Talk:Comparison of netbooks

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Editing guidelines[edit]

Ok, this page is out of control. It hasn't been heavily edited, and really needs to be.

1. Comparison of netbooks

Take the time to read the article first. "a category of small-sized, low-cost, light weight, lean function subnotebooks." This is not MIDs, or $2000 ultraportables.

2. The top and the bottom should be the same.

They were originally the same table, just split in two. THey sould have the same columns, except for one applicable to the second (release date)

3. Don't add a blank column.

Unless you add at least half of the details, in both tables. Don't expect other people to do work for you.

4. Ideally, don't add a redlinked device.

Main page: WP:nn
This is fine for devices in the bottom table, but real devices in mass production will have a large amount of information about them. If there are red links, you should go and create the page for the devices. If there is no information, they aren't in wide distribution and don't deserve to be listed here until there is enough notability.

5. Follow the formatting.

Use ? (with {{ }}) over just ?. Don't just leave fields blank. Use the same formatting down a column.

Additions that blatantly violate this (ie. blank columns) should be quickly removed. Aronzak (talk) 13:14, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Question: Perhaps there are ways to make a standardized specs table per device... which can then be embedded into a comparison chart over here? Is such functionality available within Wikipedia? Onnozele (talk) 13:00, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with all points, except point 5, the removed braces around '?' and the blank fields were done on purpose, because otherwise the sort function would break over these entries. Mahjongg (talk) 17:16, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
PS I, take it back, it seems that a '?' between curly brackets now works as it should, as I see that they are used and that sorting still works. I don't know why, perhaps the sort script has been repaired, or I myself are am bit "onnozel" :-) Mahjongg (talk) 17:23, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Mahjongg: I'm glad there are still some "self aware" people on the net. It's dutch by the way. ;)
Yeah, I know what it means because I'm Dutch myself... It pays to stay a bit "self aware". Mahjongg (talk) 01:07, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have just repeated the header row every 10 products. When I read the page the first time, it was hard to locate what column i was since the headers were too far high. I hope my change is fine. thevikas (talk) 05:26, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well actually there is a problem, its not compatible with sorting the table, as any attempt at sorting will clump all the headers together. I don't know how to solve that, or whether its too much of a problem. Mahjongg (talk) 15:06, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestions for content[edit]

How about adding a column for wireless connectivity? Thanks How about adding a column for release date, as many of these devices are relatively old? Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mares (talk • contribs) 13:51, 24 February 2009 (UTC) Perhaps a running candidate list for Content Suggestions[reply]

  1. Wireless LAN Support
  2. Wireless WAN Support
  3. PCMCIA / PC Card /Express Card Slot ( Lenovo S10e has this )

I'm happy to research and add if no objections regards

--Seanwong (talk) 12:33, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How does "Wireless LAN" differ from "Wireless WAN" .. ?, btw, I think USB is more common on netbooks than any PC-Card/Express Card interface. Electron9 (talk) 19:32, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to see wireless (and which standards 802.11 a/b/g/n) and Bluetooth (with version). It can be hard to tell 1) which models support 802.11n and 2) which models have Bluetooth and what version is supported. --Rakerman (talk) 14:51, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Footprint[edit]

Why was my footprint column removed? It is one number that is easy to compare. The screen size is not sufficient, especially when looking at the different EEEs where the 7 inch screen is much smaller than the laptop. Dimensiondude (talk) 04:30, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dimensions[edit]

The dimensions (L-W-H) for these netbooks is of intrest for many I belive. Would be intresting to see them compared! KhaaL (talk) 04:02, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Compared how? How can you compare three numbers at the same time? There is already screen size. You may note that models are referred to as a" subnotebooks, not a x b x c(cm) subnotebooks. Also, as happened last time someone added this, there were different units (in, cm, mm). That was a pain. Aronzak (talk) 03:16, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Are you kidding? Columns listing width, depth and height, as already explained, in mm or converted to mm as necessary. Alternatively, instead of width and depth, a column listing diagonal size. A2+B2=C2. In mm.
What an idiotic argument, how about: You may note that models are referred to as a" subnotebooks, not a (kg) subnotebooks.
I hope your life is fairly trouble free, you seem easily overwhelmed by mild trivialities.121.209.145.205 (talk) 06:41, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
See also: User:Fleminra/Comparison of Linux subnotebooks

A column listing width, a column listing depth, a column listing avg thickness. Seems pretty simple. I agree with Khaal. The screen size tells me zero wrt the physical dimensions. All in mm so the majority of the planet doesn't have to convert.

Split[edit]

Original talk page was Talk:Comparison of subnotebooks. --Kozuch (talk) 11:18, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Display resolution[edit]

Normally I'm a practitioner of code reuse (or "definition by reference" in Wikipedia) but I think in the context of this article, having numbers in the "display resolution" column makes the article more approachable. More people understand plain pixel counts than the industry's somewhat arbitrary resolution labels. —Fleminra (talk) 18:12, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]


I do not welcome the current split by resolution and resolution description (such as 800x480 = WVGA). I feel that those abbreviations do hardly help at all. They do nut justify an extra sort column - and the type (gloss/glossy vs. matte) is more a kind of a search spec, instead of a sortable one. Behind the abbreviation it's not sortable at all. I'd vote for a column remerge. --Traut (talk) 12:51, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

it's a bit weird this subnotebook vs netbook discussion. I'm looking for a netbook with a 13" or so screen, but I see none on this page. does that mean if it's bigger than 12", it's not a netbook? why this arbitrary distinction... --77.7.251.34 (talk) 21:21, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Battery Time[edit]

This is hugely contested. This especially should not be there for upcoming models as figures are wildly inaccurate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.210.122.153 (talk) 12:14, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You get different numbers based on the number of cells in the battery, screen brightness, wifi, bluetooth on/off etc, etc, etc... Not to mention that battery life quickly diminishes. Aronzak (talk) 03:11, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Battery is very important issue and cannot be missed. To standardize the value, state the "number of cells" and total Electric current in Ampere of mA.--Kittyhawk2 (talk) 10:18, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If we choose to go that path, then the header should be "battery capacity", not "battery life". Even then the battery capacity should be expressed in mA/Hour because the (max) electric current the battery can deliver does not say anything about its capacity. Then if the capacity is a known, this still gives little to no info to the user, as the requirement of the Netbook, in mA/Hour may range greatly from model to model, and from one kind of use to another, so in the end the battery capacity still tells the user almost nothing about how much real use he can expect out of the Netbook. So "battery is very important", might be true but at the same time is an almost meaningless figure. What we really need is a figure that states how long a full battery can keep the Netbook working while doing a typical, pre-defined task. I would suggest that "browsing the Internet" would be a good task to use, as that is what a Netbook is typically used for. Still, even then actual length might depend on many other factors, like how bright the back lighting is. How far from the WiFi base the Netbook is etc etc. Mahjongg (talk) 16:33, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

keyboard size[edit]

Keyboard size is also of intrest for many I belive. Would be intresting to see them compared too! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.186.137.47 (talk) 08:06, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can it be that different to the screen size? Aronzak (talk) 03:10, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed that the size of the keyboard and the size of the screen will be greatly correlated. However, the frame around the screen and the keyboard can both vary, and thus their relative sizes can vary (this is also relates to the footprint discussion).
The issue to me is not the overall size of the keyboard, but the size of the key spacing. Many sub sized laptop computers, in order to reduce the size of the device, have reduced the size of the keyboard by reducing the key spacing. A smaller than standard key spacing is fine for hunt-and-peck typists, but can be frustrating for touch typists. I also would like to see this information. However, I see issues in how to express this and how to find this info. I have seen some reviews express this info as a percent of full size, e.g. "a keyboard that is 85% the size of a regular keyboard". Another way might be to express this info as the distance between the center of adjacent keys (or left-edge to left-edge).
--206.158.105.10 (talk) 21:20, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that left-edge to left-edge spacing, side to side, sometimes called key pitch, is the important information, for me and many people. On a standard desktop-type keyboard it seems to be 19mm; I checked three. I don't care if it's expressed in millimeters or as a percentage of 19mm. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.201.142.120 (talk) 04:43, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fan and noise[edit]

I think this would be of interest too. One of the delights of a 701 is the silence, until the fan kicks in. My next buy in the next generation of proessors will consider noise as well as size, weight, clarity, connectivity, etc. Do Atoms have fans? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.155.35.106 (talk) 10:10, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't even quantifiable, yet alone comparable. This page is a comparison, not a buyer's guide. You probably didn't notice that. Aronzak (talk) 03:13, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Why isn't it quantifiable in Sone? --77.64.135.25 (talk) 10:56, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
it would be nice if the table mentioned if it is passively cooled (like OLPC or dell mini) or not --78.104.25.103 (talk) 17:52, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Glare or non-glare display[edit]

Glare or non-glare display is also of intrest for mobile computing for me. --89.186.137.47 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 20:15, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is a good idea.--Kozuch (talk) 17:00, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lets put down some page rules[edit]

This page is becomming little messy... almost vaporware is being included, EEE PC is having 5 rows altogether etc. Let us put down some rules for this page.--Kozuch (talk) 14:13, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What I also suggest is to include only reference designs, if the nebook is sold under various brands (like MSI Wind vs. Mivvy M310). Because if we do not do this, we will end up with a table filled up with one model only.--Kozuch (talk) 16:59, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To do list[edit]

Add pathfinder guide to netbooks: http://www.budgetnetbooks.co.uk http://blog.laptopmag.com/hands-on-with-the-sylvania-g-netbook-meso —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.135.191.84 (talk) 14:43, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That is non encyclopedic, and smells like spam. If its is not a valid reference, It will be removed, no doubt. Mahjongg (talk) 18:21, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Table formating[edit]

Can someone watch the table formating a little bit? Parts of both tables seem to be continuously broken...--Kozuch (talk) 13:20, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

64/32-bit mentioning + WiFi (yes/no column)[edit]

Please insert the mentioning whether its 32 or 64-bit; its annoying to constantly need to look up this info per cpu by clicking on the cpu type. An extra column should also be added with WiFi (yes/no column) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.246.189.2 (talk) 06:41, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You can get that info on each device's page if it is relevant. Most of them are 32 bit. Aronzak (talk) 13:14, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

New alternative name: notebook UMPC[edit]

I propose adding a alternative name "notebook UMPC", as too mentioned at the following website: http://www.umpcportal.com/products/ and the Comparisation_of_tablet_PCs-article —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.246.146.233 (talk) 11:32, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I also advocate moving part of the "convertible"-class of the tablet pc's (those smaller certain dimensions eg dimensions of netbooks) to this page —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.246.146.233 (talk) 11:52, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not spam the article with totally minority name(s).--Kozuch (talk) 19:20, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, try not to put in red links. Also, note the difference on that very page between "notebook" and "slide" UMPCs. "slide" does not belong here.

New article; Comparison of MIDs[edit]

I've removed some of the devices that are MIDs. It would be possible to take the information that was there and create a new article. Then all of these comparisons could become a template and link to each other. Aronzak (talk) 13:41, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Page sort is buggy[edit]

It would be nice to be able to view the table with a sorting ability (sort by price, screensize, etc) Smartmlp (talk) 01:52, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There were problems with that last time. The top row is actually two.Aronzak (talk) 07:27, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
fixed for released models. Maybe someone else wants to do the same for the announced ones. --Traut (talk) 12:59, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to whoever completed my aborted attempt to make the table sortable; it looks great! I found just one small issue: sorting by battery life does not work; would the fixer take a look? Thank you. Whatever404 (talk) 12:44, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorting on price has a bug, as the most expensive system is sorted as the second least expensive, it seems four digit numbers are not sorted correctly. Actually, it think the $1785 model 1/model 2 OQO system shouldn't be in this table, as its not a netbook, its an Origami class UMPC. Mahjongg (talk) 09:11, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
According to Help:Sorting#Sort_modes it should work properly. Otherwise each price had to get a { {sort|price } } tag. --Traut (talk) 16:39, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it obviously isn't working perfectly, because it puts a $1,785 UMPC as cheapest on the top of the list, above a $130 system and the $200 OLPC. But never-mind, ill just remove the UMPC system, as it has no place in this list anyway. Mahjongg (talk) 23:31, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I solved the "upcoming" table bug that put prices like "400-640" above prices like "250" instead of below them, by changing the separator between the two numbers from '-' into '~'. By the way the examples in help:sorting work correctly, so its not a browser issue. It just seems that the sorting algorithm is confused by all the non numerical stuff in the entries.
Price sorting still is buggy though, try pressing the sorting butting multiple times , and the '?' entries jump up and down in the result, every other cycle of two presses on the sort button and you will see that sorting in one of these sorting orders fails to sort to numerical order. So sometimes the sort works, and sometimes not. I propose to remove all non numerical stuff from the price table. Or perhaps someone who know more about this can fix the problems. Mahjongg (talk) 09:17, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorting by 400-600 as well as 400–640 (- vs. –) always worked properly here. However, I never managed to fix the four-digit problem, even on sample tables. Could it be that this is more a browser problem, how it does apply the JavaScript sort? I once guessed that the question mark broke the behavior, but a test table worked as well. I recommend not to add special sort templates as long as they are not needed (as it was done in between for battery times) --Traut (talk) 12:57, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The browser certainly has some influence, I tried with both Safari, and Firefox. On safari both the "released" and "upcoming" tables had problems, on Firefox the "released" table worked fine, but the "upcoming" table had the exact same problem as in Safari. There seem to be four, not two, "modes" (each one follows the next when you click on the sort button). Normally you toggle between a "sorting up", and a "sorting down" mode, but instead there are four "modes", and the second and fourth "mode" sort the list in the wrong way! And this happens both with Firefox and Safari, in exactly the same way. My suspicion is that the "question mark" macro's have a bad influence on the sorting algorithm. Mahjongg (talk) 23:04, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. It also happens with the new google "chrome" browser, works with the "released" table, but not correctly with the "upcoming" table. Mahjongg (talk) 16:45, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weight and background color[edit]

What does the background for a weight color mean? Should this be classes < 1 kg, 1..1.5 kg, > 1.5 kg? --213.164.91.2 (talk) 15:15, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it seems that devices of 1KG or below are in a different color, again, this does not work with dual table entries such as "0,9/1,2". I propose not to use dual table entries, but making dual rows where needed. Mahjongg (talk) 16:48, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
and using <1kg / <2lbs is really silly. This means colors don't align around the edges of categories. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.19.154.141 (talk) 18:46, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree it makes no sense for the weight categories to be different for pounds and kilograms, it makes for a bizarre display in which the colours indicate a netbook is "lighter" or "heavier" depending what units you use to measure it. Rakerman (talk) 02:36, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The problem obviously is that kilo's and LB's are simply not related in any way, a Kilo = 2,2046 pound, and a pound is 0,4536 kilo. So kilo and pound do not easily mix and match. Best would be to use only one unit of weight, preferably according to the manual of style. But I think we will get into an edit war if we prefer the use of only one unit, be it KG, or LBS. A compromise might be to use "breakpoints" at natural places, that is to say 1KG, and 2.5 and 3 LBS, and to convert these three breakpoints to the exact equivalent in the other units. So to have 1KG = 2.205 LBS, 1.134KG = 2.5 LBS and 1.361KG = 3.0 LBS. You would get a table with exactly the same weight colors for either unit, the table would look like this:

Legend[edit]

Color Weight (kg) Weight (lbs)
Blue < 1 kg < 2.205 lbs
Green 1 to 1.134 kg 2.205 to 2.5 lbs
Yellow 1.134 to 1.361 kg 2.5 to 3.0 lbs
Orange > 1.361 kg > 3.0 lbs
Grey Variable Variable
White Not Known Not Known

Problem will be to figure out again the exact weight of each unit, so to decide to which color to change a wrong table entry color. Mahjongg (talk) 11:04, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Another new Netbook...[edit]

It's called Axioo Pico by Axioo. (Or sould I say the model name Pico?)

Source: Cnet Asia [1]

Here's more detailed specifications (based on the advertisement brochure I got in Singapore):
Model: Pico
Manufacturer: Axioo
Weight: 1.2 Kg
Display size: 10" TFT LCD screen
Display resolution: 1024 × 600
Display type: WSVGA
Cost: SGD 748 (USD 521.80, based on Google Calculator)
Operating System: Windows XP Home
CPU: Intel Atom N270
CPU clock speed: 1.6 GHz
Storage type: HDD
Storage size: 160 GB
RAM: onboard 1GB DDR2 PC5300 (667MHz) RAM, with additional 1 empty SO-DIMM slot (upgradeable to 2GB)
Battery life: Unknown (3-cell 11.1V 2.2Ah Li-Ion battery is provided, and optional 6-cell 11.1V 5.2Ah Li-Ion battery)
—Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.182.118.163 (talk) 17:13, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Touch Screen[edit]

These are starting to appear. Can we add touch display to the columns and maybe categorize like this: 

[ PEN / TOUCH / MULTI / NO ] 76.111.72.122 (talk) 22:56, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I feel there are not enough of them. A sort option is not required, a search by keywords is sufficient. Different touchscreen styles are even less typical (within this price segment). Thus Touch can be added easily as a detail to the display column. --Traut (talk) 12:59, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

New Netbook from Commodore[edit]

Might want to get this into the table. http://news.cnet.com/8301-17938_105-10029963-1.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.169.195.238 (talk) 12:08, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

New Netbook from Advent[edit]

http://news.softpedia.com/news/Advent-4213-Is-No-MSI-Wind-Lookalike-93530.shtml —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.179.66.54 (talk) 13:24, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Cost/Prices[edit]

Should we include the cost in UKP as well as USD? Rational: - This is English wiki and main English speaking markets are UK and US - Local costs are usually not a direct conversion - Could also use column to indicate a model is not available in a local market. JP (talk) 11:36, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I recommend to use USD prices only. Most prices are announced first in USD or can be converted rather easily. Personally, I would need Euro prices - and even if the actual exchange rate is about 1.5:1, the local price can be converted 1:1 (due to about 20 % tax and the usual extra price for smaller/special markets). You're right that this here is en.wikipedia and not us.wikipedia - but many models are not available in UK at all. I'd like a price comparison page of its own - prices on market intro, prices in USD, in UK pounds, in Euro, Yen, etc., actual street prices, links to suitable price comparison services etc. Maybe you should start it on your wiki homepage? --Traut (talk) 14:42, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Price in which part of the world? Richard Pinch (talk) 17:09, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Prices need to be updated[edit]

I just checked Newegg. Eee 901 is now selling for 250. Acer Aspire 1 sells for 330. Inspiron mini starts at 350. Sylvania G sells for 330. More changes probably necessary but this is what I've seen. 160.39.177.112 (talk) 18:57, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please feel free to correct whatever outdated information you find! Whatever404 (talk) 21:36, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reinstated additional columns[edit]

I attempted to address the concerns about width by reducing the size of the font, and by trimming the width of the headers. I reinstated the splitting of the display resolution/type into two columns because the size of the screen is a separate attribute from the type of the screen. Please discuss it here before reverting. Whatever404 (talk) 13:26, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not waste space by adding redundant columns. What's the profit to have an extra column which names "WVGA", VGA etc.? It can not be sorted properly, since the abbreviation is a random order. It does not even add extra info for the resolution, since it is just a shortcut for the number. I feel it could be deleted completely. But since it is common for some users, it might be added (that is kept) as an extra info to the resolution. I told you that I disagree about the extra high/low battery column. Why do you change it again and again - instead of discussing it here first? Think about your optimization for large windows - you make it unusable for the topic itself, that is netbooks with a typical width of 840 pixels only. I feel the pounds should be removed again. We do not have to add every possible info. kg is an international standard, as USD is a common currency. No need for pounds, no need for Yen, Euro, UK pounds etc. --Traut (talk) 20:57, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The screen types can be sorted, they are grouped according to type, alphabetically. The display type is a different attribute from the display size; they can be separated to provide another way to sort the information more specifically.
KG is indeed an "international standard", however, most people in the US who are not engineers are not able to "think metric". Blame it on the US government. If we are providing prices in USD, why not provide the weight in a format that those using USD can understand? It is a matter of accessibility, and considering the number of Wikipedia contributors in the US, I do not think their needs should be discounted.
Finally, it is a stretch to say that the additional columns make the table "unusable". I strongly doubt that netbooks are somehow incapable of rendering horizontal scroll bars. I made edits to the table to attempt to compromise between the two of us, by making the table as narrow as possible while retaining this relevant information. Thoughts? Whatever404 (talk) 21:44, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relevant to whom? Again, this page is a comparison, about differences between the netbooks. It is not an information dump.
Do you see Wikipedia as primarily a as a published, reputable academic source or a place that is more accessible and everyone can contribute. If it is the former, SI units must be used. If it is the latter, using multiple units is more appropriate to help some people read the article. As this is a newish article about an evolving topic, the latter is preferable now. But really, this is the age of the internet. There's no longer any excuse. Aronzak (talk) 10:22, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]


I do not see the advantage to sort netbooks by SXGA (best), VGA (worst), WSVGA (good), WVGA (standard), WXVGA (very good)? Sort order by pixel count (resolution) appears to be much more appropriate. The resolution here is complete, its abbreviation isn't - and the abbreviation is not a standard for all resolutions.
Same for weight by pounds. The purpose of the table is for direct comparison, but not to show every possible info. Use the model link itself to see the details. But do not add redundant data. The different background colors by your random levels did not work very well, having different steps for pounds and levels.
Apart from that, other tables lack your new columns, not only the upcoming, but e.g. subnotebooks etc. Thus a comparison between different tables or moving data from one table to another does no longer work without major rework. Don't break a working system without very good reasons! --Traut (talk) 22:04, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Problem with sorting in Price column[edit]

The Price column appears to have two methods of sorting (each displayed top to bottom), for a total of four possible views. One of the methods is incorrect for our purposes, it lists 1,785 as the cheapest. Is there someone who knows more about table sorting who can help? Whatever404 (talk) 13:26, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I tried to solve it, (see Page sort is buggy), my best guess now is that the {{?}} macro disturbs the sorting process. Mahjongg (talk) 10:09, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, my hunch was correct! Removing the question mark macro's made sorting work in the "upcoming" table! I also removed the offending macro's in the "released" table, but unfortunately the use of multiple entries in the price, like "400-640" instead of a single figure still wrecks havoc with the sorting process. It would be best if they were removed. If there are two different versions with widely different prices they should be split up into two separate items, As it is now the list is obfuscated by not doing this, as it is not even clear -why- there are two different prices. Is it because there are two different models, for example with different storage sizes, or is the price different because of a different installed OS, or because of both reasons, like the EEE PC 900 that comes as a 20GB Linux version and a 12 GB windows version. In situations like these there should be multiple table entries not just one. Mahjongg (talk) 19:12, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Good work, Mahjongg! Would you consider noting this phenomenon on the question-mark-macro Talk page? I would do it myself, but I don't quite understand how to describe it. Also, this may be a good topic for the Village Pump (the Technical section), as more people would see the issue, increasing the likelihood that it would be seen by someone who would be able to fix it.
I think the wide differences in price are often attributable to using a larger/longer-lasting battery. In many cases, the rest of the computer is the same, it's just the battery option that changes the weight and price. Is there some creative way in which we could note this? Perhaps a color in the price column that means "difference in price depends on battery choice"? Whatever404 (talk) 11:07, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fact-checking[edit]

As 160.39.177.112 noted above, the prices may need to be updated. In fact, all of the information ought to be fact-checked. Would anyone like to join me in fact-checking? If we were to get five more people to join in, it would be only four computers per person to check. Doing this would greatly increase the usefulness of this article. Who would like to join me? Whatever404 (talk) 13:26, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do you really want to keep track on the current prices? That'd be insane! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.52.135.221 (talk) 14:21, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This issue is long since resolved. Mahjongg (talk) 11:06, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Background colours in table[edit]

What do the background colours in the tables mean, and why are they used? If you want to use background colours, at least also place an index of their meaning. I now see no logic at all in them. Mahjongg (talk) 10:13, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is now an index. The colors used could certainly be changed, their meanings as well, but I think they are useful and should not be removed entirely. Whatever404 (talk) 21:37, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That was originally just to make the table look pretty. They can help to make it easier to see differences (as in comparison) between models. Aronzak (talk) 06:51, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Another thing, the key should be the same regardless of units. Aronzak (talk) 09:59, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As you can see I did a major overhaul of the tables, I hope they are all OK now. Mahjongg (talk) 21:42, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OQO Model 2[edit]

Why is the OQO model 2 still listed in the table, its clearly NOT a netbook, it falls squarely in the UMPC category, with its > $1000,-price and its non clamshell touch-screen design, its an UMPC, NOT a netbook clear and simple! It should be removed (again). Mahjongg (talk) 10:20, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I did not add it, and I know nothing about the device, but if you feel it should be removed, feel free. However, if you feel that netbooks and UMPCs are different devices, perhaps the lede sentence also needs to be changed: the phrase "notebook UMPC" is currently purported as a synonym for "netbook". Whatever404 (talk) 21:39, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well I DID remove it, but it was re-added, and My initial question wasn't directed to anybody in particular, so I never meant to suggest anybody in particular who put it back, (you can see for yourself who did it in the history file). It just seems to be somebody who seems to hope the OQO will catch a few eyeballs, that or he thinks it makes a nice contrast with real netbooks. IMHO the term "notebook UMPC" is a frankensteinian concoction, and seems to be thought up by some desperate advertising agents who wanted to try to give the failed UMPC concept a bit of free "netbook" love. I think it should be removed, you have your netbook, of which the EEE PC 700 was the first, and canonical example, and you have UMPCs that were designed, and tried to cater, for a wholly different market. They were -defined- by NOT having a clamshell (notebook) design, but instead being tablet PCs with a touch screen, so they could be used without having to operate a keyboard, on the go. Unfortunately the specifications for them (a drawn up by Microsoft, so they could run Vista) made them excessively expensive, and not very useful for the average user, who did not have a need to use it while walking around. And using it while walking around with it seems the premise that defined why they are as their are. Yes, there are netbooks, that can be used in the same way, in particular the cloudbook,, which used a different idea (a "thumb pad", and a gap between the display and the body) to ensure usability while having no stable place to put the device on, but not all netbooks were designed with that in mind. There is some confusion about the naming, but the market will sort it out, see [2] . I hope the unholy concoction of "notebook UMPC" won't become popular, its just not a fit name for all of these devices, only for the cloudbook, and its certainly not fit for the original EEE PC, which is a lovely machine, (I have a eee PC 900) but impossible to use while holding it in your hands, it wasn't intended to be used that way, and a UMPC IS. Well I just wanted to know if there is consensus that the OQO system doesn't belong in the table, before I remove it again, I don't want to start an edit war. Mahjongg (talk) 01:45, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The name "notebook UMPC" was thought up by some website and someone thought that it would be a good idea to add. If you go to the page, you'll find that what are 'real' UMPCs are called 'slide' or 'tablet'. I would be for getting rid of this term if it causes any confusion. Aronzak (talk) 06:54, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Remove EEE models[edit]

Just a thought, but the ASUS Eee PC article has a table of its own. Maybe some of the eee models should be removed? Ideally there would be a focus on going to each model's own page for detailed information. Aronzak (talk) 06:57, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This table here shows a basic comparison between different models at all. The table for Eee PCs shows the detailed differences between Asus models. Thus I feel both tables are appropriate and Eees should be kept here. -- Traut (talk) 22:09, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps there are ways to make a standardized specs table per device... which can then be embedded into a comparison chart over here? Is such functionality available within Wikipedia??? Onnozele (talk) 12:55, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To-do list?[edit]

I have noticed that some articles have a "to-do" list in a template at the top of the article. Is anyone interested to help identify ways in which we can improve the article, or tasks we could add to such a list, in order to focus our efforts? Whatever404 (talk) 15:11, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RfC: Are prices relevant[edit]

I suggest that price information has no place in this article. Firstly, it's parochial. It can apply only to one place (and no-one will tell me where that is). Secondly, it's ephemeral, and commits editors to endless updating. Thirdly, it's useless: what do I do with that information? Fourthly, it's against policy. From Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not

Away with them! Richard Pinch (talk) 06:10, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

One of the main characteristics of netbooks is that they where introduced as low-cost computers. One of the major innovations was the $100-laptop. Thus it is essential to prove that a low price actually is achieved - and that the initial price of $100 was not possible. I agree that this table here should not reflect current street prices. Personally I'd vote for actual announced prices, for upcoming as announced, for available at market introduction and recommended price. It would be useful to add the date here, at least as a comment. Otherwise a years old netbook would be compared with a much better speced and lower priced current model. --Traut (talk) 08:14, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not a price-list, but If the pricing is an important part of what makes the subject notable then it should be possible to mention it, Other articles also have prices, when that is relevant in the context of the article, for example the Xbox 360 article mentions prices. I do agree that only release prices should be put into the table, except when the price fluctuations are notable in themselves. By the way, it seems that a price below $100 is possible after all, as one of the announced systems carries a projected price of just $98,- . But we will need to wait and see what happens, will we get a "race to the bottom" as some manufacturers fear, or will the prices raise again. Mahjongg (talk) 21:41, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And where are these prices going to be valid? Richard Pinch (talk) 21:47, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Prices are neither current street prices nor are they given for each possible configuration. They do not include cost of delivery, nor prices in other countries. They are a mere matter for comparison purposes (sortable!) - reflecting the announced price or the price at market introduction, for the smallest (cheapest) available configuration. There's not even the need to add each netbook model, since some models are named differently, while they have the same basic concept and add little different changes, mainly for RAM and storage. Different screen sizes or resolutions would justify a new entry, I suppose, since display size is one of the major VISIBLE differences. Color is visible as well, but does not change the basic concept. --Traut (talk) 15:02, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I would be in favour of removing them. When I started the page, there were only a few models separated noticeably by price. This is now out of hand. -- Aronzak (talk) 11:47, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A "netbook" (an "Internet notebook") does not have to be small nor cheap. It is a single-purpose device for Internet use and as such one of the key requirements is a large screen (or at least lots of pixels) which in turn increases costs, as evidenced by netbooks approaching $1000. And no, this does not make it a laptop, as will be seen this year with an influx of alternative (eg ARM) processors and dedicated (eg Cloud) operating systems. -- samj inout 20:45, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Prices removed per consensus. -- samj inout 20:51, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
How did you define "consensus"? I see comments pro and contra, but neither a clear consensus nor a vote. Is this the common consensus how an RfC is done? --Traut (talk) 15:04, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your "assumptions" are at right angle with accepted wisdom about netbooks, netbooks, certainly the canonical netbooks like the initial Asus models were all about price, and small size, and just enough of everything to make them useful. Just enough screen size to view the average webpage, and just enough processing power for what they needed to do. Especially with non windows, non X86 netbooks going for prices below $100, Price IS extremely important. I see an effort by established manufacturers to "blend" the term netbooks back to the old price and capabilities range of notebooks, in an effort to stop the popularity of cheap netbooks, they want back to the old more profitable days, with Vista capable "mini notebooks", sold as "netbooks". I also do not see (at all) the "consensus" you claim for such a great change in the article, You are the only person bringing this old topic up again here for more than two months! There was nothing really wrong with showing prices, until you suddenly claimed "consensus" and removed them. So I'm reverting your removals, until we really have established a consensus, that is after more than two or three people have discussed this and a real reason is given why they should go. Mahjongg (talk) 23:02, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Currently we have User:Aronzak (original author), User:Richard Pinch, and User:SamJohnston calling to remove the prices and User:Mahjongg and User:Traut calling to leave them. There is doubt as to whether price is in any way relevant to netbooks ("Internet notebooks"), especially with newer models running out to the late hundreds. We also have the official policy (WP:NOT) telling us that prices are clearly not appropriate except in exceptional circumstances:
I'm reverting User:Mahjongg's re-inclusion of the prices (citing WP:NOT policy) and requesting comments from other editors - as the original author said above "this is now out of hand". -- samj inout 02:50, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree WP is not a sales guide, and I appreciate the RFQ, so we can really decide on the best action. Actually I also wasn't too happy about mentioning real prices, for me just color codes for price ranges would have been perfect. Especially because of prices relating to discussion of a price war such info should certainly be defensible. I think the (original) low cost price of netbooks, and the forthcoming price increases of new models is a relevant issue. I wonder if the new high priced "netbooks" will find many buyers, and what the influence of their existence on the netbook market will be. This issue needs its own article, or at least a passage in netbooks. One way to address it, would be with a "scatter plot" of historical price development. Of course the (historical) prices of netbooks are important, if the Asus EEE PC had not been a price breakthrough it would never have lead to the market as we see today. Remember, mini-laptops also specifically usable for mobile Internet use were available long before netbooks became popular, but with a price around a thousand dollar or more they never became popular! So how was price "not relevant" in the emerging popularity of netbooks. Mahjongg (talk) 12:06, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I hate deleting content too but the pricing information was confusing, messy, high maintenance and perhaps worst of all, often misleading. The wording in the netbook article is currently that they are often significantly cheaper than general purpose laptops. I agree that the Asus was successful primarily due to its price (consider the discontinued Psion netBook on the other hand at $1,299) but going forward there will be three types of netbooks: basic (eg small ARM/Linux embedded devices), standard (eg what we see today) and pro (eg more expensive, large screens, high quality, etc.). Now that consumers have the taste for blood the're not going to accept being forced into paying more and with more asian manufacturers getting on board the low end prices could well drop below $100. That is, they are pushing out in both directions. In any case trying to track it here does more harm than good but it will be interesting to see the analyst reports this year. -- samj inout 17:15, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, what can I say, I'm in complete agreement with what you say! Maybe we can add a "color code" to the table with the three price segments, below $100, $100 to $500, and above $500, something like that. It will be interesting to see what will happen if netbooks with one or two Texas Instruments OMAP Cortex processors get to market, imagine a netbook that runs a whole day (12 Hours) on a battery charge, costs less than $200, and has enough processing power to view YouTube content. It needs to combine the power saving display technology of the OLPC combined with the OMAP and screen accelerator technology of the Pandora, and running a real unencumbered full Linux distro (with a working Installer system) like Ubuntu, not a closed and dumbed down "easy mode" system, you can hardly install new software on.
Qualitative price analysis could be interesting if there's precedent for it but I would suggest that for now the bands be low (0..250), mid (250..500) and high (500+). So basically if you can find other comparisons that do qualitative (rather than quantitative) price analysis then I think we've found our middle ground. Otherwise I'd say it's best to stick to the features and let the vendors and aggregators take care of the pricing.
PS My iPhone runs for days on a single charge so I don't see why a netbook shouldn't be capable of the same, but don't hold your breath for highly customisable embedded systems - I guess we'll have to wait and see... us power users can always pay a bit extra for the flexibility of a general purpose device. -- samj inout 15:01, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
PPS Well, your iPhone runs on an ARM processor too, but I assume you knew that. I heard some netbooks actually contain an x86 based SoC for Windows compatibility (usually with only Pentium 1 or 2 class CPU's), PLUS an ARM compatible chip to run some computing intensive applications, subsystems and drivers ported to ARM so the battery live is made reasonable. Mahjongg (talk) 23:27, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yup, but I've not heard of anyone buying them just like I've not heard of anyone switching graphics mode regularly on the macbook pro (you can switch to a more powerful graphics processor but it burns your battery life and you can't switch back without restarting). I don't expect these hybrid devices to be competitive - those who need a notebook will get one and not have to worry about the friction of switching. -- samj inout 12:23, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think they are still in the design stage, and no "switching" is needed, its just that some code runs on the power efficient ARM co-processor, other code that is vital for Windows compatibility runs on the more power hungry X86 compatible SoC. I have not actually heard of any actual product that is using this technology yet though, just that it is considered. Mahjongg (talk) 23:21, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It seems as though discussion has ended for this dispute. I am going to remove the Request for comment template at the top of this section. If anyone feels this isn't the case, feel free to add it back. Brianreading (talk) 01:01, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

sortable prices[edit]

This is a copy of a discussion that was started by User:Traut on my talkpage "User:Mahjongg"


Could you leave the original prices within the tables, such as comparison of netbooks? It's good to have them sortable. But it's wrong to sacrifice the original prices in order to have a USD price. I do not see any chance to convert a price correctly: One solution is the current exchange rate itself. Would you convert it again tomorrow, when the exchange rate changed? Announced prices are for the specific country only. They depend on local taxes, profit margins, critical price borders (e.g. 299 instead of 312) etc. Thus I recommend to leave the original price as announced. You can make it sortable by { { ntsh|price in usd} } price in original currency, currency. How about this approach? --Traut (talk) 20:34, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What are "original prices"? My main concern with mixing prices in dollars with prices in British pounds and Euros (what's next, Japanese Yen's?) is that it makes comparison of prices impossible. Actually I am not a big fan of pricing everything in Dollars, I'm European, so I would rather see prices in Euros, especially because the dollar is fluctuating so much, but for better or for worse, dollars are still the most logical choice in Wikipedia. As for the "exchange rate problem", its illusionary, simply use the exchange rate that was current the moment the product came on the market, as that is the criterion used by the manufacturers when deciding what the product should cost. It's a pity the Dollar fluctuates so much, but what should we otherwise do? Convert to Euros and then convert back to the current dollar prices? The whole point of the list is to make it possible to compare the relative expense of each device against it capabilities. For a normal visitor that is made impossible when he has to compare dollars with pounds, most people wouldn't even know how much a pounds is worth compared to a dollar (or euro). And Yes the same device will be priced differently in New Delhi than in New York, but that just reflect the socio-economic realities, to make comparison possible prices should be compared as they are in the -same- markets, so logically in the American market. So although the "sorting problem" may be fixed with technical tricks, I still think the table should list comparable prices, so all prices should be in the -same- currency, as priced in the -same- market, either simply at the time of release, or as the price at time of release, converted to a stable currency (like the euro), then converted back to prices at the current exchange rate (or a exchange rate of the same moment in time for all the devices. If that is the only way to make comparison of prices possible. If you think the prices mentioned in the references are of historical importance, you can keep them in commented form in the page, as is already often done. Mahjongg (talk) 00:11, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
you did a simple conversion by exchange rate. Since you are European, you should know about local taxes (here in Germany e.g. 19 %) which you would have to remove. Personally, I would leave the original prices as least as a comment. But you did remove them recently, instead of moving them to comments. I've shown a possible solution to you, how to SORT in dollars, but how to indicate that no US price was given by providing the price within original currency. How do you think about this approach? I don not understand why you changed price ranges such as 234-456 to 234, 456. That's another way how valuable info will be lost, since there may be models in between which cost 345, 399 etc. This is matched by 234-456, but not by discrete values 234, 456. You do sacrifice information for the purpose of sortability (both 234-456, 234–456 and "234, 456" did work here) and I do not observe these sort problems. I do not have four sort triggers, it's always two, up and down. I do not have problems with ?. So maybe you sacrifice information due to the malfunction of your local browsers? Think about the ntsh template in order to ensure proper sorting. --Traut (talk) 06:33, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Again, the most important argument against mixing currencies in the table is NOT sorting, its that it makes first glance comparisons impossible. And the sorting process did not fail with just "my local browser", I tried three different browsers and they all failed to sort correctly. That you think a "range" of prices is acceptable is exactly the problem, it makes comparison of different models impossible, as there is not the smallest indication what factor influences the price. Only one price should be mentioned, with an exactly described model types. If conversion from the reference price to dollars needs a correction, then go ahead, and correct them (and leave a comment to tell other editors what you did, so they do not change it back). Oh, and it would be better to discuss this where everybody involved with the article can follow it, why discuss it here, discuss it in the articles talk page... Mahjongg (talk) 09:51, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Feel free to move this discussion to the article's talk. I asked here, since it was you who removed original prices. I do not see that much use in a price of USD, when the model is not available in USD. You'd have to indicate otherwise that it would be a non-US-model. Price ranges are very reasonable, as long as there is named not only a minimum configuration, but e.g. other storage types (SSD vs. HD, low to high amounts). You kept comma delimited values yourself, prooving that there may be different models. --Traut (talk) 20:16, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As you can see I did copy the thread to this talk page.I did not just "remove original prices", I converted them to Dollars, and the prices (in the other monetary units) can still be found in the references. You still do not get it. What good is it to list prices if you can't compare them because some are in Dollars, (as they should be), while others are in British Pounds, and still others are in Euro's? Not everybody knows how much dollar a Euro or pound is worth, let alone they can do the mental acrobatics to convert on the fly. Remember, this is NOT A PRICE-LIST!, prices are only mentioned to make comparison possible! Yes there are some practical problems if only a referenced can be found that lists the price in another monetary unit than dollars, or if local taxes have a great influence on the list price, but these can be overcome. Just convert according to the exchange rate at the moment of publication of the price, and adjust for any changes in taxation. Most often however it should be possible to find a reference that uses dollars for the price. The use of price ranges are NOT useable because it makes comparison impossible, if it is not even listed what causes the price differentiation. I assume most differentiation's are listed because there are actually two models with different prices. Presumably a Windows based and a Linux based model. It would be best to add another "cost" column so two different prices can be listed, and list what exactly differentiates the two models. I changed the '-' sign to a comma, because I believe that the prices are not actually ranges in most cases, and because a minus sign as a separator causes sorting problems. If a range is truly meant, instead of two different prices, the reason for the price range should be explained, so a valid price comparison can still be made. A Tilde '~' sign can be used to signal a price range, like "400 ~ 600", I think it might not affect sorting like a minus sign does. But IMHO it would be best to mention just one price per model. I did not remove one of the prices in a double price, because I had no way of knowing which of the two prices was the correct one, but if I could have ignored that consideration I would have removed the comma and the largest of the two prices. Also, no matter what you assume, I did not consider the comma an indicator of a price -range-, but of two different prices for two different models. There was not even a way for me (except for interpreting all the references) to guess if the minus sign was meant to tell it was a price range, or just two different prices. Mahjongg (talk) 20:50, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You said "You still do not get it". What good is it to NAME prices in USD which are not available in USD? I suggested to add a converted price as Template:ntsh. It could be possible to add a price in USD as a comment behind (e.g. 299 € (≈ $350)). So there are other solutions which you refuse to take into consideration. It's useless to claim that this article would be available for 455 USD instead. It's not available in USD at all - and if it was, it would not be for $455, but maybe for $380. That's why personally I would have inserted a rough estimation for a sort price (and the reality between USD and Euro is somewhere in between 1:0.69 exchange rate and 1:1 customer price, between USD and Yen it's about 1:100). Concerning price ranges: It is possible to name price ranges, as well as comma delimited prices. On MY computer 400-600 does sort nicely as "400" - and if it wouldn't, you can use the ntsh syntax to enforce a sort by 400. However, it is WRONG to claim that a computer which is available e.g. with SSH 2 GB for 400, with HD 100 GB for 500 and with SSH 8 GB for 600 that this would be available for 400, 600. For a computer available for Linux for 400 and Win for 450 it is wrong to claim that it is available for 400. That's why I feel that price ranges are a reasonable solution how to name the cheapest and most expensive config (if there are more than two), as given by the specs within this table here. Of course it would be useless to name even higher prices, adding sales tax, protection plans, accessories etc. For sorting it's always the first number which is used. You get it? That's why I wanted to discuss with you. If you do not want to discuss, let's start an edit war where I do revert your changes when you remove valuable data and simplify a table just for the problems of your local browser (e.g. removing ranges, removing ? without dicussion of the requirement named on this talk page here, removing currency info etc.). I'd prefer a solution which does accept all work and all requirements best. --Traut (talk) 06:51, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't this all tend to suggest that price information is simply more trouble than it is worth? Richard Pinch (talk) 06:58, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It wouldn't be troublesome if people didn't make it problematic. And yes, it's crucial to have this information, as one of the most interesting things about netbooks are that they are a price breakthrough. Mahjongg (talk) 00:09, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Another new Netbook... again...[edit]

It's the HP Mini 1000, the "refresh" version of HP Mini-Note 2133 which comes with Intel Atom microprocessor.

http://h20424.www2.hp.com/campaign/consumer_notebooks/ap/en/resources/HP_Mini1000_Brochure.pdf —Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.186.12.217 (talk) 02:44, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Adding a "Max. RAM" column to the table[edit]

How about putting an additional "Max. RAM" to the table, so everyone can compare it's upgrade-ability of the RAM? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.186.12.9 (talk) 13:40, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Table colors[edit]

Why are the color scales different for weight in kg and lb ? This doesn't make much sense to me. MrPhelps (talk) 16:47, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

it's because LB's and Kilogramme's do not use the same "tripping points", in my opinion the tripping points should be evened so they are are same for kg and lb. A kg equals 2,2046 pound (lbs), so the table entries should read something like "0.9 kg/2.0 lb" and "1 kg/2.2 lb", then one column can be removed. Mahjongg (talk) 16:23, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I cleaned it up using this wikitable:
Color Weight (kg) Weight (lb)
Blue < 0.9 kg < 2.0lb
Green 0.9 to 1.125 kg 2 to 2.5lb
Yellow 1.125 to 1.5 kg 2.5 to 3.3lbs
Orange > 1.5 kg > 3.3lbs
Grey Variable Variable
White Not Known Not Known

Now made the colors more differentiated, as many were too alike, this results in this table:

Color Weight (kg) Weight (lb)
Blue < 0.9 kg < 2.0lb
Green 0.9 to 1.125 kg 2 to 2.5lb
Yellow 1.125 to 1.5 kg 2.5 to 3.3lbs
Orange > 1.5 kg > 3.3lbs
Grey Variable Variable
White Not Known Not Known

Mahjongg (talk) 12:32, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Split tables; sortable and non-sortable[edit]

Many people have commented on some columns not being particularly sortable. Splitting the tables would mean that quantitative and qualitative information could go seperately. It will mean that there is more space for more columns, without the need to make the text small or scroll the page horizontally. Brilliant. Why didn't I think of it sooner? -- Aronzak (talk) 12:09, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

it is NOT an improvement, you cannot now compare price with features, and you cannot sort by price to find the cheapest netbook with features you want. It also totally unclear why there should be two tables with the very same netbooks in it, to me it seems more like an attempt to obfuscate facts than to present them clearly, I want to revert back to the old tables. Also the grey and green legend colors are identical and the yellow and "orange" colors are almost the same, this also obfuscates the table. Mahjongg (talk) 16:14, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree - splitting the table is no improvement. Personally, I'd vote for removing the lb column. wikipedia is used from all over the world. There's no need for a local US weight variation. On the other hand, prices converted to USD are a reasonable assumption even when some of those models will not be offered within the US at all. Keyboard size and battery high end life are informations which are not available most of the time. Thus they are nor worth sortability. High end life is an extra option which is enough as an extra comment line within battery life. --Traut (talk) 12:52, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why is this page even in the wiki? You don't get this sort of thing in encyclopedias e.g. Comparison of 8th century weapons —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.249.2.158 (talk) 08:37, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]


NAND vs SSD[edit]

I was under the impression that SSDs (at least the ones used in netbooks) were NAND devices. Technically, a RAM drive is an SSD, but I really doubt any netbooks use that. So, what's the deal here? Fry-kun (talk) 03:09, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Flash based storage devices can either use NOR or NAND flash technology. But Solid state Drives (with a memory manager) predominantly use NAND flash Mahjongg (talk) 23:31, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

2 tables[edit]

there are 2 tables under upcoming this is a mistake right ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.246.176.126 (talk) 09:10, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pandora - Netbook?[edit]

I would see the Pandora rather as a gaming console than as a Netbook —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.52.134.70 (talk) 04:43, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The makers of the Pandora have a broader vision for their device:
"It is designed as an ultra portable open source computer with gaming controls, it is very small, around about the same size as a DS. It can easily fit in your pocket."
Source: www.openpandora.org --Glaff (talk) 18:05, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Same Hardware - Different Names[edit]

A number of Netbooks are sold with different OEM names while maintaining basically the same hardware - the Skytone Alpha-400 with it's plethora of names is just one example. I noticed that some of these names even got their own table entries, given the raising number of Netbook models, this will lead to unbearable confusion - so maybe we should only make one entry per netbook (the most common or original name should be used) and point out that there are other names out there. This also is true for these Netbooks, where the name indicates weather it's the Windows or Linux version, or other slight hardware changes. 78.52.134.70 (talk) 04:53, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Targa Traveller[edit]

There also is a Targa Traveller with 10 inch screen (300€). Please include —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.246.178.203 (talk) 12:02, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just do it yourself - or at least provide some Link or specification. I by the way don't think that targa made any original Netbook but just rebranded an existing one - there is already a lot of this mess within the table. 78.52.139.101 (talk) 17:39, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Column request: Power consumption[edit]

Because these netbooks are the ultimate travel companions I would be very interested in comparing power consumption. If I travel through say Africa and want to charge my netbook on solar power, this is crucial information. The ASUS EEE PC 900 states: Input: +12V DC 3A, 36W - Peter Postma, Netherlands —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.101.87.159 (talk) 20:56, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It would be useful information. But how to get it for a significant part of the listed devices is another harder task. Electron9 (talk) 21:54, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dell Mini 12[edit]

Does it really have a 60 / 80 SSD ..? It's quite large for being an SSD.. Electron9 (talk) 00:32, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ASUS 1008HA has a Glossy display[edit]

The ASUS 1008HA has a (an annoying) Glossy display NOT 'Matte'.. unlike it's predecessors. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.66.225.227 (talk) 05:17, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pandora is Upcoming[edit]

The Pandora has been prototyped, and it is currently being mass-produced. OpenPandora expects the preorders to ship in August/September 2009, barring any manufacturing problems. I know Craigix, who heads up the project, made the announcement in the forums, but I struggle to find a link to the source. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Glaff (talk • contribs) 18:24, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lost external links.[edit]

I saw that the last edit removed these links:

Is there any really useful ..? Electron9 (talk) 21:56, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Samsung GO N310[edit]

This model appears to be missing from the table. Could someone please add it?

70.36.134.107 (talk) 08:48, 31 December 2009 (UTC)Naomi[reply]

Modern Netbook Only Option[edit]

Many people coming to the page are only interested in comparing current netbooks to decide which to use. However, because all of the comparison table is multiple screens long and compares every netbook that has ever existed, they find the page to be mostly useless. We need a way to show only current information for those who want it, in order to increase utility. A method for allowing the viewer to sort information and suppress what they don't need would also be good.

This is a general comment applicable to all comparison articles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 136.142.206.28 (talk) 22:47, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Windows OS version[edit]

All current netbooks come with either Windows 7 starter or Windows 7 Home (determined by the manufacturer). New netbooks are no longer available with XP or Vista. I guess this only applies to the currently retailing models and not all the netbooks in the table. --123.201.42.14 (talk) 12:12, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dell inspiron Mini[edit]

I have a Dell Inspiron Mini (have no clue what type it is, but it has Intel Atom like the other ones) and the sticker on it says Windows 7 Basic, and the other ones say Vista and XP. Does that mean the article is out of date or something? {{SUBST:User:Atum World/Toast}} (talk) 01:14, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Physical size[edit]

I find it strange that the physical size of these computers is not included in this table.

For many people the principle characteristic of the so-called netbook computer is its physical size. They are attractive because they have most of the features of a 'real' notebook, in a physical package that does not demand that the user carry a highly distinctive 'computer bag'. They can be stuffed, inconspicuously, in a corner of a hand bag, or among other documents.

Whatever the original definition of a netbook was, it has clearly been superseded by developments in technology and marketing which have left the physical size of the netbook as being its main claim to fame. There is a clear demand for a sub-A4-paper size notebook computer that will fit, inconspicuously, among other documents. There seems no reason whatsoever to maintain the technologically-handicapped nature of some netbooks. Indeed there would seem to be every reason for the netbook name to evolve to cover a range of fully featured small-physical-format notebook computers much in the way that the pocket rocket evolved for cars. Lots of power, and full connectivity, in a small package, which has its real (non-glass) keyboard and screen fully protected in a clamshell package.

Cricobr (talk) 14:57, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Blacklisted Links Found on the Main Page[edit]

Cyberbot II has detected that page contains external links that have either been globally or locally blacklisted. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed, or are highly innappropriate for Wikipedia. This, however, doesn't necessarily mean it's spam, or not a good link. If the link is a good link, you may wish to request whitelisting by going to the request page for whitelisting. If you feel the link being caught by the blacklist is a false positive, or no longer needed on the blacklist, you may request the regex be removed or altered at the blacklist request page. If the link is blacklisted globally and you feel the above applies you may request to whitelist it using the before mentioned request page, or request it's removal, or alteration, at the request page on meta. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. The whitelisting process can take its time so once a request has been filled out, you may set the invisible parameter on the tag to true. Please be aware that the bot will replace removed tags, and will remove misplaced tags regularly.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:

  • http://eeepc.itrunsonlinux.com/the-news/1-latest-news/105-eee-pc-1000hd-a-904hd-announced/
    Triggered by \bitrunsonlinux\.com\b on the local blacklist
  • http://eeepc.itrunsonlinux.com/the-news/1-latest-news/51-eee-pc-900-with-9-inch-screen-announced
    Triggered by \bitrunsonlinux\.com\b on the local blacklist
  • http://eeepc.itrunsonlinux.com/the-news/1-latest-news/90-eee-pc-1000-revealed/
    Triggered by \bitrunsonlinux\.com\b on the local blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.—cyberbot II NotifyOnline 19:23, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Comparison of netbooks. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:20, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Comparison_of_netbooks&oldid=1201079686"