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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
My bet would be on Apple introducing something along the lines of the current iPod Touch, but with maybe a larger screen. Say around 6" to 8". It would also likely have a camera and a video camera, more disk space of at least 64GB. Since it would be somewhat crippled compared to the full version of OS X running on Macbooks, it would not directly compete or cannibalize sales from the Macbook. You would be able to surf, check email, chat, etc.. but not run full fledged programs like Adobe CS. If they could price it around $499 to compete with Netbooks they would sell a ton.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Comments
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
For the lower 80%, a low-end computer is all they need.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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!!
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.