[BGG001]

I never said carry an extra battery, and honestly, I don't think netbooks are all that useful, and quite frankly, netbooks are going to reform into laptops with the current trend of getting them with as high of specs as possible.

The past is the past, technology changes...fast. Revel in your memories, but right now the norm is 4GB and dual cores, not to say nothing is wrong with 2GB and the Atom processor mind you; for those who can get their stuff done on it, so be it, but I personally cannot.

Netbooks: Useless to me.

Ebook readers: Useful, as you say, but needs improvement

PDA/Smartphones: Convenience only

Laptop: Much more useful.

I generally work with programs like Photoshop to Premiere Pro, unless those magically work better on the Atom chip over the Core 2 Duo or Quad in a laptop, I have no use for a netbook. Also, if I have a laptop, why should I also have a netbook which will send out emails, edit documents, if I already have a laptop that can do it for me? No, not everyone needs to use intensive programs, but you're simply going out on limb and saying everyone needs a netbook before a laptop. Also, carrying 6 pounds in a 16-inch form factor isn't that hard to do, and I'm not all that strong.

[Evildave]

Nope, I'm saying typical people who travel frequently are better served by something with a smaller, lighter form factor than a big brick of a notebook.

'Replaceable batteries' came up in this conversation - repeatedly. I was responding to several points, not you.

I'm sure some people 'absolutely need' a huge 'sort-of-portable' computer, too. NOT MOST.

Even on a dual hard drive notebook machine, Premiere CS4 doesn't work so good. I doubt you get much editing done on an airplane or other vehicle, anyway. Especially with Photoshop, every little bump and jostle will be a problem, and you don't have room to drive the mouse. What a hideous nightmare it would be trying to do something in Photoshop with a track pad. You're only going to do editing when you get to the office or hotel room or wherever it is you'll be doing that work. Then drag out your 'real' mouse and/or a Wacom tablet.

Photoshop (and the GIMP) aren't all that power hungry, to be honest. Sure, PS is a fat, bloated pig, but it doesn't need much RAM/CPU to run most of the time unless you're editing 'ridiculous' resolution and/or very large images. Any netbook with 1GB could run it. Really, any netbook with a mechanical hard disk could run an older version of Premiere, before they kept shoveling features at it.

And as for 'yesteryear', all I'm getting at is that 'performance' is a sliding scale. In a few years when every ultra-portable has a 16 core 12GHz CPU, 64GB of RAM, 2TB SSD, weighs two ounces and runs all week on a charge, people will still go on about how they don't have 256 cores, a terabyte of RAM, two hundred petabytes of storage space and a 3D holographic display like their 'desktop replacement' notebook does, that still weighs fourteen pounds and only runs for 40 minutes without being plugged into a 220 volt three phase circuit next to their electric car, and puts out enough heat to boil an elephant in molten lead when it's running.

In other words, there will always be an 'ultra-portable' class of machines, and there will always be people who sniff in the air at the very notion that something lightweight, inexpensive and above all... 'convenient' could ever be 'useful'.

The netbooks won't evolve into 'just notebooks', either. PDAs, readers and netbooks will converge somehow. Either the PDA/tablet usability issues with data entry will be solved (and the netbooks - AND most notebooks - will be consumed/replaced by this category), or display technology will make another small leap and change the game (such as a roll-up, touch (or gesture) sensitive OLED display in a scroll-like form-factor), or the netbooks will hold their own and get more full-time wireless '4G' or whatever features beaten into them from PDAs. Slap in 3G/4G, VOIP and stuff a bluetooth headset into a charge adapter nook in the same computer and it's a 'cellular phone' in a netbook form factor - with full-time internet and whatever else. Maybe voice recognition will simply cease to suck @$$.

The form factors are evolving. Where they'll end up is anyone's guess. Maybe lightweight 3D glasses/headphones and eye/hand tracking. You thought people looked dorky talking to themselves with something blue and blinky on their ear? Just wait until they're wearing bug-eye goggles, talking on the phone and groping at space while their heads jerk about like Stevie Wonder. It's the future! Most people won't be so introspective as to remember what it was like to just squint at a little display and peck on some mechanical chicklet keys.

[aim2free]

Wow, that means I'm rare then, really rare :-)

I always carry two 133 Wh extra batteries. I can sustain about 20 hours without power connection for my Lenovo X61T, before that I had two different Toshiba Portege M200, which was somewhat more power hungry. As soon as I'm reaching a car or a mains outlet I can charge the batteries. I never turn off the computer (apart from start/landing when I let it hibernate). I usually have an uptime around 30 days in average, (running Linux). The only reason the computer has turned off last year has been overheating, as it's Fieldmate always-on case seems not to be optimised for this computer as the corresponding case for the Toshiba was.

Anyway, the whole idea of travelling is either to work or relax. When I'm working I need my computer (programming, writing).
When I'm relaxing I need my computer (reading news, blogging, surfing, commenting (like now) and looking up things on the web.

However, I can admit that using the computer on an airplane is quite uncomfortable. OK, if flying first class that would be quite a different issue...

I use the computer in buses, subways, trains, in the car when my spouse is driving (i.e. almost always :-). Thanks to my special case I can even use it standing, like on the subway. Of course the new smartphones (I have an Android G1) can be utilized as a computer replacement in some situations, like a wikipedia lookup, looking for the next train, navigating through google maps etc, but the smarthpones are far far away from being enough powerful to replace a real computer, despite running Linux. I think what needs to improve is mainly the interaction part, like high resolution display glasses, and the navigation keyboard issue. I imagine that a virtual keyboard with tactile feedback (needs a rather simple axon interface I guess) would be a great thing.

[kevinlovegrove]

You can now preorder Windows 7 and get a 50% discount.

I've given up trying to burn 7260 without getting installation errors, so I'll wait until the release before I give it a try.

I'm sure it will be just fine on my office PCs - or rather most of them.

I'll just keep it away from my Netbook until I have one with a fusion-powered battery and the spec described earlier :)

Keep well.

[rasmasyean]

I can just see you one day choosing to stand behind the guy in the white shirt in the subway projecting your DLP phone onto his back. LOL

[rgreen4]

Gentlemen: This topic is not about travel and the weight of a netbook vs notebook, nor is is about whether one should carry one, two or three batteries. It is about the viability of installing Windows 7 on low powered computers, either the old pre-P4 processors or Atom processors.
Now lets get back on topic.
Further off topic replies will either be moved or removed. The unrelated YouTube Video is now in General Talk.

[quackadilly]

"It is about the
viability of installing Windows 7 on low powered computers, either the
old pre-P4 processors or Atom processors."


I do think W7 is a viable solution for low powered computers. Netbooks are not the only low powered machines out there so battery life is not the only determining factor. The fact that W7 CAN run on these really really low powered machines is amazing.

All I've heard on this site for a couple months now is "windows is so bloated", "windows is so slow"..... well now it's not so slow. My almost 3 year old laptop that cost me $550 back then runs it fine. It's not a great laptop, I'll admit that. I got it because it was cheap and portable. But it runs without any issues.



Netbooks are just really cheap notebooks. I'm sure MS can find a way to make W7 even more suitable for netbooks.....they already have how many versions of W7?What's 1 more to them?

[kevinlovegrove]

"....they already have how many versions of W7?What's 1 more to them?"


Er, no they don't. They have one version from which they selectively cripple various components and features so that they can put it in different packaging and charge a different price.Or they have things like Aero which are dependent on the presence of appropriate hardware, but which are nonetheless still in the OS.


Cast your mind back to the 486SX :)


However, the structural redesign they've done in Windows 7 may allow them to be more flexible in producing specialised releases in the future. Fingers crossed!

[quackadilly]

True true.....they are all essentially the same thing, just different features enabled and disabled.



It would be nice if they could simplify it down to maybe 2 versions.... like home and business.

[kevinlovegrove]

Well finally Microsoft might wake up and realise they're missing the Netbook boat.

Google have now announced they are going to develop a PC OS which will be designed specifically for Netbooks. It will be based on Google Chrome (which to my mind has already proved itself an adequate browser).

It remains to be seen if they will go full on and add a mail client, messaging, media players, etc., but knowing Google I'm sure they will do it properly.

I'm afraid that in the areas Google covers, Microsoft is often playing catchup (look how long it took them to ditch their woeful search engine and develop the more-user friendly Bing).

So kudos to Google, and perhaps this will do what I've pleaded for on this particular subject from Microsoft, which is to finally develop a decent Windows-compatible operating system for Netbooks.

And to those of you that seem to think this is an area that isn't important enough to merit attention - watch the chuff that comes out of Microsoft about how good Windows 7 will run on them - and watch how quickly they come up with an answer. My guess is they have already put a team together to plan Windows 7 Millenium edition for Netbooks.

Thank you Google for putting a foot up the part of Microsoft that needs kicking. And good luck with your own venture, I'll be keeping a watchful eye on it.

[WinTard]

What's a netbook vs a notebook? The price? Netbooks shouldn't exceed $200 IMHO... That precludes any commercial OS? We've already got plenty of free OS. The point is people want Windows, even in netbooks. I usually like what Google does, but as far as OS, big deal. Yet Another Free OS...

I mean I like Chrome. But still use IE and FF more...

[kevinlovegrove]

"What's a netbook vs a notebook? The price? Netbooks shouldn't exceed $200"


Netbooks are extremely light, have mostly a long battery life, and at least in my case are my preferred machine for travelling. I watch movies on planes, surf the net, check my email and perhaps one or two other specialist apps (remote control for example).


My netbook actually cost more than a cheap notebook, as I wanted extra memory and a fast SSD drive to improve battery life.


"That precludes any commercial OS?"


If you re-read this thread you'll find that Windows 7 (the current RC preview in Ultimate form) does not perform particularly well on Netbooks, and there were those of us asking why Microsoft couldn't do a better job of trimming the low-use fat off Windows 7 so that it does.


The fact that Google have decided to develop an OS specifically for Netbooks will undoubtedly rock Microsoft's boat. And that's a good thing.


As for the browser debate, I think that's a separate issue (I hardly ever use IE in favour of Firefox and Opera Mini).


But I think Chrome is a work in progress, and if they are going to build an OS around it that's Browser centric, that's a separate issue too. It's something Microsoft have been threatening to do for years.


When a company like Google decide to throw resources at something, I think it would be naive to assume that it's just " yet another Free OS", much as I don't assume that Intel passed Moblin into the Open Source arena because it's "yet another free OS".

[DONALDXXX]

YOU NEED 17 HOURS TO INSTALL AND 17 MINUTES TO LOAD??? on a pentium 2?
A PENTIUM 1 WILL LOAD AND INSTALL XP IN ABOUT THE SAME TIME AS A PENTIUM 3 OR 4.
IS 7 THAT BLOATED??????

[BGG001]

DONALDXXX said:

YOU NEED 17 HOURS TO INSTALL AND 17 MINUTES TO LOAD??? on a pentium 2?

A PENTIUM 1 WILL LOAD AND INSTALL XP IN ABOUT THE SAME TIME AS A PENTIUM 3 OR 4.

IS 7 THAT BLOATED??????

You really need to use caps?

Do the math here.
XP was built about when Pentium 4 came out and was the bad boy on the block running at 1.5-1.9GHz and RAM was at around 128MB.
Windows 7 is built during a time where Intel Core 2 Quad and Intel Core i7s are being introduced, producing up to 3.2GHz over 4 cores (w/ hyperthreading), not to mention overclocking, meanwhile DDR3 triple channel is becoming standard, pushing default RAM to 6GB.

Do you seriously believe Windows 7 is supposed to be run on a Pentium II?
Message was edited by: smax013 - no personal attacks please.

[DONALDXXX]

MY, MY WHAT A TEMPER! AND NOT TO ANSWER THE QUESTION EITHER!

I LIKE CAPS AND DOUBLE SPACED, EASIER TO READ.

MY QUESTION WAS: IS 7 SO BLOATED IT TAKES 17 HOURS TO LOAD AND 17 MINUTES TO "boot" ? XP INSTALLS ON MY P1 IN AN HOUR OR SO AND BOOTS IN

ONLY A FEW MINUTES. 2000 IS FASTER THAN 98 OR XP ON MY PENTIUM 1. NOT MUCH DIFFERENT THAN MY P4 OR P3. THINK HOW BLOATED IT WILL BE ON A P4.

I DONT FIMD I NECESSARY TO BRAG ABOUT THE LATEST GIZMO.

YOU DIDNT EVEN SAY IF IT WORKED WELL. VISTA DIDNT, NOR ME.

[BGG001]

DONALDXXX said:

MY, MY WHAT A TEMPER! AND NOT TO ANSWER THE QUESTION EITHER!


I LIKE CAPS AND DOUBLE SPACED, EASIER TO READ.


MY QUESTION WAS: IS 7 SO BLOATED IT TAKES 17 HOURS TO LOAD AND 17 MINUTES TO "boot" ? XP INSTALLS ON MY P1 IN AN HOUR OR SO AND BOOTS IN


ONLY A FEW MINUTES. 2000 IS FASTER THAN 98 OR XP ON MY PENTIUM 1. NOT MUCH DIFFERENT THAN MY P4 OR P3. THINK HOW BLOATED IT WILL BE ON A P4.


I DONT FIMD I NECESSARY TO BRAG ABOUT THE LATEST GIZMO.


YOU DIDNT EVEN SAY IF IT WORKED WELL. VISTA DIDNT, NOR ME.

I wasn't bragging about gizmos, the fact is that's where technology is moving, not back to Pentiums, so who cares about how well it runs on your P1? You perhaps, but it seems it's only for complaining rights.
Message was edited by: smax013 - no personal attacks please and no profanity please.

[Rommel]

Hi Donald,

I doubt W7 will be compatible with your PT-1. I may be wrong.

As BGG001 said, W7 is geared for newer technology. That said, it will satisfy enough pc owners.

Many different threads have been posted and most who have downoaded W7RC are satisfied and plan to buy or have already bought their copy.

I use it in a back up desktop and a laptop and find the OS friendly to use and relable.

Boots faster than vista did in my laptop, which from day one was painfully slow.

W7 is not bloated. not to critisize your PT-1 but that is dated technology.

W7, in a new or newer PC offers more use for current technology.

Rommel

[DONALDXXX]

I dont see anything wrong with a P1 for many things even if it has its limits. IBM recommended 2000 on P1's and it worked fine,better than 98, etc. even some video and some pictures work ok. you cant fill a 5g hd with many pictures! Microsoft deliberatly made cardbus not function on my machine on xp and 2000 that worked on 95 and 98, and no one had a solution for it. some things work in my P1 that wont work on later units. My big scanner is one.



I never thought of putting 7 on the P1 and little of putting it on P3 OR P4. I cant believe P1 would even allow a 7 to install and 17 hours sounds like fable.

Anything older than a P1 is probably not all that useful, but old stuff that works is fine with me. all MS stuff likes to fail too often especially before 2000 and "not responding" or blue shutdowns or other failures that erase what you do are not unknown . [could MS work on this?] new machines with al the bells do this too despite claims to the contrary.

Vist I would not try on a P1 as it chokes faster machines .



2000 could have been updated with most of the junk on xp and save all that time transfering. Microsoft made itself popular by making the OS a game, but the era of fascination with computer games is declinging and many actually want a computer to workk and not to play with.

gamers are a different market now.



people who try to upstage others with their latest fresh from the mall pc [there is a new model that comes out as you carry your pc home on the streetcar] are obcessed with their ego not technology.

[rgreen4]

The P1 was obsolete when XP came out. Really, Really, Obsolete. It did not have the processor speed nor the memory to meet the "minimum" specs. While you might be able to get it to install, the CPU would be burdened to run just the OS,

[Rommel]

Hi Donald,

No doubt you've done your homework.

I am learning more as I go.

I agree for some its ego but others like more power because programs are larger and require more to operate.

Thats the ever changing technology world that keeps the money flowing. So be it, are pcs are entertainment centers, gaming consoles, and work stations.

Hd tech, blue-ray, HDMI, etc, PC hardware and software need to keep pace. The detail on these new system are awsome.

W7 is the next step to more possibilities. (for now).

Rommel