Netbooks Are Losing Steam?

[jkirk]

Regarding Amiga Forever, my copy of amiga forever runs on every wintel setup I have. So in the light of that, I guess any amd/intel/ms news would be equally relevant here then.

did you forget that amigaforever can be installed (with a minimal linux distro) as the primary os? also aros is a primary os too. as such in this context the discussion of netbooks are hw discussion. this is not an os discussion.

If I want Mac news I will go to the relevant places, if I want MS news, well you know what I mean right?

well see above this is a hardware discussion. if you wanna talk software go to those places.

[DamageX]

I'm not much of a gamer, but I did a couple of months of WoW on a laptop with an Intel 945 chipset back in 2006 or so, and it ran nice and smooth with the quality settings turned up pretty high.  I'm sure games are more hardware intensive than they were then, but I imagine integrated graphics are more powerful as well.  Ideal? Probably not.  Usable? Most likely.

I heard that Intel is just now coming out with a chipset that works with Atom so they can finally ditch the 945. The problem with the 945 and Intel graphics in general is the very low polygon counts. The fastest version of the 945 can't handle as many triangles as a GeForce 2 (decade-old hardware). So it isn't just a matter of having to turn down the detail level or use a lower resolution, games with complex models will have low framerates at any resolution, even games that are now pretty old. Intel offered discounts to manufacturers who bought their CPUs if they bought their crappy graphics as well. The proliferation of crappy graphics reduced the number of choices available on the market for those of us who would prefer to have something that performs at least as well as a mid-range desktop card from several years ago. It is something I find frustrating.

[StormLord]

just to comment to original post....

I have an Powerbook 12 at 1.5Ghz with 1.25GB RAM and 320GB HD that covers my needs for portability.
but its not faster than an average netbook with real Hard Disk. At most tasks my PB is about the same speed or just a bit faster than a single core atom, but when it comes to flash videos, oh well....
the difference in favor of netbooks are magnitudes!!!
I can't explain why, maybe flash implementation on PPCs are sh!t, maybe the bus of the G4 is strangling, but I can view without skipping only 360p youtube videos, 480p is BARELY watchable and 720p is worst than a slideshow...

as it comes to the format, my PB 12 is about 25% larger than a netbook, about 2x heavier, BUT 4:3 format with 768 pixels vertical resolution is the smallest but still comfort format ever existed. it just fits a full size keyboard!!! the golden line between usability and small factor.

I really can't understand why the display vendors abandoned this format... we could have 1280x1024 and have the same viewing factor as the 1024x600 at 10", and I'm sure laptop vendors with new electronic technology will had the the weight being only 25% more than a netbook.

[ElPolloDiabl]

@above
The latest version of flash for Mac got graphics processor acceleration. They couldn't do this previously because Apple wouldn't let them at the APIs.

[Arkhan]

This site really should just get around to changing its name to mac.org.

The amount of macsturbation threads really need to stop.

macsturbation.

That is the best word ive heard in awhile.

anyway, my blunt 2 cents: netbooks are dumb as hell.

I'm glad the little netbook fad is dying in favor of similarly priced but way better laptops.  seeing people gingerly poking at the keys of one on a screen the size of a slice of bread makes me cringe.  You're better off busting out a nintendo DS or a PSP man.

alot of people use them at my school.  They most often carry them in a giant bag with other stuff.   If you can carry that giant ass bag around, you can carry a real laptop around.

man.

I mean I guess they're neat to putter around the internet on, take notes, or look cute while computing on....ESPECIALLY if you have a pink netbook....which is the only kind I'd ever consider. (serious!)

but when you have Joe Linux pulling out his eee PC and rubbing his pole as he talks about how he put Linux on it and it's so great to do school work on it......thats where the line is crossed.

Doing programming work on a computer that tiny is for the effin' birds.  Trying to pretend your cheap netbook is a powerhouse and marvel of modern technology makes you look stupid and annoying at the same time.

Having all that crap open on a tiny screen is worse than doing work on a 13" CRT in 800x600.

[whabang]

Netbooks are losing sales because the market is slowly getting filled.

There is limited use for a small system which is incompatible with applications requiring 800x600 displays, decent 3d chips, or *gasp* performance.

The best selling products the last few years has been 13" to 16" notebooks with low-end discrete graphics chips (non Intel/Via) like the Geforce 8400M and 9600M. Those are actively becoming obsolete, and users are looking to replace them.

Netbooks, on the other hand, are still sold with 1.6 GHz Atoms, and five year-old 945 chipsets. While it is amazing that Intel has been marketing the same product for five years, even though it's video part was obsolete at release, it simply does not give any reason for upgrading.

Give me a netbook with good battery life, a decent i7 CPU, a video chip that can play modern video games at 1680x1050 resolution, AND a good looking docking station, then I will get one.

[paolone]

1. Netbooks are losing sales because the market is slowly getting filled.

2. Give me a netbook with good battery life, a decent i7 CPU, a video chip that can play modern video games at 1680x1050 resolution, AND a good looking docking station, then I will get one.

1. Finally, a glimpse of smartness in this thread. Netbooks sales are slowing down due to the simple fact that everyone who needed one, just bought it. The others are buying used ones from people that thought they were buying a real notebook, instead of a high-specified low-power, low-performance product.

2. That wouldn't be a netbook.

I simply can't understand why someone still compare netbooks to regular computers or even to iPhones. They are different objects and they must do different duties. There's no need to buy a pricey hi-end laptop to send an email or to browse the web, so for these simple tasks a netbook is OK. But there is also absolutely no motivation to buy a netbook if you want to run Premiere, Photoshop, inDesign, Autocad or whatever hi-performance application. The only operating system that really fits well on that platform is - incredible, eh? - AROS.

[tone007]

Photoshop runs fine on my netbooks.  About the only thing I wouldn't want to try is video editing.

[paolone]

Photoshop runs fine on my netbooks.  About the only thing I wouldn't want to try is video editing.

Yep. Version 6.1 still runs fine. I never tried newer ones though (lack of license...). OpenOffice is still good on netbooks, too. But MPlayer and Janus-UAE are better ;-)

[KThunder]

Netbooks are losing sales because the market is slowly getting filled.

There is limited use for a small system which is incompatible with applications requiring 800x600 displays, decent 3d chips, or *gasp* performance.

The best selling products the last few years has been 13" to 16" notebooks with low-end discrete graphics chips (non Intel/Via) like the Geforce 8400M and 9600M. Those are actively becoming obsolete, and users are looking to replace them.

Netbooks, on the other hand, are still sold with 1.6 GHz Atoms, and five year-old 945 chipsets. While it is amazing that Intel has been marketing the same product for five years, even though it's video part was obsolete at release, it simply does not give any reason for upgrading.

Give me a netbook with good battery life, a decent i7 CPU, a video chip that can play modern video games at 1680x1050 resolution, AND a good looking docking station, then I will get one.

Like I said netbooks are a niche not everyone needs or wants one. As for campatibility I have found very very little that won't run on my compaq mini. and it has a 1024 by 600 display by the way.
The main problem with this chipset and modern games is shaders, not polygon pushing power. the 945 does not have shaders so any game that needs wont work.
That said I use my netbook literally every day. I'll probably kill it from overuse if anything.


Making fun of a netbook for its lack of gaming ablity is kinda like making fun of an xbox 360 for its poor office suite benchmark scores, or a desktop machine for its poor portability. I do run lots of emulation and open source games on mine though.

[whabang]

@KThunder

I think you misunderstood me. I was not making fun of netbooks; I was merely pointing out why sales are going down, which was the topic the last time I checked.

Unfortunately, many netbooks are sold with 1024*576 displays, giving problems with a lot of applications that refuse to run on lower resolutions than 1024*768 or 800*600.

@paolone

Why not? Is there some kind of limit on how powerful a computer may be before it can no longer be called a netbook?
The main features of a netbook is portability, battery life, and internet connectivity. Any computer sold for less than 300 USD, and being designed with that in mind could be classified as a netbook.

[KThunder]

my comment on making fun wasn't aimed at you. there are several posts here that talk about performance etc. that are totally missing the point of netbooks it was aimed at them.

I can't comment on all netbooks but mine has run everything I've thrown at it. some of the older netbooks may have problems but mine is pretty average. newer ones have even better displays, dual core cpu's, and more memory.

some internet discussions make very little sense (not saying anything about you, your comments have been pretty good) like when people sit around discussing some product none of them actually own or have any direct experience with.

[KThunder]

...still sold with 1.6 GHz Atoms, and five year-old 945 chipsets. While it is amazing that Intel has been marketing the same product for five years, even though it's video part was obsolete at release...

you did write this though, Intel has not been marketing the 945 for 5 years. It is still available but they have much newer chipsets the newest GMA chipsets have shaders, much faster clocks etc. If intel really marketed video chips and developed them as much as they could, with their chip fabrication capabilities nvidia and ati would have a tough time competing.

they have upgraded significantly from the 945/950 I ran some benches in our office computers with one of the newer chipsets and they really weren't too bad.

http://www.intel.com/support/graphics/sb/cs-014257.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intel_GMA

[tone007]

Why not? Is there some kind of limit on how powerful a computer may be before it can no longer be called a netbook?
The main features of a netbook is portability, battery life, and internet connectivity. Any computer sold for less than 300 USD, and being designed with that in mind could be classified as a netbook.

I'm betting if you put an i7 in a netbook, you'd lose the battery life aspect, and if you put a bigger battery in, you'd need a bigger case, so you'd lose the portability aspect.  Sounds kind of like a laptop to me.

[DamageX]

If intel really marketed video chips and developed them as much as they could, with their chip fabrication capabilities nvidia and ati would have a tough time competing.

Riiiiight... I'll believe that when I see it.

there are several posts here that talk about performance etc. that are totally missing the point of netbooks it was aimed at them.

Just because netbooks are not focused on performance doesn't mean we can't talk about their (lack of) performance in comparison with other products.

The main problem with this chipset and modern games is shaders, not polygon pushing power. the 945 does not have shaders so any game that needs wont work.

You don't know what you're talking about. For all it's worth, GMA950 "supports" shader model 3. The question is not why it can't run modern games, the question is why it can't even run older games at a playable speed, and the answer which I already pointed out is polygon count. GMA950: 10Mtriangles at best, GeForce 2 MX: 17Mtriangles.

[KThunder]

Riiiiight... I'll believe that when I see it.

Just because netbooks are not focused on performance doesn't mean we can't talk about their (lack of) performance in comparison with other products.

You don't know what you're talking about. For all it's worth, GMA950 "supports" shader model 3. The question is not why it can't run modern games, the question is why it can't even run older games at a playable speed, and the answer which I already pointed out is polygon count. GMA950: 10Mtriangles at best, GeForce 2 MX: 17Mtriangles.

Intel has far more and better chip fabrication facilities than nvidia, ati, and matrox combined. their focus is on cpu's, chipsets, and then video chips, they don't seem to care about performance video chips. just because they don't care doesn't mean they can't. they provide basic video.

You can compare the performance with whatever you want, it doesn't mean it will make any sense. netbooks aren't very good supercomputers, or servers, or smartphones either.

According to the links I provided above the 950 has shader 2.0 support but no hardware t&l so most directx shader stuff will not use shaders. vista aero etc. will but that isnt game support.
I do know what I am talking about, I am sitting here typing on a system with a 945 chipset, I have run halo, quake III, and many other games on it including open source games with shader support which i had to turn off. all these games ran at playable speeds, with hardly any framerate issues. My athlon64 system with geforce 8 series video is much better and can run any shader stuff, but this is fine for light gaming.

do you have a 950 or 945 chipset system? have you actually run games on one? do you know what you are talking about?