What a netbook should be

[Ranko Kohime]

Is it just me, or is there anyone else here who thinks it silly to put a HDD in a netbook?

For me, the whole reason I bought my EeePC 701SD was for the SSD, as I've experienced crashed disks in the past. I also consider it the distinction between a notebook and a netbook, a 10" portable computer with a HDD is just a small notebook to me.

Anyone else share my nitpicking? :D

[chappajar]

Is it just me, or is there anyone else here who thinks it silly to put a HDD in a netbook?

For me, the whole reason I bought my EeePC 701SD was for the SSD, as I've experienced crashed disks in the past. I also consider it the distinction between a notebook and a netbook, a 10'' portable computer with a HDD is just a small notebook to me.

Anyone else share my nitpicking? :D

I agree. I'd go a step further and say it's silly to put an Atom in a netbook when you could put an ARM chip in instead.

[Ranko Kohime]

I agree. I'd go a step further and say it's silly to put an Atom in a netbook when you could put an ARM chip in instead.
I'll admit to not knowing the difference there, is an ARM chip noticeably lower in power consumption than an Atom?

[chappajar]

I'll admit to not knowing the difference there, is an ARM chip noticeably lower in power consumption than an Atom?

Yes. As a general and approximate rule of thumb Atom uses about 4 times more power but gives only a 30% performance increase.

http://iltsarnews.blogspot.com/2010/04/arm-vs-x86-low-power-vs-performance.html

[3rdalbum]

Is it just me, or is there anyone else here who thinks it silly to put a HDD in a netbook?

If you've ever tried running a hundred megabytes of Ubuntu updates on an SSD-based netbook, you'll know why I bought an HDD-based netbook.

Those cheap SSDs in netbooks are useless. Who wants a write latency of up to 9 seconds? (write latencies on good SSDs and HDDs are measured in milliseconds). You might even find that your SSD uses MORE power than a hard disk - my HDD-based 10 inch Aspire One gets more battery life than my SSD-based 9 inch Aspire One.

The capacity of an SSD doesn't worry me for a netbook, but why would you get frustratingly low performance and lesser battery life and lower capacity for the extremely minimal gain of "If I drop my netbook then there's a lower probability that I'll damage my data"?

You've made your choice and that is fine. But take it from someone who lived with an SSD netbook for a year; moving to a hard disk, or to a good-but-expensive SSD, is a very smart move.

[chappajar]

If you've ever tried running a hundred megabytes of Ubuntu updates on an SSD-based netbook, you'll know why I bought an HDD-based netbook.

Those cheap SSDs in netbooks are useless. Who wants a write latency of up to 9 seconds? (write latencies on good SSDs and HDDs are measured in milliseconds). You might even find that your SSD uses MORE power than a hard disk - my HDD-based 10 inch Aspire One gets more battery life than my SSD-based 9 inch Aspire One.

The capacity of an SSD doesn't worry me for a netbook, but why would you get frustratingly low performance and lesser battery life and lower capacity for the extremely minimal gain of ''If I drop my netbook then there's a lower probability that I'll damage my data''?

You've made your choice and that is fine. But take it from someone who lived with an SSD netbook for a year; moving to a hard disk, or to a good-but-expensive SSD, is a very smart move.

9 second latency? I'd like to see an OEM try to sell equipment like that. Links please.

Your two AA1s are obviously not identical models. Please post their model numbers; there is more to power consumption than the disk.

Bear in mind that SSDs have improved in leaps and bounds in the last two years.

As for power consumption, have a look at these and tell me how many HDDs you can find that beat these figures:
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/ssd-flash-trim,2593-11.html
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/6gb-s-ssd-hdd,2603-9.html

Performance is not even worth dicussing; current SSDs blow HDDs out of the water (performance is also in the links above)

[3rdalbum]

Yes. As a general and approximate rule of thumb Atom uses about 4 times more power but gives only a 30% performance increase.

http://iltsarnews.blogspot.com/2010/04/arm-vs-x86-low-power-vs-performance.html

That's a difference of 2-3 watts. Laptops generally use between 15 and 45 watts. My Atom-based netbook got 2 hours out of its battery - so a similar ARM netbook would get 1/5th more (33%) which is a total battery life of 2 hours and 40 minutes.

Not bad, until you remember that the hype around ARM netbooks is that "they'll last all day without a recharge". 2:40 is a long way from 8:30. And the performance of the Atom is still 30% more, which is virtually the same as ARM's battery life improvement; you can get as much done in less time, if you're using an Atom machine.

Don't get me wrong. I'd like to see ARM netbooks gain traction, because Microsoft can't really encroach on this space. But I wouldn't buy one in this current state, the benefits are too small.

[chappajar]

That's a difference of 2-3 watts. Laptops generally use between 15 and 45 watts. My Atom-based netbook got 2 hours out of its battery - so a similar ARM netbook would get 1/5th more (33%) which is a total battery life of 2 hours and 40 minutes.

Not bad, until you remember that the hype around ARM netbooks is that ''they'll last all day without a recharge''. 2:40 is a long way from 8:30. And the performance of the Atom is still 30% more, which is virtually the same as ARM's battery life improvement; you can get as much done in less time, if you're using an Atom machine.

Don't get me wrong. I'd like to see ARM netbooks gain traction, because Microsoft can't really encroach on this space. But I wouldn't buy one in this current state, the benefits are too small.

33% is a massive improvement. (BTW most netbooks eat well below 15 Watts)

''they'll last all day without a recharge'' is a creation of yours or someone else's imagination, but Atom based netbooks have already been released with claimed 14 and 15 hr battery lives (MSI Wind U110 and Eee 1005PE) so ARM can do better than that.

[3rdalbum]

9 second latency? I'd like to see an OEM try to sell equipment like that. Links please.

It's well-known that Kingston sells an SSD with 15-second latency, and it's also well-known that the Aspire One SSDs are slow. The 9-second latency is my own testing. Why don't you buy one yourself and run your own tests, like I did?


Your two AA1s are obviously not identical models. Please post their model numbers; there is more to power consumption than the disk.

True, they are not identical models. But the internals of the Aspire One have not changed dramatically. They're still using Atheros wireless, they still use an Atom and Intel 945 graphics, etc. And the screen is bigger.

I left my newer netbook at work (grrr) but it's the model that's dual-boot Windows and Android. The earlier one was the AOA 110.


Bear in mind that SSDs have improved in leaps and bounds in the last two years.

Yes, at the expensive end. What about at the cheap end?


As for power consumption, have a look at these and tell me how many HDDs you can find that can beat these figures:
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/ssd-flash-trim,2593-11.html
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/6gb-s-ssd-hdd,2603-9.html
[/QUOTE]

Please stick to the topic. The topic is netbooks that ship with SSDs. Don't start talking about expensive drives, we all know they are fast and efficient, and we all know that you don't see them in netbooks unless you install them yourself.

[chappajar]

It's well-known that Kingston sells an SSD with 15-second latency, and it's also well-known that the Aspire One SSDs are slow. The 9-second latency is my own testing. Why don't you buy one yourself and run your own tests, like I did?



True, they are not identical models. But the internals of the Aspire One have not changed dramatically. They're still using Atheros wireless, they still use an Atom and Intel 945 graphics, etc. And the screen is bigger.

I left my newer netbook at work (grrr) but it's the model that's dual-boot Windows and Android. The earlier one was the AOA 110.



Yes, at the expensive end. What about at the cheap end?



Please stick to the topic. The topic is netbooks that ship with SSDs. Don't start talking about expensive drives, we all know they are fast and efficient, and we all know that you don't see them in netbooks unless you install them yourself.

The Kingston SSD has a 15 sec flush delay, NOT latency. Worlds apart.

Your 9 second claim is simply unbelievable I'm afraid.

If the two AA1s are different models it's very premature to blame the SSD. Apples and oranges.

At both ends.

Those articles also include cheap SSDs.

[3rdalbum]

33% is a massive improvement. (BTW most netbooks eat well below 15 Watts)

''they'll last all day without a recharge'' is a creation of yours or someone else's imagination

It's a creation of someone else's imagination alright, that's what I've been saying. You hear it all the time on Ubuntu Forums - "I can't wait for ARM netbooks, they use so little power that you can go all day without recharging".

A 33% improvement in battery life is good, but you lose 30% of your processing power too - if you don't mind that, then go ahead and buy an ARM netbook when they become available. I do mind that. I'd rather achieve "all day" battery life by getting a big battery, which I have done.

[3rdalbum]

The Kingston SSD has a 15 sec flush delay, NOT latency. Worlds apart.

Please define both terms - my understanding of write latency was the amount of time that it takes to actually flush the buffer and write data to the disk, during which time all other I/O to the disk will block and the system will wait. Because that's what my Aspire One's SSD does. 9 seconds is the longest delay I've observed, it's usually around 5 or 6 seconds.

[hansdown]

Sorry to knit-pick, but t 1/5th = 20%.

[3rdalbum]

Sorry to knit-pick, but t 1/5th = 20%.

With mathematics like mine, I'm surprised my programs aren't buggier :-) Thanks for pointing out the mistake. At least it makes my point more potent!

[hansdown]

Sorry about that. I really respect what you do 3rdalbum.

Cheers!

[kio_http]

I disagree about "What a netbook should be", its the buyers choice, they want ssd they take an ssd model, they want hdd they take a hdd model ...

Your preference isn't everyone's preference.

[uRock]

Is it just me, or is there anyone else here who thinks it silly to put a HDD in a netbook?

For me, the whole reason I bought my EeePC 701SD was for the SSD, as I've experienced crashed disks in the past. I also consider it the distinction between a notebook and a netbook, a 10" portable computer with a HDD is just a small notebook to me.

Anyone else share my nitpicking? :D
Mine has a 160GB HDD. I consider it a netbook because it is so small. It is designed for networking and being mobile and that is what it is, to me. Most of the Notebooks I see on the market are huge and heavy. My wife bought a nice 17" HP and it is awesome, has all the bells and whistles, but she takes it nowhere because it is just too big to be mobile. Being that in the future HDDs are going to be replaced by SDs, so i don't think it is fair to judge by type of hard drive.

[chappajar]

With mathematics like mine, I'm surprised my programs aren't buggier :-) Thanks for pointing out the mistake. At least it makes my point more potent!

20% would still be a massive improvement, but as a netbook is more likely to consume 9W (or less) rather than 15W, by your reasoning (using a 3W difference) you could expect a 50% increase in battery life.
(I don't really think this is an accurate way to guess battery life BTW)

The point is, ARM offers a (significant) improvement in power efficiency over Atom, which is extremely desirable in a netbook.


It's a creation of someone else's imagination alright, that's what I've been saying. You hear it all the time on Ubuntu Forums - ''I can't wait for ARM netbooks, they use so little power that you can go all day without recharging''.

A 33% improvement in battery life is good, but you lose 30% of your processing power too - if you don't mind that, then go ahead and buy an ARM netbook when they become available. I do mind that. I'd rather achieve ''all day'' battery life by getting a big battery, which I have done.

I'd be very surprised if you can produce a quote of someone here claiming that.

How much processing power do you want in a netbook? Are you planning on encoding videos, or compiling large programs with it? There are ARM products which allow you to play 1080p video which is probably the most stressful thing people are likely to do on a netbook. If you're brute force cracking encryption or playing the latest FPS you'll be using some other machine.

You can get a big battery for your ARM netbook too.


Please define both terms - my understanding of write latency was the amount of time that it takes to actually flush the buffer and write data to the disk, during which time all other I/O to the disk will block and the system will wait. Because that's what my Aspire One's SSD does. 9 seconds is the longest delay I've observed, it's usually around 5 or 6 seconds. Disk latency is the time it takes the head to get to the desired position (rotational latency+seek).
As you can imagine, it is basically non-existent in SSDs.

Write latency is the time to write a single sector (more specifically it used to be the time for a sector to travel under the head). SSD is faster than HDD. (Now you know why I didn't believe your 9 sec)

Flush delay is time between flushes of some cache (I don't know what cache it refers to on an SSD). It's a value set by the manufacturer (and maybe by an admin).

I don't know what your AA1 is doing blocking all I/O for 5-9 sec, but it isn't indicative of SSD performance. Perhaps the machine is badly configured (not implying that that has anything to do with you) or maybe you even have some faulty hardware. No idea.

[ELD]

I disagree about "What a netbook should be", its the buyers choice, they want ssd they take an ssd model, they want hdd they take a hdd model ...

Your preference isn't everyone's preference.

This +1.

I am quite happy with my 160GB HD netbook, a netbook as a rule is defined by the screensize not what drive it has in it.

Also care to point me to a netbook with a SSD that comes close to 160GB with a decent price tag? I doubt you could find one.

As said before, it is down to personal preference.

[chappajar]

...
Also care to point me to a netbook with a SSD that comes close to 160GB with a decent price tag? I doubt you could find one.

...
Not directed at me I hope ;)
To be clear, I don't agree with the OP that anything with an HDD shouldn't be considered a netbook. I personally own a netbook with an HDD.
But despite SSD's single drawback (high $/GB) I do think they are almost always an improvement over HDD.

[ELD]

Not directed at me I hope ;)
To be clear, I don't agree with the OP that anything with an HDD shouldn't be considered a netbook. I personally own a netbook with an HDD.
But despite SSD's single drawback (high $/GB) I do think they are almost always an improvement over HDD.

It was aimed at OP since he/she is the one claiming non-ssd shouldn't be netbooks.

At the end of the day who cares? They are NETbooks, designed mainly for web stuff, bit of musics that sort of thing.

[Ranko Kohime]

That's a difference of 2-3 watts. Laptops generally use between 15 and 45 watts. My Atom-based netbook got 2 hours out of its battery - so a similar ARM netbook would get 1/5th more (33%) which is a total battery life of 2 hours and 40 minutes.
2-3 watts would be huge for me. I hover between 10-12 watts, and I'm trying to figure out the Eee drivers to let me power the CPU down. Right now it's stuck on full speed @ 900MHz, getting uncomfortably warm and running the fan in addition. The fan has to take some power.

I can eek out over 3 hours now, without using wireless (I don't use it anyway, I either go cable or go without).

Any little bit helps when you have a fixed amount of energy available. (The extra processing power doesn't do me any good, because I'm web browsing with images off and word processing).

[Ranko Kohime]

A 33% improvement in battery life is good, but you lose 30% of your processing power too - if you don't mind that, then go ahead and buy an ARM netbook when they become available. I do mind that. I'd rather achieve "all day" battery life by getting a big battery, which I have done.
I'd rather go for both. :)

One of these days I'm going to order the 8.8Ah battery that Kingston sells for my Eee. (Stock is 4.4Ah)

[Ranko Kohime]

I disagree about "What a netbook should be", its the buyers choice, they want ssd they take an ssd model, they want hdd they take a hdd model ...

Your preference isn't everyone's preference.
True... I'm just nitpicking the terminology. Netbooks with HDD's and bigger screens and faster processors are notebooks, IMO. :P

[gnomeuser]

Silent, portable, long battery life, good touchpad, no moving parts. Affordable.

I quite like the form factor of my Eee PC 1002HA, the size and weight is about right. The battery life isn't "all day out" capable but it is enough to take it to a coffee shop o write for a couple of hours. It's not really silent but it's no beast either.

I would like it to come with 3G connectivity, but it is not essential. Ideally though it would be just a cloned sim from my phone since I already pay for unlimited data for it why shouldn't I be allowed to use it on a different device. Alternatively I could just hook up my N900 and figure out how to share the connection that way. That just seems like a way to drain power wastefully.

I think ARM is the right architecture to make this happen currently but Intel/Nvidia are making excellent progress making the ATOM powered machines very powerful and still power efficient.

A really good multitouch capable touchpad. Right now netbooks come with touchpads of fairly low quality. The surface is rough and unresponsive, the buttons often ugly and annoying to use. Do it right, give me a smooth surface that is reactive, has buttons integrated and feels as part of the machine.

The keyboard sizes in netbooks right now is quite sufficient for me, and they are fairly comfortable to type on for a long time. I don't see a reason to change this, making it bigger would just add weight, size and make the device less portable. The extra space would also tempt netbook designers to heap on more unneeded features.

And finally a good screen that is readable in outside conditions. My Eee has a pretty decent one.

Price range should be 199-299$

[ibuclaw]

A dual core processor. ;)

Anything to speed up compiling + recompiling of gcc. Something I do some weeks on a daily basis.