or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mac Hardware › Future Apple Hardware › Netbook sales are for real: I hate to stir it.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Netbook sales are for real: I hate to stir it. - Page 3

post #81 of 133
I'm thinking the Dell Mini 10 will be a nice sweetspot for Netbooks. Small enough to be very portable, large enough not to feel too constrained and a 1,355x768 display that also isn't too short for web browsing.

As long as the price isn't silly I'm getting one.
post #82 of 133
Quote:
Originally Posted by vinea View Post

I'm thinking the Dell Mini 10 will be a nice sweetspot for Netbooks. Small enough to be very portable, large enough not to feel too constrained and a 1,355x768 display that also isn't too short for web browsing.

As long as the price isn't silly I'm getting one.

What os will you run on it? A flavor of windows, linux or hack osx?
post #83 of 133
Quote:
Originally Posted by backtomac View Post

What os will you run on it? A flavor of windows, linux or hack osx?

Windows XP or 7 and then maybe a hackintosh depending on driver availability. Some netbooks just can't get enough working without major surgery.

Not linux because my wife would be one of the primary users.

I've also been looking at refurbed M1330s but the supply has suddenly disappeared.

Maybe I'll look at the Inspiron 1420 but it's getting bigger.
post #84 of 133
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin View Post

The G3 is old hardware not new low-end hardware though. Plus the G3 is a very old processor now. Cutting off 10 year old hardware is not really a sign that manufacturers will be able to keep people buying at the same rates.

My point is how long into the future will the current Atom processor be supported vs how long into the future the current Core 2 Duo processor be supported.


Quote:
But in the last 10 years, those laptops weren't good enough vs the higher priced machines. There is a threshold beyond which no matter how much better manufacturers make the high end, a significant majority will deem it too much and opt for the cheaper models. The Mac Pro is a good example - a Mac Pro may be a very powerful machine but a Core 2 Quad is good enough that people who don't want to pay £1400 can pay just £500 and get 90% of the performance and satisfy their performance needs adequately.

10 years ago the difference between the high end and low end wasn't any different that what it is now. Notebooks won't have the capabilities of the Mac Pro anytime soon. Notebooks are tempered by the need to be thin and light enough to be portable, while not generating too much heat and maintaining decent battery life. I cannot see them ever have the problem of being "too powerful" anytime soon.

Quote:
There is the possibility that developers can move more and more towards interpreted code similar to how the Palm Pre will use Javascript to improve development time but they need to protect intellectual property so I don't see a big shift. They may find ways to tax the hardware further but Windows 7 and Snow Leopard are evidence they are trying to do the opposite. Small footprint, fast code, fast hardware. I'm sure people can imagine all sorts of high end software that could require the highest end machines in a similar way to how consoles develop but consoles highlight this point very well.

I think there will be a growing number of services that work in the cloud. But this is not as necessary for a full computer as it is for a mobile phone.

Looking at their feature lists, Snow Leopard and Windows 7 will continue to use advanced functions in newer CPU's and GPU's, while attempting to downgrade gracefully for older hardware.

Software developers are in competition with each other to continue to build faster - more responsive applications. This pushes them to use advanced instruction sets and frameworks that Intel, Nvidia, Microsoft, Apple builds into their platforms.

Quote:
The PS3 is arguably the fastest console hardware and yet sells the least. Coming from the back of one of the best selling console in the world - the PS2 - this seems surprising. But contrary to what you have said, developers just can't push the software to a point where the hardware is worth it because the development time takes way too long. Because computers have to have every single behavior accounted for, this level of complexity has to be recreated by solid man hours and that's what will hold back computer growth.

This is an entirely different argument. The gaming platform that sells the best is the one with the best games. That doesn't have anything necessarily to do with hardware.


Quote:
I looked at the device and wondered if that could be the next iphone. Full 1080p output, playing Quake 3 at 720p, 10 hour battery life.

This type of performance in a device the size of the iPhone, I'll believe in when I see it.

Quote:
I could see a fragmentation happen in the Mac developer community though. A lot of devs may shift to targeting the lower power, high volume, low cost platforms and innovative desktop Mac software starts to diminish. We're already seeing this happen with Apple's Pro software and Adobe's software. The monolithic apps stagnate and it's the quirky new small apps like Aperture, Lightroom etc that get the attention.

I see no evidence of this type of fragmentation. Which large apps are stagnating? Aperture and Lightroom are gaining attention because they perform a function that no software previously accomplished as well as they do. Aperture and Lightroom don't directly compete with anything but themselves.
post #85 of 133
Quote:
Originally Posted by vinea View Post

Windows XP or 7 and then maybe a hackintosh depending on driver availability. Some netbooks just can't get enough working without major surgery.

Not linux because my wife would be one of the primary users.

I've also been looking at refurbed M1330s but the supply has suddenly disappeared.

Maybe I'll look at the Inspiron 1420 but it's getting bigger.

The Mini 10 and 12 dont use OS x compatible chipsets like the Mini 9 dies, so they won't run it without a ton of hacking.
post #86 of 133
Quote:
Originally Posted by TenoBell View Post

10 years ago the difference between the high end and low end wasn't any different that what it is now.

I would agree but it doesn't need to be. If the low end right now is faster than the high end back then, this means that people who got their work done just fine on high end machines back then will likely be able to do it now on low end machines. It doesn't apply to all cases but it does in a lot of cases. A netbook for example will do what a powerbook was needed to do a few years ago.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TenoBell View Post

This is an entirely different argument. The gaming platform that sells the best is the one with the best games. That doesn't have anything necessarily to do with hardware.

Not if the hardware of one manufacturer is double the price of another and yet does the same job, albeit less elegantly.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TenoBell View Post

This type of performance in a device the size of the iPhone, I'll believe in when I see it.

There's a video of it in action.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TenoBell View Post

Which large apps are stagnating?

Maya, Final Cut Pro, Photoshop, Illustrator, Indesign. They add very minor things and then give them a new revision number but you can do pretty the same stuff with PS CS1 as you can with CS4. The additions are largely gimmicks. Final Cut Pro has hardly changed for ages. Any major changes they make the the suite are in the quirky apps like Motion or additions to the suite like Color. Final Cut itself will get a new codec like ProRes and not much else.
post #87 of 133
I will probably never use a netbook. 13" for more than 2 hours is too much of a strain on my eyes and health. And I'm only 30. And have good eyesight, no glasses. I guess I'm just too demanding on what I intend to achieve when I sit down with a laptop. I guess that's why I have an iPhone3G for everything non-computer ... A 10" foldable Mac Touch would be a nice "the next iPhone". Don't call it a netbook... Heh. And then I would use that. But not as my primary work/home/play computer.
post #88 of 133
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin View Post

Maya, Final Cut Pro, Photoshop, Illustrator, Indesign. They add very minor things and then give them a new revision number but you can do pretty the same stuff with PS CS1 as you can with CS4...

Maybe I'm just software upgrade whore but with Adobe CS4 they finally got "it". Smooth and humming well on Intel Macs. Nice interface tweaks. Surprisingly non-bloated while improving workflow.
post #89 of 133
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin View Post

I would agree but it doesn't need to be. If the low end right now is faster than the high end back then, this means that people who got their work done just fine on high end machines back then will likely be able to do it now on low end machines. It doesn't apply to all cases but it does in a lot of cases. A netbook for example will do what a powerbook was needed to do a few years ago.

Yes this is always the case that the low end has the same capability of the high end from years ago. You want to cast netbooks as though they've hit some point of usability where nothing else has changed. The reality is that everything has changed equally.



Quote:
Maya, Final Cut Pro, Photoshop, Illustrator, Indesign. They add very minor things and then give them a new revision number but you can do pretty the same stuff with PS CS1 as you can with CS4. The additions are largely gimmicks. Final Cut Pro has hardly changed for ages. Any major changes they make the the suite are in the quirky apps like Motion or additions to the suite like Color. Final Cut itself will get a new codec like ProRes and not much else.

The apps you've listed all dominate their perspective markets. They have little to no viable competition that threatens their positions. I don't make common use of Adobe's creative apps, but they continue to dominate their market.

Final Cut Pro I do use fairly regularly and Apple made a lot of changes in the last update. The media management interface was completely changed, support for different codecs on the timeline, makes better use of intel acceleration instructions for real time rendering, more efficient use of HD codecs, integration with Final Cut Server. These are all big changes.

How you brush off Color shows you don't understand what Color is. Color was a $20,000 color correction suite before Apple bought and integrated it into the $1,300 Final Cut Studio.
post #90 of 133
Quote:
Originally Posted by TenoBell View Post

You want to cast netbooks as though they've hit some point of usability where nothing else has changed.

Yes, I think it's evidenced by those who use them and post here saying they run just fine. If they didn't, you'd have flat netbook sales and people complaining they were too slow.

Maybe Intel will take steps to stop netbooks stealing away too much marketshare (it looks like they want to) but now that they have Via competing, it could be too late.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TenoBell View Post

How you brush off Color shows you don't understand what Color is. Color was a $20,000 color correction suite before Apple bought and integrated it into the $1,300 Final Cut Studio.

I was saying that those are where the big changes are, i.e not in the monolithic apps themselves but in new apps added to the suite.
post #91 of 133
Quote:
Originally Posted by TenoBell View Post

This is a lot of development work for a market that isn't very profitable.

Would there actually be a lot of development work. I thought when the Intel switch happened a good number of developers who had 100% Cocoa apps had them compiled for Intel within a few days?

With Snow Leopard dropping support for PPC who's to say they won't add in ARM support for the full OSX?
post #92 of 133
About a billion years ago, this pic made the rounds:



I don't think it was an attempted fake; just what someone wanted. Of course, we're now seeing this form factor from Sony. There's a good ongoing review of it at pocketables. It's pretty much an ideal size for me and I wish Apple would make one. That said, I'm still not convinced that the netbook is as big a success as some think. And low price is a critical part of it, which immediately lowers Apple's interest. They have said (and continue to prove through their prices) that they are not interested in the low-margin, high volume market. Hardly a surprise given their success in selling expensive consmer products.
post #93 of 133
Quote:
Originally Posted by jouster View Post

About a billion years ago, this pic made the rounds:



I don't think it was an attempted fake; just what someone wanted. Of course, we're now seeing this form factor from Sony. There's a good ongoing review of it at pocketables. It's pretty much an ideal size for me and I wish Apple would make one. That said, I'm still not convinced that the netbook is as big a success as some think. And low price is a critical part of it, which immediately lowers Apple's interest. They have said (and continue to prove through their prices) that they are not interested in the low-margin, high volume market. Hardly a surprise given their success in selling expensive consmer products.

A market that cannibalizes your margins is not a win for your company. Sony and others are testing this market and seeing their more profitable markets being cannibalized because of it.

The reason people want Apple to do it is they expect their UI to be specifically modified to address the obvious Screen limitations and thus do the heavy design work for the rest of the Industry to copy.

Let Microsoft redesign Vista/Windows 7 to recognize this small visual form factor and put forth a UI designed for it.

Don't forget that until recently the Smartphone wasn't smart and it really started with the UI.
post #94 of 133
Quote:
Originally Posted by infinitespecter View Post

The Mini 10 and 12 dont use OS x compatible chipsets like the Mini 9 dies, so they won't run it without a ton of hacking.

That's a shame. What chipsets and components are in the 10?
post #95 of 133
Quote:
Originally Posted by mdriftmeyer View Post

A market that cannibalizes your margins is not a win for your company.

Right; hence my point that Apple avoids that by charging premium prices for everything they make, just as they would/will for any device even remotely resembling the Sony one.

Quote:
Originally Posted by mdriftmeyer View Post

Sony and others are testing this market and seeing their more profitable markets being cannibalized because of it.

Can you back that up? If the Sony is successful, it will sell in enough volume to generate acceptable margins.

Quote:
Originally Posted by mdriftmeyer View Post

The reason people want Apple to do it is they expect their UI to be specifically modified to address the obvious Screen limitations and thus do the heavy design work for the rest of the Industry to copy.

Well, the reason I *hope* Apple will do it is so I have something I can carry in a jacket pocket as opposed to a briefcase. But I realize the pointlessness of hoping for a certain form-factor just because I want it. That said, if the Sony is a hit, ya never know...

With regard to your second point, Apple is a trend-setter no doubt, and will always be copied.

Quote:
Originally Posted by mdriftmeyer View Post

Let Microsoft redesign Vista/Windows 7 to recognize this small visual form factor and put forth a UI designed for it.

Oh, they will. And who knows - this time they may get it right.

Quote:
Originally Posted by mdriftmeyer View Post

Don't forget that until recently the Smartphone wasn't smart and it really started with the UI.

Yeah, as someone who fought a Motorola Q on a daily basis for a couple of years, I can attest to its lack of smartness. It was like wrestling with a giant octopus in a tankful of jello.
post #96 of 133
Quote:
Originally Posted by vinea View Post

That's a shame. What chipsets and components are in the 10?

The Paulsbo chipset, GMA500 graphics. Future versions will probably use GN40.
post #97 of 133
The numbers, compiled by ChangeWave Research. Of those who plan to buy new notebooks, 30% said they will buy from Apple, compared to 22% for HP and 26% for Dell. 18% percent said they would buy a netbook, up from 14% last month, while two thirds said they wouldn't be considering a netbook and another 16% weren't sure.
post #98 of 133
I just saw this review on Neowin, regarding a review on the Lenovo S10 (all the netbooks basically use the same Atom N270/GMA 950 configuration, so it applies to other netbooks too).

http://www.neowin.net/news/main/09/0...d-s10#comments

I've C&Ped a couple paragraphs from the review, as I feel that they are relevant, and match most of the experiences I've had with my AAO.

Quote:
Everything configured and worked fine I'm used to a 2.5GHz C2D laptop, so I was concerned that the slower Atom N270 1.6GHz single-core processor would be too slow, but I found that it has enough power for what I was doing and then some. I could connect to my mail without any issues and get to my VPN connections from pretty much anywhere as well.
...
The machine is quite capable of running almost everything I threw at it (my Office apps, Sage software, Big Fish & Popcap-type games, etc). You wouldn't want to try something like World of Warcraft on it (although I suspect it'd run on the lowest settings), and I did have a few issues trying to play some HD 1080 videos on it, but I never expected it to be able to handle a 1080p source file either. If Intel would let the manufacturers put the Atom 330 dual-core 1.6 in their netbooks, I believe this would change. I installed several of my wife's favorite games on the S10 and let her play with it for a bit. When I told her I'll have to send it back, she asked me when we could order her one of her own.

Really, until most people have actually used a netbook, it's hard to judge how neat they are for many tasks, although I can also see where people could be turned off by the small trackpads and non-standard resolution (Windows XP/7 adjusts fine, but Linux has issues from my experience on certain apps and windows).
post #99 of 133
An awful lot of people are "spec whores" and can't conceive of the possibility that a non dual-core machine running at 1.6GHz could be useful. The same kind of people are found asking if Photoshop will run well on a Mac mini or a MacBook.

I've been running graphics programs for 20 years and got quite a lot of work done with 16Mhz processors. Netbooks are at least 100 times faster; more than adequate for most everything. Of course, not more than adequate for everyone.
post #100 of 133
Quote:
Originally Posted by jouster View Post

About a billion years ago, this pic made the rounds:

>>> deleted pic


That isn't what I'm looking for as right now I believe a handheld tablet is a better choice. In anyevent if the machine where to have a lid I'd rather it would open up to solar cells for green recharging.

When it comes down to it I'd love to see two devices from Apple. One would be an iPhone update with a wider screen. This might make iPhone just a bit longer but they could easily loose some of the bezel and add an inch. I could easily tolerate a marginally larger iPhone for a bigger screen.

The second item for them to deliver would be a paperback sized tablet. Like the book this would be to big to slip into the pocket everyday but yet possible when you really need it. The selling point here would be the much larger screen makin it suitable for Internet cruising, eBook reading and other portable chores.
Quote:
I don't think it was an attempted fake; just what someone wanted. Of course, we're now seeing this form factor from Sony. There's a good ongoing review of it at pocketables. It's pretty much an ideal size for me and I wish Apple would make one.

Well a tablet based device yes. The key here is pocketable. Personally I'm not all that excited about a keyboard as I'd rather have more screen real estate. That would mean a foldable screen though.
Quote:
That said, I'm still not convinced that the netbook is as big a success as some think. And low price is a critical part of it, which immediately lowers Apple's interest.

I'm not convinced of the utility of netbooks either as they simply don't work well fully portable. That is for many people a properly designed tablet would be more useful. IPhone and Touch provide solid evidence here as to what is useful stuffed in your pocket.

Your arguement about price makes no sense though. The problem is this Apple already sells computers that are low cost. They are the iPhone and Touch. For many people they are a good alternative to laptops for mobile use. Especially for accessing web and E-Mail. Plus they cut easily into the pocket.
Quote:
They have said (and continue to prove through their prices) that they are not interested in the low-margin, high volume market. Hardly a surprise given their success in selling expensive consmer products.

When have they said such as that flies in the face of what they do with one entire division. IPods are certainly high volume and their margins actually improved with the drop in Flash memory prices. Yes this is a hint that Apple ought to follow the business model used with the current Touch devices when it comes to new ultra portable devices. Yeah it takes a slight shift in user thinking but I'm finding that App store and the iPhone work really well together. Especially when for the most part you are always connected.

In a nut shell the problem with netbooks is that they try to hard to be very small notebooks and in doing so create problems for the user. That is why I like it when I hear that Apple is exploring interesting ideas related to small devices. It would be nice to see a merged netbook/tablet device that works well as a fully portable device, I just can't imagine anything right now that would work well.


Dave.
post #101 of 133
Quote:
Originally Posted by Undo Redo View Post

An awful lot of people are "spec whores" and can't conceive of the possibility that a non dual-core machine running at 1.6GHz could be useful. The same kind of people are found asking if Photoshop will run well on a Mac mini or a MacBook.

This is certainly the case, that is people imagining what others would need of find acceptable performance wise. The problem with this market niche is that multiple cores bring to these small devices advantages outside of raw clock speed. There are other performance metrics to be concerned with.
Quote:

I've been running graphics programs for 20 years and got quite a lot of work done with 16Mhz processors. Netbooks are at least 100 times faster; more than adequate for most everything. Of course, not more than adequate for everyone.

Now you make the same mistake as the spec whores in that you make a blanket statement that covers all user needs. Adequate really depends on what you are doing at the moment. For example; my iPhone does OK when Safari is running on simple web pages. However you might as well stop what you are doing if an E-Mail comes in.

So iPhone has some performance issues which brings up the question of how do you solve those issues in the next product release. You basically have two choices, one is a CPU running at a higher clock rate and the other is to implement multiple cores. It appears that at this time multiple cores are the way to go to up performance while managing power usage.

Now this is certainly a learned response as I've come to expect no noticeable performance hit on a desktop when an E-Mail comes in. It is a valid one though as huge lag on a virtual input device for a fireground app is distracting and unacceptable. From Apples standpoint there are a number of ways to meet customer demands, one of those just happens to be SMP hardware.


Dave
post #102 of 133
Quote:
Originally Posted by TenoBell View Post

Yes this is always the case that the low end has the same capability of the high end from years ago. You want to cast netbooks as though they've hit some point of usability where nothing else has changed. The reality is that everything has changed equally.





The apps you've listed all dominate their perspective markets. They have little to no viable competition that threatens their positions. I don't make common use of Adobe's creative apps, but they continue to dominate their market.

Final Cut Pro I do use fairly regularly and Apple made a lot of changes in the last update. The media management interface was completely changed, support for different codecs on the timeline, makes better use of intel acceleration instructions for real time rendering, more efficient use of HD codecs, integration with Final Cut Server. These are all big changes.

How you brush off Color shows you don't understand what Color is. Color was a $20,000 color correction suite before Apple bought and integrated it into the $1,300 Final Cut Studio.

Because they have. Face it, we've reached a plateau in the cycle of computer performance where even the most basic systems can do 99% of what most people want. Netbooks today are capable of doing virtually everything that any user can want without making the user wait.

The average user doesn't care that a Macbook can launch word .01 seconds faster than my MSI Wind can. It's a point of diminishing returns... yes, as Netbooks increase in power so will full sized notebooks like the Air. However, the user won't see any significant increase in speed for basic tasks.

Case in point: if we did a blind test with a user trying two different computers (say, a 2.8Ghz Macbook Pro versus a 1.6Ghz MSI Wind) connected to the same monitor and keyboard do you really think that there would be a noticeable performance difference doing "normal" tasks (using iTunes, surfing the web using Firefox, sending email in Mail, writing a paper in Word)? As someone who regularly uses both, I can tell you that there isn't.
post #103 of 133
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69 View Post

Now you make the same mistake as the spec whores in that you make a blanket statement that covers all user needs. Adequate really depends on what you are doing at the moment. For example; my iPhone does OK when Safari is running on simple web pages. However you might as well stop what you are doing if an E-Mail comes in.

Dave

I only suggested that 1.6Ghz is adequate for most everything. Most...meaning the majority of things people want to do with a computer. Netbooks are certainly not limited by processor speed like an iPhone.

Perhaps one can't easily watch 1080p video with a netbook. You probably wouldn't want to run Adobe Lightroom on one either. But how many people need/want to do that on a 10" screen?

This discussion has leaned toward whether or not netbooks will affect sales of faster more expensive portables and I think they will, to a very large extent. When people find that a cool, quiet, cheap portable laptop will do nearly everything they expect to do with a computer they'll quit buying the expensive ones.

The tendency lately is for portable owners to use their portable as their only computer. When this is the case, current netbooks may not be adequate, especially without a larger external display. In the next year or so as netbooks evolve with dual cores, better graphics and larger screens, more and more people will find them more than adequate as their only computer. Such machines wouldn't fit the definition of a netbook, but the netbook is what's got the ball rolling and it can't be stopped. And the 9-10" models will still be around for truly portable use.

A couple of years ago, really cheap laptops were mostly of poor quality and not much good. That has changed.

I hope Apple sees it and has plans to join in, in some fashion other than just the iPod touch and iPhone.
post #104 of 133
Quote:
Originally Posted by infinitespecter View Post

Because they have. Face it, we've reached a plateau in the cycle of computer performance where even the most basic systems can do 99% of what most people want. Netbooks today are capable of doing virtually everything that any user can want without making the user wait.

This certainly is not the case at all. Everyone of my machines makes me wait from time to time. That includes my iPhone, the Mac Book Pro and my assorted Linux machines. In fact I can't understand how you can rationally make such a point.

In any event put a processor in a netbook known to be slow and people will be waiting on it.

Quote:

The average user doesn't care that a Macbook can launch word .01 seconds faster than my MSI Wind can. It's a point of diminishing returns... yes, as Netbooks increase in power so will full sized notebooks like the Air. However, the user won't see any significant increase in speed for basic tasks.

How could the user not see the difference in performance? As a side note I work with a lot of PCs at work running XP and can tell fairly accurately what generation hardware I'm working with just by the feel of the machine. It is just foolish to say people won't see the differences in performance from one machine to the next.

Without the increases in computational performance how would one expect the manufactures to deliver more powerful system software. Even something as mundane as file browsing can benefit from increasing horse power as it allows for preview icons and threaded operations.
Quote:

Case in point: if we did a blind test with a user trying two different computers (say, a 2.8Ghz Macbook Pro versus a 1.6Ghz MSI Wind) connected to the same monitor and keyboard do you really think that there would be a noticeable performance difference doing "normal" tasks (using iTunes, surfing the web using Firefox, sending email in Mail, writing a paper in Word)? As someone who regularly uses both, I can tell you that there isn't.

You can claim whatever you want but that doesn't make it true. By the very nature of the differences in the processors you are taking a significant performance hit. You may not see it for any number of reasons but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist.


Dave
post #105 of 133
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69 View Post

This certainly is not the case at all. Everyone of my machines makes me wait from time to time. That includes my iPhone, the Mac Book Pro and my assorted Linux machines. In fact I can't understand how you can rationally make such a point.

In any event put a processor in a netbook known to be slow and people will be waiting on it.

And yet, every one of your machines spends a lot more time waiting on *you* than the other way around.
post #106 of 133
Ok lets look at how people really use computers. People are generally doing more than one task at a time, in real world use people have their desktops littered with different open documents.

A typical user will have a situation such as two open browser windows with multiple tabs, an open email document, an open word document, iTunes playing music, an open instant messaging window, while conducting a spotlight search through pictures.

These normal tasks happening at the same time take a toll on the computers systems. Will typical users be able to tell the difference between the MacBook Pro and the MSI Wind? Yes absolutely.

Quote:
Originally Posted by infinitespecter View Post

Case in point: if we did a blind test with a user trying two different computers (say, a 2.8Ghz Macbook Pro versus a 1.6Ghz MSI Wind) connected to the same monitor and keyboard do you really think that there would be a noticeable performance difference doing "normal" tasks (using iTunes, surfing the web using Firefox, sending email in Mail, writing a paper in Word)? As someone who regularly uses both, I can tell you that there isn't.
post #107 of 133
Quote:
Originally Posted by TenoBell View Post

A typical user will have a situation such as two open browser windows with multiple tabs, an open email document, an open word document, iTunes playing music, an open instant messaging window, while conducting a spotlight search through pictures.

I don't think that's typical at all. A typical user fires up their computer, checks email then surfs the web for a while, and then shuts it down. There might be two programs running at one time.

What you're describing is a power user. The percentage of users doing many tasks at once is low, IMO.
post #108 of 133
I see netbooks lasting because consumers are ok with buying a computer at 1/3 the price, with 1/3 the performance, but 3 times as often. Given the rapid advancement of computer technology, this isn't necessarily a bad decision.

I'm still using my 12" G4 PB and it's just about 5 years old, but it's finally showing it's age. While cost savings is a factor to me, convenience is more important. I don't like swapping computers and prefer to pay more for one, but I get use it longer.

Most consumers seems to be pretty fickle with their gadgets. I blame the cellphone companies.
post #109 of 133
Quote:
Originally Posted by Undo Redo View Post

I don't think that's typical at all. A typical user fires up their computer, checks email then surfs the web for a while, and then shuts it down. There might be two programs running at one time.

What you're describing is a power user. The percentage of users doing many tasks at once is low, IMO.

A power user, eh? I figured a power use would be someone who uses Photoshop or some other high performance software on a regular basis.
post #110 of 133
Perhaps our definition of typical user is different, but I see typical people who know nothing about computers using them in this fashion all the time. If the machine is capable of this level of multi-tasking people will use it at that level. If the machine can handle it, why not.

People with older or less capable machines that will have problems if they attempted this level of multi-tasking don't use it this way.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Undo Redo View Post

I don't think that's typical at all. A typical user fires up their computer, checks email then surfs the web for a while, and then shuts it down. There might be two programs running at one time.

What you're describing is a power user. The percentage of users doing many tasks at once is low, IMO.
post #111 of 133
Perhaps the people I know are atypical. Most of them are not into computers except to check their email a few times a week. Most don't manage their music collections on a computer. If they take some digital photos they have a hard time knowing how to view them. That's typical in my mind.
post #112 of 133
Quote:
Originally Posted by Undo Redo View Post

Perhaps the people I know are atypical. Most of them are not into computers except to check their email a few times a week. Most don't manage their music collections on a computer. If they take some digital photos they have a hard time knowing how to view them. That's typical in my mind.

I don't know how much of the computer market is composed of the type of users you know, but if netbooks are the next big thing, computers users you've mentioned might be a major reason why.
post #113 of 133
My grandmother has an 8 year old desktop that she perhaps turns on a few times a month. No I would not classify her as a typical computer user, she's barely a computer user at all.

I think a typical computer user is someone who actually buys new computers, someone who regularly uses a computer, and has some minimum of computer literacy.
post #114 of 133
I think maybe we're talking about extremes here. 20% use a half dozen programs at once; 20% are like the users I describe (mostly older); 58% are middle of the road; and 2% are like TenoBell's grandmother.

For the lower 80%, a low-end computer is all they need.
post #115 of 133
I don't think these numbers can apply broadly across the entire market because demographics play a part in people habits and needs. Younger people are generally more computer savvy than older people, professional class are generally more computer savvy than working class.

I live in New York, the group of people I generally work and socialize with are from the late 20's to early 40's. They are generally college educated working professionals. Few of them know much about how computers work, but they mostly are all heavy computer users.

Perhaps you live in a different place, are in a different age group, and work with different people, who have different computer habits.

The overall trend is moving towards people being more reliant on computers not less.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Undo Redo View Post

I think maybe we're talking about extremes here. 20% use a half dozen programs at once; 20% are like the users I describe (mostly older); 58% are middle of the road; and 2% are like TenoBell's grandmother.

For the lower 80%, a low-end computer is all they need.
post #116 of 133
Thread Starter 
Just to check in, I have used the netbook for UPS shipping. The keyboard sucks. I would suggest Apple use a MB keyboard with the thinnest side margins possible. No smaller because typing on the netbook SUCKS. But it serves the purpose well.
Hard-Core.
Reply
Hard-Core.
Reply
post #117 of 133
Quote:
Originally Posted by aplnub View Post

Just to check in, I have used the netbook for UPS shipping. The keyboard sucks. I would suggest Apple use a MB keyboard with the thinnest side margins possible. No smaller because typing on the netbook SUCKS. But it serves the purpose well.

Which one did you use? I like the keyboard on my Samsung. It's only slightly smaller than full-size.
post #118 of 133
Quote:
Originally Posted by TenoBell View Post

Ok lets look at how people really use computers. People are generally doing more than one task at a time, in real world use people have their desktops littered with different open documents.

A typical user will have a situation such as two open browser windows with multiple tabs, an open email document, an open word document, iTunes playing music, an open instant messaging window, while conducting a spotlight search through pictures.

These normal tasks happening at the same time take a toll on the computers systems. Will typical users be able to tell the difference between the MacBook Pro and the MSI Wind? Yes absolutely.

You're confusing RAM requirements and CPU requirements - the only thing slightly CPU-intensive in your case scenario, is searching through a photo library, but I don't think I've ever done that personally, as I'm not one to tag my photos, and I organize everything into folders, but YMMV.

Other than that, having a bunch of apps open, is more demanding on RAM than anything, but there are all still relatively trivial. For e-mail, I wonder how many people actually use a client even, which to me only make sense, if you have multiple accounts, like myself or my dad for example. My mom just logs into the Hotmail page.

As for apps, I close them if I'm not using them ATM, frees up RAM, and just don't see the need to have apps 'open' just for the sake of it, either I'm actively using them or they're in the way, hogging memory from the OS.

Yeah, a faster CPU or HD will open things 'faster', but there is a limit to how much most people will notice. Biggest complains I have with current netbooks are due to ergonomics, but the processing power just is not one of them - they aren't meant to run PS or cut video, but I doubt the MBA was either, it probably could, but better performance would be achieved by spending $200 more for a MBP.
post #119 of 133
Quote:
Originally Posted by guinness View Post

You're confusing RAM requirements and CPU requirements - the only thing slightly CPU-intensive in your case scenario, is searching through a photo library, but I don't think I've ever done that personally, as I'm not one to tag my photos, and I organize everything into folders, but YMMV.

I didn't specifically say what I'd described as CPU intensive. But at the same time its not like all of those other documents are sitting static. Any changes to anything will use the CPU.

You cannot argue with the fact that if you have too many apps open on a system that is incapable of handling it, the system will be sluggish and slow. This is partially from a shortage of memory and partially a slow CPU. Multiple open apps can freeze or crash and that primarily is because of memory.

Quote:
Other than that, having a bunch of apps open, is more demanding on RAM than anything, but there are all still relatively trivial.

Those windows are not sitting static. They are being modified and moved around, they are playing animations and sounds. They are actively doing things that all use system resources.

Quote:
As for apps, I close them if I'm not using them ATM, frees up RAM, and just don't see the need to have apps 'open' just for the sake of it, either I'm actively using them or they're in the way, hogging memory from the OS.

Most people don't know anything about allocating system resources. Most people don't care about those issues. If their system can run normally with multiple apps open at once, they will use it that way.

Quote:
Yeah, a faster CPU or HD will open things 'faster', but there is a limit to how much most people will notice.

If you have to constantly wait a few seconds for a window or document to pop open, you notice.
post #120 of 133
Quote:
Originally Posted by Undo Redo View Post

Which one did you use? I like the keyboard on my Samsung. It's only slightly smaller than full-size.

The NC10?

I've been trying to decide on one of those since before xmas, I can't quite justify it because its either XP or some linux variant (likely Ubuntu) but to be honest the thing that would make me buy one in a flash would be if I could get it with OSX already running.
I've looked into hacking a netbook, and it "seems" straight forward enough, except for the long list of things that DON'T work without fiddling.

Ethernet I can live without, but, as little as it might be SOUND is important, as are 100% always working USB ports!! and from what I've read, sometimes it seems to be a wing and a prayer. which just isn't quite worth the hassle.

have you hacked yours to run OSX? if so whats it like to live with day to day?

--

the white MacBook here in the UK is £700 while the 10" netbooks are all around £300 (say £400 with a copy of leopard)
I would willingly go £500 for an Apple netbook, BUT.... I would expect more than the 1024x600 resolution
if they charged £600 then one would have to weigh up what and extra £100 and 3" of desktop real estate gets you.

£500 IMO is the top limit of a possible netbook from Apple. this is from a customer point of view, as I agree with most of the stuff about how it would effect Apple bottom line, so likely won't happen.

BUT, this is a 3 Mac (1 iPhone) house and could be a 4th, so they are missing out IMO. my plans are to get an iMac once it goes quad, because of the form factor/power ratio, I feel one should use the right tools for the right job, the minis will be doing server duty, and a netbook will be for writing/surfing and for dumping digital photos to when on trips etc. I don't expect a netbook to replace a laptop, just be a smaller more convenient travelling machine.
I don't see how an anti M$ stance can be seen as a bad thing on an Apple forum I really can't!

nagromme - According to Amazon: "SpongBob Typing Tutor" is outselling Windows
Reply
I don't see how an anti M$ stance can be seen as a bad thing on an Apple forum I really can't!

nagromme - According to Amazon: "SpongBob Typing Tutor" is outselling Windows
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Future Apple Hardware
AppleInsider › Forums › Mac Hardware › Future Apple Hardware › Netbook sales are for real: I hate to stir it.