 'Users of what' and 'extended service contract purchasers' of what?. Clicking on the citation link makes it understandable but I think the sentence should be clarified. (As I'm new to commenting on wikipedia articles feel free to delete this if it's misplaced) Ssustrich (talk) 20:06, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Satirical Images[edit]

Both of the side images offer a satirical opinion about the device. One shows netbook "accessories" including a large power generator/battery and a bunch of other oversized stuff. The second shows netbook "use" with three women in period costume. While amusing, I doubt either belong in this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 03:57, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

after having been removed for a long time some anonymous posters are trying to put this [4] picture back, titled "Satirical image of a Netbook or mini-laptop, poking fun at its very short battery life:". I have since twice removed it, but they keep putting it back. Please help removing this nonsense picture that among other things sports an electric generator larger that the netbook itself, it is clearly meant as a non NPOV comment meant to ridicule netbooks, it has no place in this article. But I don't want to engage in an edit war over it by myself either. comments please: Mahjongg (talk) 21:41, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
Hallo Mahjongg, pleas stop your stupid vandalism.-- (talk) 17:30, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
Grow up. This isn't funny. If the picture keeps on getting added maybe we should request its deletion from the Commons. Do we know if it is used legitimately anywhere? In the meantime, keep on removing it. --DanielRigal (talk) 21:36, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
No and at the moment it isn't used anywhere. Also It originally used to have a Category:Satire tag, but a vandal has removed it, see [5]. I'm fed up with this nonsense. Mahjongg (talk) 02:45, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
Given that the edit-warrior who keeps adding this image is anonymous and seems to pop up from a different IP address every time, semiprotection might be needed here. Letdorf (talk) 13:22, 10 December 2009 (UTC).
Yeah, he has now also posted his "favorite picture" at ECS G10IL (the netbook that seems to be depicted), I have removed it there too, as even there its use is inappropriate. its probably his answer to reading the question "Do we know if it is used legitimately anywhere?". I think we should try to have the picture removed from commons, otherwise he probably won't stop trying to push his "agenda" (whatever that may be, he can't be seriously thinking he can accomplish anything by all this, except just annoying us). Mahjongg (talk) 20:38, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
Hello Mahjongg i think its enough, realy your edtit history like an Ghostwriter for Microsoft ?.-- (talk) 16:38, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
Wie bitte? What? Your English is so bad, I think you are German, like the guy who posted this ridiculous picture in the first place, (I suspect you are him). Ich glaube du bist Deutsch, so ich kan dir auf Deutsch gleich sagen dass ich NICHT fur Microsoft arbeite. But lets talk English shall we. As I said, I do not work for Microsoft, its a bit silly for you to claim that, as you are the one that, edits this silly picture back in with the reason "Vandalism to force W7 Netbooks". Sounds to me then that YOU are the one to "Work for Microsoft", (you wish) why else do you want to "force Windows 7 netbooks". The picture is clearly meant to "show" that Netbook batteries are so weak that you need solar cells and power generators as backup. It's not funny, and it doesn't belong here. You seem to think that If only I would stop the picture would somehow stay, but as several people besides me who have removed it show, its not generally appreciated in this form, and certainly not in the gallery. If you want to post a picture of the ECS G10IL then post one without the "peripherals", or at least with sensible comments on a place that isn't obnoxious, like on the german site. Wikipedia is NOT your personal soapbox Mahjongg (talk) 00:20, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
I get better battery life from my Netbook (an Acer Aspire One AO533-N55Dkk) than I've got from any other laptop I've ever owned or used. Up to around 6 hours. BrianDGregory (talk) 23:55, 20 November 2011 (UTC)


Can someone repair this please? Cant undo automatically due to newer edit, no time to manual repair. Thanks.--Kozuch (talk) 10:34, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done --Tothwolf (talk) 10:56, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Macbook Air[edit]

It is not clear why the Macbook Air is in this article. It does not fit in with the description of netbooks given in the article and I can't find where Apple refers to the Macbook as a Netbook. SpigotMap 15:02, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Surely the Apple Emate 300 in the gallery is not a netbook either: no built in ethernet let alone wireless, 25 mhz processor, discontinued 1997, etc.--Eloil (talk) 06:41, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
I'll go ahead and remove the picture since nobody has disagreed in several weeks. The Emate may be a subnotebook, but without wireless browsing it's missing a key element in common with even the most basic netbook.--Eloil (talk) 15:25, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

The new Macbook Air IS a netbook, just like the Alienware M11X, they're both ultra portable laptops with no optical drives, thus the definition of a netbook (talk) 10:12, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Macbook AIR's are not designed to be "markedly less powerful" and (thus) "markedly cheaper" than their laptop counterparts, plus (very important), they are not marketed to be netbooks. So no, a Macbook AIR is not a netbook. Mahjongg (talk) 19:33, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

The 11in MacBook Air is certainly not cheap compared to other netbooks, but in most other respects it is a netbook-class product, IMHO. It is also significantly less powerful (1.6 GHz Core 2 Duo) than other contemporary models in the MacBook range. Letdorf (talk) 13:19, 3 November 2010 (UTC).
Obviously creating a design that is much lighter than contemporary heavier models means you need to shrink the battery, which means you will have less energy for powering the processor, which means you are forced to using less powerful CPU's (or be satisfied with a much lower running time). These are just the facts (as long as you use similar technology, it can be different story if you use a different technology, like using ARM processors. or a revolutionary new display and/or storage technology that uses a fraction of the energy of the technology it replaces). Even though for a device as small as the MacBook Air a 1.6 GHz Core 2 Duo isn't exactly in the same category as the simple Intel Atom CPU of most real netbooks. But that isn't the real reason for why the MacBook Air should not be classified as a netbook, the real reason is that it wasn't designed to be one, nor is it marketed to be one. Note that i'm not saying that the designer (apple) totally determines whether its a "netbook" or not by just declaring it is or isn't, but what counts is their aim when designing the device, its clear the MacBook AIR wasn't designed "to be a netbook", or to compete in the netbook market. Mahjongg (talk) 18:01, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
Well, of course there is no hard-and-fast definition of a netbook, but some journalists at least think the 11in MacBook Air (Air, not AIR) should be called a netbook, for instance FT, CNet, ComputerWorld, Computer Weekly, Wired. Regards, Letdorf (talk) 13:53, 4 November 2010 (UTC).
Well, I suppose I guess they have a right to their opinion. So you have reliable sources that say they think the netbook Air, (sorry I mean the MacBook Air) "can be called a netbook", no matter what Apple says. So you could put something in the MacBook Air article like "some people think the MacBook Air classifies as a netbook, although apple refuses to classify it as such", because for that you have reliable sources, but you do not have reliable sources for the fact that the MacBook Air is a netbook. I personally believe that all these journo's that describe the MacBook Air as a "netbook" do that with some "tongue in cheek" and glee. Mahjongg (talk) 00:47, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
I agree that it's not necessary to mention the Macbook Air here. We don't need to mention all netbooks, especially ones that don't meet many of the "requirements" of being a netbook. That a few people have called it a netbook is something to be discussed in the Macbook Air article, not here. To be honest I'm a little concerned at the weight of coverage that Apple is getting in this article... We seem already to be devoting quite a bit of space to the fact that Apple doesn't make a netbook... OS X and iOS, iPad, and now Macbook Air. We really don't have to mention Apple in every technology article. Miremare 15:55, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
Well, if we're not mentioning the MacBook Air here (which some people at least think is a netbook), why is the section on the iPad (which really isn't a netbook) still here? Letdorf (talk) 23:12, 5 November 2010 (UTC).
I hadn't noticed it was there, but good question, why is it there? as it certainly has nothing to do with netbooks. By the way, IMHO the whole class of netbooks has gone down the drain! The original first few netbooks, like the ASUS EEEPC, -those- were truly netbooks, and were a revelation! but the industry has managed to kill this (for them non profitable) concept of a "netbook", they much rather wished people would keep buying normal notebooks, so instead of adopting and improving on the concept they started killing it. They did it by starting to put windows XP on them, that was the beginning of the end. Lately "netbooks" are not interesting anymore, and the differences between netbooks and just underpowered laptops has gotten smaller and smaller. Mahjongg (talk) 01:55, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

I have a source that states the 11 inch MacBook Air is a netbook, anyone who reads the magazine T3 will see in the most recent issue they do a comparison of next gen netbooks. Number 1 is the MacBook air (talk) 23:31, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

All the shops I've seen count 11" or bigger as laptops, and netbooks are 10" or less. If we're going to say that 11" is a netbook, firstly we need sources - and secondly, we need to revise vast chunks of the article, as this will be including a vast range of more powerful 11" laptops, not just Apple's Air PC. Mdwh (talk) 21:21, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

For the record, Apple or someone on Apple's behalf is buying Google Adwords against "Netbook", so obviously Apple is are trying to compete in the same market. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 04:46, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

First Netbooks were with SSD? Definitely WRONG![edit]

In the history section is mentioned that the first netbooks already had SSD disks, which is wrong. A SSD disk by that time was around the price of the whole netbook. Regards (talk) 19:50, 21 November 2010 (UTC) Colin

What time are you referring to? It says the first Eee PC had a SSD, which is true. Miremare 22:11, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

@ Miremare You're right. In the 2 GB and 4 GB models of the 700 series of the Eee PC, the SSD is permanently soldered to the board, speculatively to reduce manufacturing costs.

But the way how SSD was used at that time and in this way was just a joke... (you couldn't replace the disk with a bigger ones, the disks were way to smal etc. etc.... )

To sum it up, as I said, you're right, but it was useless at that time... or not comparable to the SSDs nowadays... maybe it should be mentioned that way in the article, to prevent missunderstanding....

Regards, Colin (talk) 09:30, 26 November 2010 (UTC)Colin

Problems with "Netbooks in education" section[edit]

I feel like there are a couple of problems with the Netbooks in education section:

1) It doesn't seem to be written from a NPOV, and the tone is even a little advertisement-like. "Netbooks have the potential to change the way students and teachers interact", "The benefits of integrating netbooks in the classroom are many, but they are maximized when there is a 1-1 student to computer ratio", etc.

2) It's too long. I don't see any reason why this section should take up 1/4 of an already very long article. The "activities" subsection is pure fluff. The sections on "Effects on student learning", "Costs and logistics", and "Training and staff development", are basically fine, but they convey no information that's specific to netbooks. The information belongs in an article like E-learning.

My suggestion would be to keep the first two paragraphs of the section and chuck everything else (which is what I'll do in a day or two if there aren't any objections). Dindon (talk) 01:56, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

I just read the article for the first time, and came to the talk page to say something about this very issue. The entire section does read like it's been written by someone who sells netbooks to schools for a living. That said.. some of it seems to be properly sourced to scientific research, so it may have a place somewhere on Wikipedia. Just not sure that place is this article. -- Mystman666 (Talk) 16:11, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
I've cut a significant amount of material from the Netbooks in education section. As I said in my edit summary, I was sad to delete so much sourced information, which someone obviously put some time into, but it just wasn't right for this page. I looked for an article on the use of computers in the classroom, but I just couldn't find one (the closest I could find was still E-learning which is very broad and very long already).Dindon (talk) 05:52, 22 December 2010 (UTC)


While editing the section to add citation tags to the few references in the section, I noticed the following commented-out text:

<!--The article in the following link has been tagged for cleanup as an advertisement.-->

and the following commented-out paragraph:

The netbook brand Skytone Alpha 400 features a MIPS architecture CPU — the 64-bit Loongson that is capable of about 400 million instructions per second, at very low cost.[3]

If only the reference link is in question, then it's not an advertisement, because Engadget is a reputable technology news website and the article manages to be quite neutral. Because of this and the fact that the section itself was not tagged as the comment said it was, I removed the comment and moved the reference into section text. The latter I made a bit more precise after researching information on Skytone's netbook and the Gdium netbook. I did delete the above commented-out text, though.

Also: Clarified some text, removed a __citation needed__ tag and added a reference in its place.
-Mardus (talk) 08:25, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

  1. ^ Hermann, John (2008-12-09). "$170 Alpha 400 MIPS Netbook is as Expensive as it is Desirable". Gizmodo. Retrieved 2009-04-09.  Check date values in: |date= (help)
  2. ^ "The Gdium Liberty 1000 clearly stands out from the pack - Gdium Products". Gdium. Retrieved 2009-04-20. 
  3. ^ Rubin, Ross (2008-12-22). "Switched On: Alpha 400 pays a high price for low cost". Engadget. Retrieved 2011-01-05. 

File:Samsung N145 Plus.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion[edit]

Icon Now Commons orange.svg An image used in this article, File:Samsung N145 Plus.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations
What should I do?
Speedy deletions at commons tend to take longer than they do on Wikipedia, so there is no rush to respond. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs.

A further notification will be placed when/if the image is deleted. This notification is provided by a Bot, currently under trial --CommonsNotification (talk) 01:45, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

AMD C-50[edit]

Why we did not include the AMD C-50 class processors in processors list? There are some new netbooks with this processor (like some Acer netbooks), and Intel ATOM Z-series? (talk) 14:31, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

PassMark scores[edit]

These have little relationship with real application performance. I don't know of a serious netbook (or notebook) review site that uses that for benchmarks. I propose we remove that column. Tijfo098 (talk) 21:26, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Flash player in CPU section[edit]

I've removed the claims about the flash player because they are misleading. Support (or lack thereof) depends on several factors, CPU is only one of them. OS and even device (GPU etc.) also affect it. It's better left for the articles on individual products, like Skytone Alpha-400. There's a page here with more details. Tijfo098 (talk) 21:59, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Confusing image[edit]

The third image on the right side of the page (it is currently 16 June 2013 23:02 UTC) is captioned: "A Hewlett-Packard Mini 1000 netbook computer, a type of notebook computer"

This confuses me, that the caption calls a netbook a notebook. One of these must be incorrect: either it is a netbook, and the caption needs fixing; or it is a notebook, and needs removing. Which is it? Jarmihi (talk) 23:02, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Upon further research, the following three sources call it a netbook:!

Thus, I am changing the caption to read, "A Hewlett-Packard Mini 1000 netbook computer, a type of netbook computer."

It is possible that we should shorten the caption to, "A Hewlett-Packard Mini 1000 netbook computer." Jarmihi (talk) 23:08, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Smartbook section[edit]

The smartbook section at the end of the article needs to be updated by someone knowledgeable. It's roughly five years out of date, written in anticipation of the smartbook's initial release (the citations are news articles from 2008 and 2009) and the main wiki article on smartbooks say they were released between 2009 and 2010). Even though I could draw on the wiki article I don't think I'm the right person to edit this section, as I've never even heard of smartbooks before and am not tech-savvy. Just happened to spot that the section looked dated. [I've never commented on Wikipedia before, so apologies if I've posted this in the wrong spot or committed any other blunders]. (talk) 12:54, 14 July 2014 (UTC)