Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Slashdot Log In

Log In

Create Account  |  Retrieve Password

What's The Perfect Balance For a Budget Laptop?

Posted by Zonk on Wed Apr 09, 2008 03:55 PM
from the whatever-fits-over-your-knees dept.
cheapbob writes "Recently HP officially unveiled a budget ultraportable laptop aimed to compete with the likes of Asus Eee PC. According to Compal, one of Dell's assemblers, Dell is also going to enter the budget ultra-portable market soon. All of these devices lack many of the features associated with larger-sized laptops, such as optical drives and large amounts of storage space, yet demand for them is very high. Initial reviews of these devices unsurprisingly expose them to be underpowered and lacklustre. What's the appeal? What do you think is the perfect balance of features and price point for a budget laptop?"
+ -
story

Related Stories

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More
Loading... please wait.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 09 2008, @03:58PM (#23017328)
    I commute two hours each way, by train bus and subway. Those of us who spend hours in transit every day can't even understand why someone would need to ask the question about what the appeal is.
    • by AuMatar (183847) on Wednesday April 09 2008, @04:07PM (#23017450)
      No, we just wonder why the hell you commute so much. I'd never take a job that required me to waste 4 hours of my life daily just going to and from it.
        • by droopycom (470921) on Wednesday April 09 2008, @04:57PM (#23018056)
          Get another job is easier said than done.

          2 hours each way seems a bit high, but at least he is using transit so he is not wasting all that time (thats why he got the freaking laptop!)
          I know people who spend 45 minutes driving to work, one way. Thats 1:30 wasted in traffic.

          In many places, most of the jobs are in the center where rents are very high.
          I know plenty of people who live in San Francisco and commute to San Jose because they want it.
          In Paris, young single people who can afford to rent a small flat would rather live close to the nightlife even if they work in the suburbs.
          On the other hand, family would rather get an affordable house in the suburbs even if there job is in the city.

          Your not even thinking about couple, whose jobs maybe in oposite directions. And its not always that easy to move when you own a house, or when your children are going to school.

          Your priorities maybe different...
           
            • by Original Replica (908688) on Wednesday April 09 2008, @06:30PM (#23018942) Journal
              I can't fathom why someone would travel 2 hours each way, every day, just to get to the place where you work. Maybe it's cheaper, but aren't the minutes of your life worth more than saving a few bucks? Even if you worked in NY you could find a reasonable (relative to the payscale and market) place to live that's 30 minutes away.

              Speaking as someone who lives in NYC, yes you can find a reasonable place to live in town on a middle class paycheck. If you don't mind renting forever (median apartment prices are over $900k) and you don't have kids. As soon as you actually care about the schools and neighborhood cultural ideals, acceptable places to live become amazingly scarce. Most of the towns around NYC where the soccer mom lifestyle exists also are priced that $200k a year salary is the entry level. The median housing prices are around $600K and property taxes are high. [lohud.com] So anyone who makes less than the requisite $200K lives farther away, and your don't have to get all that far away for a rush hour commute to take two hours or more. Minutes of your life may be worth more than a few bucks, but your family's standard of living is worth more than a few minutes. This is where the jobs are, so millions of people make the daily trek.
      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        I have been using a laptop in the subway for 3 years now and never had a problem. Granted, there is less vibration in a subway than a bus, but the HD are built to stand the beat.

        And... always backup, just in case. I backup multiple time per day.
  • The Appeal? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by stoolpigeon (454276) * <bittercode@gmail> on Wednesday April 09 2008, @03:59PM (#23017338) Homepage Journal
    I can't speak for anyone else, but the appeal to me is that the machines can do enough- and they do it for an affordable price. That's the key. It was not long ago - and still is the case - that anything this small and underpowered cost a lot.
     
    The HP review says it does fine doing the basics - that's all most people need. For people who are on the move a lot, lugging around a full size laptop gets really old. People want to connect to the internet anywhere, but they don't want to carry a boat anchor to do it. These umpcs may be small but they are a lot bigger than many phones that would by the way, cost more. So there is the sweet spot. Price and size.
    • Re:The Appeal? (Score:4, Insightful)

      by MoonBuggy (611105) on Wednesday April 09 2008, @04:08PM (#23017462) Homepage
      Absolutely agreed. I can totally see the market for laptops that'll run games, Photoshop and the like but I'm not in that market - I'll do those things on a bigger screen for less money with my desktop because I don't need to do them on the move.

      What I want from a laptop is small size and weight - something I can carry everywhere just to get the odd bit of work done, browse the web or check my email. The system requirements for that really aren't changing that greatly any time soon. Previously there was no such thing as a small cheap laptop, you couldn't trade off power for price and you simply couldn't buy a small machine for anything like the same money as a 15" one. I'm exceedingly happy that there is now a machine that fits my needs, and I can't wait until the various 8.9" models come on sale because I'm buying one in a snap.
    • Re:The Appeal? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by tverbeek (457094) on Wednesday April 09 2008, @04:14PM (#23017542) Homepage
      Calling these machines "underpowered" shows a gross misunderstanding of their purpose. They're not supposed to be desktop replacements. They're designed to be "enough" computer for use on the road or in the field. You don't need a supercomputer to run an office suite, web browser, and e-mail client, and these laptops are designed with that in mind.
      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        You don't need a supercomputer to run an office suite, web browser, and e-mail client, and these laptops are designed with that in mind.

        Have you tried running the latest version of Windows/Office? It's no wonder that people expect ball-burning laptops. I would have gone and got an "underpowered" machine if they existed when I settled on my MacBook as a pseudo desktop replacement.

        The appeal of the Eee and OLPC is they don't run Windows so they can be "underpowered" as hell and still work really well. A Windows Eee is just the worst piece of shit I ever saw; they won't sell to the masses with Linux and they're too slow for the masses wit

        • Re:The Appeal? (Score:5, Interesting)

          by Wordplay (54438) <geo@snarksoft.com> on Wednesday April 09 2008, @05:19PM (#23018258)
          I've got an Eee with Windows XP installed on it and it runs just fine, even at the stock 630Mhz. Overclocked up to 850Mhz, which mine is perfectly stable at, it's genuinely snappy.

          XP isn't too much of a resource hog even with all the chrome on, and you can turn most of it off if it does impact performance.

          It's really no different than the Duron 800Mhzish I had back in the early 2000s. The only downside is the small screen, but the 2nd generation fixes that this year with a full-sized 9" 1000x600 screen.
    • by marcus (1916) on Wednesday April 09 2008, @04:43PM (#23017866) Journal
      They are basic, note-taking, doc-writing, email-sending, web-surfing, e-book-reading, port-able, wire-less, hand-held AKA lap-top devices that don't cost much. Perfect for the coffee table to look up imdb ratings in front of the TV or to check the weather radar/forecast before heading out in the morning.

      Couldn't fit-in any more hyphens.
    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      Also, remember that a few years back, people would have been paying $3000 or so for something of that spec, and they would have been perfectly happy with what it did then.
  • by Toonol (1057698) on Wednesday April 09 2008, @04:01PM (#23017358)
    Small is neat, I suppose, but not something I really care about.

    My criteria is pretty much (1) As much power as possible under (2) a reasonable price. All other things being equal, I'll probably select a smaller laptop, but I would gladly sacrifice a couple pounds for a larger HD, a DVD-Rom, expandability, or a full assortment of ports.

    I know some people do care, but for me thickness has about as much bearing on my choice as the thing's color.
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      Thickness and weight effect the portability. I'd never take my laptop anywhere- too big, too bulky. Carrying it around for more than the trip to the conference room was a pain, unless you wanted to lug it around in a backpack- which was also a pain.

      The EEE is easily carried anywhere. You can lug it around all day and never notice the weight, and it will never be awkward to carry. It doesn't have a lot of power, but I'm not looking for a desktop replacement (I'd rather just have the desktop) or somethi
    • by Wdomburg (141264) on Wednesday April 09 2008, @04:32PM (#23017722)
      Then you're not the market for this particular device, just as simple as that. It's like saying you don't like the direction Honda is taking with the Fit when you want to buy an SUV.
  • light and cheap (Score:4, Insightful)

    by jay2003 (668095) on Wednesday April 09 2008, @04:01PM (#23017374)
    There's a market for light and cheap. To high income people, $400-$500 is practically disposable. You can spend that much on an iPod touch. It's not a big deal to break it or lose it because it's not expensive.

    If all you want is email or web access, a cheap ultra portable like an ASUS eee is a perfect match.

    Comparing these devices to full sized laptops misses the point.
    • Re:light and cheap (Score:5, Insightful)

      by stoolpigeon (454276) * <bittercode@gmail> on Wednesday April 09 2008, @04:05PM (#23017434) Homepage Journal
      Comparing these devices to full sized laptops misses the point.
       
      Exactly. I'd like to see a review of a pda that complained about the lack of screen size, power, and inputs/outputs. These aren't laptops - they are something between a pda and a laptop and they do a great job of filling that niche. The demand demonstrates that people have been hungry for something like this that doesn't cost an arm and a leg. I don't even bother trying to use my laptop when I'm actually traveling anymore. For a host of reasons it doesn't work - but one of these would be perfect.
      • by CSMatt (1175471) on Wednesday April 09 2008, @04:34PM (#23017746)

        No, it's not. The Asus eee suck at web broswing I'm typing this from a MacBook and its 1280px horizontal size is NOT ENOUGH for some sites. So, a screen that's 800px wide, for web surfing? They're CRAZY.
        1. Invent time machine.
        2. Go back 8 years.
        3. Use eeePC when Web pages were designed for 800x600 screens.

        Oh, and

        4. ???
        5. Profit.
      • That will solve one of the two worst problems about school : rote learning. You simply CAN NOT ask kids to learn anything by rote when they KNOW they can find ANY information whasoever with a few skills that complement the "relevancy" algorithms of search engines.

        That doesn't mean that certain knowledge isn't still appropriate to be learned by rote.

        Yes, I have a calculator on my mobile phone that can multiply any two numbers in less time than it takes to key them into the thing, but I'm not going to pull it
  • by jeffmeden (135043) on Wednesday April 09 2008, @04:02PM (#23017392) Homepage Journal
    Web two point oh. If you spend all day reading/posting on slashdot, you don't need a whole lot of CPU power (as long as you run adblock plus.) People have less and less use for big local apps, and more and more use for web based apps, so this is where demand is going. If it can post on slashdot, it's good enough for everyday use. If it gets 8 hours on a charge and has multi-band wi-fi and a little hard drive space for MP3s and pictures, it will get the job done for most users, most of the time.

    Finally, if it's cheap enough to not really force a user to chose between owning a portable and owning a desktop (or better equipped portable) and instead they can have both, then you sir have a cash machine!

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      I know Slashdot just recently went to AJAX for the comments, but check your processor usage sometime on a really heavy Web 2.0 app. I know killing the Flash ads helps, but web surfing on a PIII class CPU ain't what it used to be.
  • by zogger (617870) on Wednesday April 09 2008, @04:09PM (#23017470) Homepage Journal
    Those smallish ones are fine, but not paying what they are asking when you can get a full size normal budget laptop for the same scratch $400-500. $100-200 tops right now would be my budget.

    Anyway, that's my price point for getting a toy-ish low featured laptop, although they are featured-enough, solid state drive is fine, lowerpowered CPU is fine, just not be skimpy with the RAM, at least a gig or two.. The original OLPC hundred buck idea would be nice then.

    So, you richer guys, get crackin and buy a zillion of them for what they are asking now, so the price can drop some more..heh.
  • by shankarunni (1002529) on Wednesday April 09 2008, @04:13PM (#23017518)
    I think you're asking the wrong question. Budget, Ultra-portable, Powerful - you can have any 2 out of 3.

    If the question is truly about Budget and "powerful enough", obviously the thing won't be ultraportable. You can get a reasonable machine (~5 lbs, 14" screen, low-end Core Duo or Turion based) for about $500, or even lower if you look for sales or rebates.

    You can then add a cheap or free office suite (e.g. OpenOffice), Firefox, etc., and you're ready to go.
  • Don't want one (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Rick the Red (307103) <Rick.The.Red@NospAM.gmail.com> on Wednesday April 09 2008, @04:30PM (#23017692) Journal
    I don't want one. What I want is one of those mini-tablet/large-PDA thingies Bill Gates showed us a couple of years ago. You know, the ones with no keyboard, a 7" touch screen with handwriting recognition, etc. Oh, sure, they're available, but I think $500 is a reasonable price, not the $1500 the makers are charging.

    I think the biggest appeal of these "budget" laptops is just that -- the price fits most people's budgets.
  • by Ungrounded Lightning (62228) on Wednesday April 09 2008, @05:18PM (#23018248) Journal
    (I imagine many of you don't. But then the first machine I programmed for money used vacuum tubes for the DIODES.)

    The same sorts of questions were being asked then. What could you possibly DO with a little home computer? They were SO underpowered compared with a mainframe.

    The question was related to another one that had been asked before: "How many of these first IBM machines will we be able to sell?" "Well, 10 of them would do more arithmetic than all the accountants in the world..."

    Surprise: When the price gets low enough there's a LOT of stuff you can do that you couldn't afford to do before.

    So it's got a lot less processor and memory than the current top-of-the-line laptop? That puts it far ahead of the laptops - and desktops - of just a few years back. And it would run RINGS around the first Unix machine I bought for my personal use, back in the '70s. A couple megabyte or RAM? 80 Megs of hard drive? Floppies for backup? I still found PLENTY of stuff to do with it. Enough to justify the several thousands of dollars it cost - back when two hundred bux were worth about what a thousand is now.

    Bring the price down to a hundred or two, for a small, light box with enough memory and processor to drive a decent display, audio, enough battery to keep it alive for a few hours, USB (or other) interface for external memory sticks / drives / cameras, and internal modem and wireless. Then you've got the bulk of what I need at a throwaway price.

    I'd buy one for me, one for the wife, one for each nephew (if they don't have it already), put one in the vacation house to monitor the cameras and phone home in case of trouble, one for the townhouse to phone the vacation house when we're there ditto, one in the camping trailer, one on the boat, a spare in the trunk, ... One breaks? Chuck it and get another.

    As for the vendors: Fast nickels are better than slow dimes. Get the price point down far enough and you sell SO many of 'em that you more than make it up on volume.
  • Budget (Score:3, Funny)

    by SpaghettiPattern (609814) on Wednesday April 09 2008, @05:21PM (#23018280)
    The perfect balance for a budget laptop definitely is a large budget.
  • Simple (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Xest (935314) on Wednesday April 09 2008, @05:22PM (#23018296)
    PDAs/Mobiles are too small to browse the web decently and don't have a decent input device - a keyboard. Normal laptops are too big to carry round with you everywhere.

    These new gen small notebooks are the perfect size, plenty small enough to carry round but big enough to be able to display web pages properly and maintain a proper keyboard.

    I'm not sure why anyone would say they're underpowered or lacklustre though, unless you're expecting to play Crysis on it then the spec is just find, people have been happily creating spreadsheets, presentations, word documents, doing e-mail, browsing the web ever since the 486 era. You're not going to be playing the latest and greatest games on them it's silly to think so, we don't have the tech. to put that much power in such a small size at a reasonable price point but if you want to use it to do every day stuff you do on a computer I'd argue it's better than a laptop and better than a PDA because it has the advantages of both without the disadvantages (well except proper laptops have better specs, but gaming laptops are so big and bulk they may as well be in the desktop category anyway!).

    The new sub-notebooks fill a niche that was filled then emptied again over the past decade or so. I found an old 486 laptop at work not so long ago that funnily enough whilst fatter than the new gen notebooks wasn't really much deeper or wider. Similarly Apple did away with their nice small notebooks and upped the size an inch or so when they went Intel - I'm not sure what the Air was all about either, it's just as wide and deep but extremely thin, to me thinness really doesn't solve anything and just makes me worry I'll snap it or something!
  • by Qbertino (265505) on Wednesday April 09 2008, @05:47PM (#23018556)
    The Asus EEE in book has a Killer Combination of features I've last seen about 13 years ago with the Highscreen "DOS 5.0 / Works 5.0 on ROM" Pocket PC (which basically was a cheap rebranding of an earlyer expensive Sharp Pocket PC). These features are:
    + Small.
    + Durable.
    + Full PC - runs all PC stuff I need.
    + Sacrafices Optical for durability, size and price == good move - I don't want to watch DVDs on a small thing like that anyway. I *do* however, want to use OpenOffice in a pinch.
    + No extra custom gadget connectivity stuff needed. Supports all standard ports out of the box. Means: Ready for universal flexible use. Cheap.
    + No obscure custom purpose 'Pocket OS'. Linux beats Palm OS any time of the day.
    + Linux preinstalled, Debian Variant being a big bonus. I'm a programmer and an IT pro. I want to use a Computer, not a pimped out virii-ridden slowpocking typewriter that needs DirectX to render it's desktop.

    Now only if I could get one. These things are hard to come by right now.
  • by TellarHK (159748) <tellarhk@@@hotmail...com> on Wednesday April 09 2008, @05:47PM (#23018558) Homepage Journal
    The biggest problem in portable systems that aren't designed to replace a desktop is that they couldn't replace one if they -had- to. And honestly, when I've carried a laptop around with me for any length of time and serious usage, it's gone and replaced my primary desktop for everything except gaming. For people like your typical Slashdot reader, unless we get something that's at least on par with a low-end but functional desktop, we're probably going to be too frustrated by a limited budget laptop.

    I have a Macbook, and I love it. But if I wanted something on a budget that was going to be my utility system for lugging around and doing office-type tasks, the last thing I'd want to use is a full-blown desktop OS. There really needs to be a new kind of system designed for portable machines that's designed for ease of use, low power consumption, and high grades of flexibility without needing to wade through a typical desktop interface.

    If I were designing a new OS for one of these systems, I'd want something that handled software installation and deletion similarly to OS X. You drag a file into Applications or wherever, and it runs when you click it. I would want accessory and connectivity options designed along the lines of a
    PDA - illustrative graphical things you toggle on and off with virtual switches. I'd want a heavily customized and graphically streamlined version of Open Office to handle documents. A modified version of Firefox made to work within the context of a special application control bar similar to a combination of the OS X task bar and the Windows tray.

    Linux is just not a good platform for something like this as it currently stands. I for one never want to worry about whether or not my glibc is the right fucking version before I install software. (It's been a while since I used a mainstream distro for longer than a few days) And I know that if I don't want to know it, my mom sure the hell wouldn't when she saw a neat new gadget to install on her email device.

    Insofar as hardware goes, I think Intel has the right processor coming out with Atom. If a system like I just described was written from the ground up, a gigabyte of RAM should be plenty - but go for two so you can use one as a disk cache for even more speed improvement. Again, a custom OS and streamlined applications could be easily done within a few gigabytes of hard drive. And there's no reason an 8G internal flash source wouldn't work with an option to slot in another 8 or so with the latest flash technologies for media storage and application space.

    Dual-core CPU's wouldn't necessarily be needed if you're not loading up a monster desktop OS. Just take a look at what Nokia has managed with the N8XX line, which for all its faults is still a damn nice little piece of hardware. It runs Linux, so packaging is a clusterfuck, and at least the N770 takes a while to boot - then runs slowly - but those can be overcome with RAM upgrades.

    I rant too much.
  • by csoto (220540) on Wednesday April 09 2008, @05:56PM (#23018650)
    Put the center of mass nearest the center of the laptop!
  • Battery Life (Score:3, Insightful)

    by OldSoldier (168889) on Wednesday April 09 2008, @06:13PM (#23018802) Homepage
    In a word (or 2) I'd say the perfect balance is battery life. Though this completely ignores the "ultra portable" part, but if you go for battery life it also gets you a not overpowered CPU too. I find high power CPU to be a double whammy wrt battery life. A) the CPU consumes more power and B) the fan runs more often and hence consumes more power. So... if you go for battery life ALONE you'll also get a mid-range CPU with a reasonable fan activation cycle.

    • by stoolpigeon (454276) * <bittercode@gmail> on Wednesday April 09 2008, @04:10PM (#23017488) Homepage Journal
      Macbook air low end is what? $1799?
       
      The low end on this HP is under $500. I'd say if it takes me an extra hour to get Suse tweaked just right on this box then my time is worth over $1300 an hour.
       
      Even with extra ram, a hard drive and suse - I'm still going to come in a thousand or more under the comparable apple.
      • ONE hour to tweak a Linux distro as tight as MacOSX? Your time is worth much, much more than $1300 an hour. Your time could make SuSE replace Apple. Yeah, 15% market share in a year, that's how much for the Messiah who figured out how to configure the distro Just Right?

        That everything works? I mean EVERYTHING. Temperature sensors and webcam and all... No, you lie. No one can do that. In under a year? No, you said under one hour. YEAH RIGHT.
      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        Were talking budget. not ultra portable. the comparison point is therefore a macbook not an air.

        good luck with your Suse system when you need to run MS Office for compatibility reasons, or Photoshop or basically any app found in the bussiness world.

        If you are a student, then yeah, time have no value, to use suse.

        I use Linux too. But I use it on my servers and the laptops that have to work with servers. but I don't use it on my bussiness or personal laptops.

        • by stoolpigeon (454276) * <bittercode@gmail> on Wednesday April 09 2008, @04:21PM (#23017604) Homepage Journal
          No we're talking ultra portable and budget. The HP 2133 is lighter than the air - and so my point stands.
           
          I wouldn't want to work with office or photoshop on an air or the 2133 - that is not the point. I want something that size to be mobile. Suse is great for browsing, email, and if I needed to I could even handle office docs sufficiently.
           
          I don't work in the business world - I work in the tech world and there isn't really anything I can't do, that I need to do, with a linux box.
        • good luck with your Suse system when you need to run MS Office for compatibility reasons
          What specific problems have you run into when trying to use OpenOffice.org to read and write doc/xls/ppt? Sure, there are minor formatting differences, but those are comparable to the formatting differences between Word 2003 and Word 2007, or even between different localized versions of one version of Word. Or by "Microsoft Office", did you mean "Microsoft Access with VBA"?
      • A used ibm x30 is 200 dollars with a 60gb hd 512ram and 1.2 ghz chip. 3lbs and an 1inch thick. In another year it will be 100 dollars. Why bother with a new computer if all you want to do with it is travel, net, and type?
    • by Wdomburg (141264) on Wednesday April 09 2008, @04:36PM (#23017778)
      In my experience, if you're posting on internet forums about how everyone should be using your favourite operating system you're a platform snob, even if you claim you're not.
    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      $100 and it's its own Internet infrastructure.
      That is perfect.


      It's also not what the OLPC project offers, at least not yet. Each laptop costs closer to US$200, and there's no Internet infrastructure included (unless you mean the mesh networking, which could be implemented on just about any 802.11 device given an appropriate driver).

      And, having received my Give One, Get One laptop just yesterday, I can say that while the industrial design of the laptop is sublime, I do wish it had a little more horsepower u
      • Re:OLPC (Score:4, Interesting)

        by aurispector (530273) on Wednesday April 09 2008, @07:14PM (#23019308)
        I thought they came darned close with the EEE. I'd buy one in a heartbeat if it had an actual hard drive. My only complaint was the lack of storage.
    • by JimMarch(equalccw) (710249) on Wednesday April 09 2008, @05:51PM (#23018592)
      About a year ago I needed a lappie and was low on cash. I found an Acer 3680 "Best Buy special" for $400. This is a standard 15.4" screen-size laptop BUT they put a 14.1" in to save a bit of money. It's still 1280x800 and very readable. Other specs:

      * About 6lbs.

      * Celeron 1.6 single-core with a 533 memory bus.

      * 512megs RAM, 80gig SATA, DVD-read, CD-R/RW.

      * Intel 945 video.

      * PCMCIA slot.

      * Atheros WiFi.

      This is about the same horsepower as the recent crop of "ultra-lights", with more disk space of course.

      I dropped an extra gig in it for cheap and nuked Vista Home Basic immediately for Ubuntu. I'm typing this on it now, with Ubuntu Gutsy. I have full Compiz support although the limited graphics speed seems to limit the "cube" to a two-sided plane (two desktops) with full speed. I also have VirtualBox and Windows XP running perfectly.

      I even run whole-disk encryption with TrueCrypt with no noticeable speed penalty.

      It's been dropped twice and survived a water-glass spill that nuked the WiFi card but that was a $20 fix. It's been carried *daily*, used hard and runs like a champ still.

      This low-budget critter is enough to make anybody re-think the need for anything more potent, if you're running Linux.

      I mention all this to establish what performance baseline is really needed today.

      I wouldn't trade this critter for anything physically smaller, but then again I'm a big guy and am not bothered by running a sizeable "messenger bag" style laptop case.

      Finally, thumbs up to Acer for offering a cheap, tough and useful as hell little critter.

      Thumbs down to Micro$loth for fostering a crapware OS on them...
      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        About a year ago I needed a lappie and was low on cash. I found an Acer 3680 "Best Buy special" for $400. This is a standard 15.4" screen-size laptop BUT they put a 14.1" in to save a bit of money. It's still 1280x800 and very readable. Other specs:

        * About 6lbs.

        That's the whole point right there. 6lb is a LOT more than 2lbs. 6lbs, you might just leave your messenger bag in the car sometimes because you just don't wanna sling it

        2lbs, you'd barely notice it.

      • Re:OLPC (Score:5, Insightful)

        by hattig (47930) on Wednesday April 09 2008, @04:37PM (#23017788) Journal
        Back in the days, when we were young wee bairns, those bits of paper our elders bought stuff with were worth a lot more elsewhere in the world than they are now.

        Cheap, small laptops in the next year or two will be very popular though. People will be cutting back. They're not going to buy something fancy, they'll get something that will do the job. As long as it does the full internet, does their email, has information manager functionality, they'll be happy.

        It's not about CPU power in this form factor, unless you do something silly like running Vista on the device. The iPhone shows that you can have a slick, smooth interface, fully featured (um, cut and paste excepted) that works well for the user, on a mere 412MHz ARM11 CPU. I suspect that some tasks (music decoding) are offloaded to the ARM9 on another chip in the system that has acceleration for that. Oh, there's also an ARM7 in that other chip. Probably ARM7s in the wireless controller too. Intel - you really think you can compete when something like an iPhone has so many ARMs to slap you about with?

        Oh, I digress for a bad joke. Anyway, it's about the software and its optimisation. Linux has a grand chance here to shine on the lesser hardware.
        • Re:OLPC (Score:4, Funny)

          by kirbysuperstar (1198939) on Wednesday April 09 2008, @05:33PM (#23018406) Homepage

          Oh, I digress for a bad joke.
          Ah, don't worry, it was ARMless.
          • Re:OLPC (Score:5, Interesting)

            by turing_m (1030530) on Thursday April 10 2008, @02:15AM (#23021578)
            "As gigahertz race is over and mobility takes over, size, power and price are becoming more important than performance"

            Don't forget the silence and no-maintenance aspect that going completely passively cooled and solid-state affords you. And even in a desktop system all the other issues apart from computing speed become important once you experience the difference.

            Such other concerns are the whole raison d'etre of silentpcreview.com. There have been some clever cases designed for silence, but they lack the elegence of a small enclosed box that never needs to have filters cleaned or the worry that a fan will seize at an inopportune time.

            With the release of the Intel Atom and the Via Isaiah I suspect that it will be only a matter of time before we get the desktop system with essentially no downside. Which is why I'm waiting for it, because at that point the upgrade cycle will likely be over for me. Maybe there will be a killer app coming along, but we are 4 cores into the parallelization path of more CPU horsepower and I haven't seen it yet.

            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VIA_Isaiah [wikipedia.org]