Knowing The Difference Between Netbook and Notebook

[HardOCP News]

There isn’t an [H] reader out there that doesn’t realize that netbooks and notebooks are two different things. Maybe you didn’t know at first but you did your homework and researched your purchase ahead of time and learned what you needed to know. So why can't normal people do this?

From the beginning, these vendors must emphasize that netbooks are not true notebooks. While netbooks will take you onto the Internet, they won't replace notebook computers, since they lack the processing power to create media and handle advanced graphics and video—and they will not allow you to multitask. Netbooks are low-cost and highly portable, but they're designed for one task at a time.

 

[Zoogle]

The "normal" person (are [H] readers abnormal?) is a strange creature. It hears some hype but doesn't research further. it is sometimes aided by misinformed salespeople or may refuse advice believing that it knows everything. It is sometimes found congregating in Staples trying to find the EASY button.

I look forward to the day when netbooks either become powerful enough or notebooks become svelte, power saving, and cheap enough that there will no longer be any distinction between the two.

 

[zshift]

[H]ere is what i've learned from being a salesperson:

normal people don't give a damn about what it actually does. If they like it, they think, "[H]ey! that's cool, lemme get it!" then they return it because it didn't meet their expectations.

I've also seen something much worse than the confusion between notebooks and netbooks:
most people i speak with don't know the difference between microsoft office and microsoft windows. A LOT of people mix these up. If i tell a customer that the computer only has a 60 day trial of office, they start asking how much it costs to buy windows after those 60 days. ive even had a customer ask "...how much does microsoft office windows 2000 xp cost nowadays...."

Trust me, unless its all over TV/myspace, the normal person has almost no clue that it exists until they see it at a brick and mortar.

 

[precog13]

I don't own an Atom-powered netbook, but I found it odd that the article states you cannot multitask with one. Sure, I get that you can't edit video or probably run photoshop along side other programs (if at all), but If you were running WinXP, MS Word, Firefox, and a music player, I can't imagine the performance being unbearable. As I am in the market for a portable device like a netbook, do I have unreasonable expectations regarding acceptable performance given the application load described above? RAM might be an issue, but almost all WinXP netbooks I've seen come with 1GB which I would think was sufficient.

 

[TheCAD]

How effing hard is it?
We made this extremely easy for the general public. They are called netbooks for crying out loud.

and of course the manufacturers want everyone to know that yes you need a desktop, a notebook, AND a netbook.

 

[JonGerow]

I don't get the article either. It's Asus's fault that people couldn't figure out how to make printers, cameras, etc work with Linux?

Ok... the "average user" is intimidated by Linux, but I personally don't feel that putting XP on these machines is the answer. After a friend saw my Eee PC 900 w/ Xandros, he ran out and bought a 901 w/ XP. The Atom processor is noticebly slower when doing raw CPU intensive processes and XP is a resource hog. The experience was the biggest disaster ever recorded in this individuals' computer using life.

I don't own an Atom-powered netbook, but I found it odd that the article states you cannot multitask with one. Sure, I get that you can't edit video or probably run photoshop along side other programs (if at all), but If you were running WinXP, MS Word, Firefox, and a music player, I can't imagine the performance being unbearable. As I am in the market for a portable device like a netbook, do I have unreasonable expectations regarding acceptable performance given the application load described above? RAM might be an issue, but almost all WinXP netbooks I've seen come with 1GB which I would think was sufficient.

Trust me. You CAN'T multi-task on the Atom based XP netbook. But on my 900, the first thing I do when I fire it up is start Skype, Pidgin (a messenger client), Firefox and Thunderbird and it all starts up in less time than my desktop computer. I easily switch between apps and if I need to plug in my camera and D/L images, it has no problem finding the camera. I can pull images into Gimp and do some editing.... really.... I think the "problem" here is the consumer. And no, I'm not a Linux zealot. My "netbook" is currently my only Linux based PC.

 

[SockMan!]

I'm not surprised that some people can't tell the difference aside from size and price - which are two of the very few universally understood differentiators between any two objects. Netbooks are designed in a way that they look like mini-laptops, so naturally anyone unfamiliar with computers or consumer electronics will only see them as being smaller and cheaper laptops.

 

[precog13]

Trust me. You CAN'T multi-task on the Atom based XP netbook. But on my 900, the first thing I do when I fire it up is start Skype, Pidgin (a messenger client), Firefox and Thunderbird and it all starts up in less time than my desktop computer. I easily switch between apps and if I need to plug in my camera and D/L images, it has no problem finding the camera. I can pull images into Gimp and do some editing.... really.... I think the "problem" here is the consumer.

I dunno. That sounds like multi-tasking to me. Maybe my definition is off, but I've always thought of multi-tasking as having several open applications that you can easily switch between on the fly. Were you saying that multitasking is possible, just not on WinXP?

 

[JonGerow]

I dunno. That sounds like multi-tasking to me. Maybe my definition is off, but I've always thought of multi-tasking as having several open applications that you can easily switch between on the fly. Were you saying that multitasking is possible, just not on WinXP?

That is what I was saying.

my Eee PC 900 w/ Xandros

You CAN'T multi-task on the Atom based XP netbook. But on my 900

Talking about two different netbooks with two different OS's.

 

[bbf]

From the beginning, these vendors must emphasize that netbooks are not true notebooks. While netbooks will take you onto the Internet, they won't replace notebook computers, since they lack the processing power to create media and handle advanced graphics and video—and they will not allow you to multitask. Netbooks are low-cost and highly portable, but they're designed for one task at a time.

Can't multitask eh? Well, for every-day operations, i.e. web browsing, youtube viewing and word processing, my Atom based netbook with XP and 1GB of RAM is every bit as fast as my 3 year old Pentium-M 1.6 GHz laptop and not appreciably slower (as in I do notice some slow down, but not enough that I really care) than my 1.5 year old T7200 dual core 2.0 GHz laptop running Vista with 2GB of memory. The netbook I have has the same amount of RAM and 3 times the hard disk storage as my older laptop.

Granted if I want to transcode an MPEG2 video into MPEG4, the netbook will take FOREVER... but even on the T7200 based laptop it still isn't close to being real time. How often do I transcode videos... pretty much never.

Can't handle advanced graphics? The 945 derived chipset that is in Atom based netbooks has the same graphics capabilities as the intel integrated video in most full-sized laptops sold to average consumers.

The author doesn't know what the hell he's talking about. Just because it's single core doesn't mean it "can't multitask". I guess according to him, until dual-core processors came out, we were all not really multitasking on our PC's. The difference between a low end laptop and a netbook is actually not that much. But compared to a $1000+ laptop IMO the netbook would fail about as bad as a low end laptop would.

 

[markt435]

From the beginning, these vendors must emphasize that netbooks are not true notebooks. While netbooks will take you onto the Internet, they won't replace notebook computers, since they lack the processing power to create media and handle advanced graphics and video—and they will not allow you to multitask. Netbooks are low-cost and highly portable, but they're designed for one task at a time.

um bullshit? fucking use one before you "explain the difference". where do they get these hacks?

 

[horseflesh]

I never heard the word "netbook" until I saw it on this site. And I won't be using it, instead I will stick to this way of describing all sorts laptop computers:

Nice laptop
Cheap laptop

Or maybe I will start spleencasting from my blog into the cloud from my netbook. *barf*

 

[dochmbi]

Yes netbooks are currently processing power limited, but assuming normal exponential growth of processing power per dollar applies to netbooks as well, that will change in a few years.

 

[Martyr]

netbook = fits in her purse

notebook = doesnt

 

[ssratt]

Having seen them in "the world" (BB) I see where they fit in as a small temp system if you are on a 3rd or need something to carry around site to site on a daily/weekly need (especially for testing)
Light as all get out "decent" cpu (what do you really need it for?) 6cell "all day" battery

The 8.9 are too small as a reader for magazines (10-12") but DO look real nice as a "normal" book reeader

 

[Michael Daly]

Were you saying that multitasking is possible, just not on WinXP?

That is what I was saying.

People have very short memories. It wasn't that long ago that you could multitask lots of apps on a PIII with 512MB RAM using XP. Now all of a sudden, it's become impossible.

It's amazing how a more powerful processor (the Atom) makes it impossible to multitask with a multitasking OS!

In reality, the only problem these things are likely to have is they'll be a tad slow switching between lots of apps due to their limited memory (assuming 512MB) - up that to 2GB and they'll run lots of simple apps just fine - including MS Office. Too bad they seem to only want to sell them with 1/2 to 1 GB.

 

[burnin8r]

there is no cure for stupid

 

[JonGerow]

It's amazing how a more powerful processor (the Atom) makes it impossible to multitask with a multitasking OS!

I refuse to acknowledge the Atom as a "more powerful" CPU simply because it operates a higher frequency. It's a CPU made for net appliances and not PC's. Although there are some benchmarks that show the Atom as faster than a Celeron 900 MHz, there are just as many that show it as slow or slower, especially when doing heavy math. I've used both the Atom and Celeron and my preference is the Celeron. I've used both Linux and XP and on a slower CPU Linux is my preference. Is multi-tasking truly "impossible"? No. But when you're used to more power or an OS that operates more efficiently, it's is "seemingly impossible" by comparison. So by chosing to compare running XP and multiple apps on "normal" and absolutely capable hardware from the past three years to multi-tasking on a netbook with XP... it might as well be "impossible".

 

[Michael Daly]

So by chosing to compare running XP and multiple apps on "normal" and absolutely capable hardware from the past three years to multi-tasking on a netbook with XP... it might as well be "impossible".

You do have a short memory. I'm not talking about the last three years. I'm talking about the time since XP was introduced in 2001. You could comfortably multitask on Win2000 before that, too.

I had a server running a PIII/866 with 512MB with XP Pro running a couple of web sites, an e-mail server and used it for all my desktop needs for years without problem. A netbook for a single user would not experience that kind of load and would easily handle user tasks with real multitasking with just an Atom.

There's more to life than computer games and computers today have more than enough power to handle non-gaming tasks.

 

[markt435]

doesn't multitask mean to do more than one thing at a time? there is no other definition of it even though there are different degrees of multitasking (running a server in the background/running virtualization with one or two open). some people here seem to act like the Atom explodes when you open something else other than a browser or your email program. i can browse a flash heavy site and encode mp3s just fine thanks. it may not be very fast but it still gets the job done. when i have the money i'll return to gaming, dual-cores, large screens, etc.

 

[ashmedai]

There isn’t an [H] reader out there that doesn’t realize that netbooks and notebooks are two different things.

Maybe the marketecture goes right over my head, but it strikes me much like when we had companies marketing computers under 15 different names for "lightweight portable battery-powered computer" all over again. So you could say there's at least one [H] reader that doesn't "know"...okay, I know what they mean, I just think it's silly.

And as to multitasking...no, it's not going to keep up with my desktop. It's not rocking a 4+ GHz multicore CPU, 8GB of RAM, and a pair of high end GPUs. But it's still ridiculously powerful compared to the stuff I used in the 80s...it'll multitask if I darn well tell it to multitask, as long as I keep its limits in mind and don't bog it down unreasonably.

 

[Wumpus]

What happens when someone lets the "consumer" hear about remote desktop? Suddenly, the full power of a dirt cheap (and expandable) desktop is suddenly available from the "netbook".

I'm dreaming again. A "normal consumer" will never use anything that can't be set up in one click. If they've spawned geeks, hopefully they can figure out a little better that what the salesman says "can't be done without uber-expensive gear here" is exactly what they've been doing for years. I know my father wouldn't figure it out.