netbooks?

[kate_nepveu]

Last time I looked, it seemed like Samsung was making the best all-around machines, in terms of keyboard size, battery life, and weight. That still the case? And is Windows 7 an actual advance for netbooks, or should I stick with XP for operating system consistency?

Comments

[montoya.livejournal.com]

If your borders for "netbook" are fuzzy, the Acer 1410 (http://www.amazon.com/Acer-Aspire-AS1410-2497-11-6-Inch-Laptop/dp/B002SJ38M8/) appears to be a great deal. It's only 3 pounds, has a 6-hour battery life, has an 11" screen with more usable resolution than 10" models (1366x768 instead of 1024x600), comes with vastly better hardware than netbooks (a dual-core Celeron is slow, but way faster than an Atom; and 2GB is better than 1GB), comes with Win7 Home Premium (not Starter), plus all the Wifi-N/webcame/SD stuff that you expect in a modern laptop.

It's $399, which is on the high side for a netbook, but not by much -- there are Atom ones that cost more than that, insanely.

[montoya.livejournal.com]

(I meant to include the link to the fairly positive Laptopmag review (http://www.laptopmag.com/review/laptops/acer-aspire-1410.aspx?page=1). It's a bit weird in that they compare it to other ultraportables, most of which are $600+, rather than netbooks, but they do make netbook comparisons, too.)

[montoya.livejournal.com]

And they also have a review of the Samsung N140 (http://www.laptopmag.com/review/laptops/samsung-n140.aspx), the replacement to the NC10 that you're probably thinking of.

It's the same price as the Acer, has the same battery life, but: Has a much slower processor (a single core Atom, literally less than half as fast), has Win7 Starter Edition (which really is pretty crippled), has a smaller lower-res screen, doesn't have an HDMI output, and is only a little bit smaller and is only 6 ounces lighter.

It's hard to imagine a scenario in which the Samsung netbook would be the better buy here.

[kate_nepveu]

Yesterday I saw a co-worker's N140 and I was astonished at how little the screen looks. Of course I have my work monitor in portrait mode, so I have a distinct preference here, but seriously.

[montoya.livejournal.com]

Physically little, or little in terms of resolution? Because I'm not sure how much physically bigger an 11" screen is going to be, but I think resolution-wise, the jump from 1024x600 to 1366x768 is a huge one.

(What do you think of Chad's 12" display on the ThinkPad? That's only 1024x768, I think, right? (Mine is 1440x1050, but I think he chose the lower-res, touch-friendly option.))

[kate_nepveu]

Just short, top-to-bottom. I didn't look closely at it.

[montoya.livejournal.com]

Ah, okay. Yeah, if that's your thing, modern computers must salt your cocoa. I hadn't thought of it that way, but even a 12" screen would be a lot shorter than my current 12" screen, due to the widescreen thing.

[kate_nepveu]

Yeah, I realize in the nature of portables there's not much to be done about it, but it was such a revelation when I turned my work screen into portrait mode, writing-wise.

[kate_nepveu]

I'm convinced! (Though I may not purchase right away; it's not a high priority.) Thanks _very_ much.

[montoya.livejournal.com]

Now that I've convinced you, I'll add the caveat that there are a lot of people on the internet who swear up and down that Acers are cheap crap and they all break quickly. I have no idea how true this is statistically. And I mean, on the one hand, there's a contingent of people who will say that about any brand; but on the other hand, these are computers designed to be as cheap as possible, so who knows.

[kate_nepveu]

Fair enough. I don't intend to carry it around on a day-to-day basis--mostly for travel, and occasionally to retreat to the bedroom where SteelyKid can't see me if I need to do work at home. So that doesn't worry me overmuch.