Ask HN: Do any netbooks still exist?
I guess I missed the boat here. It seems everyone stopped making netbooks, and now I could really do with one. The only thing I can find is made by Asus - http://www.amazon.com/ASUS-1015E-DS01-10-1-Inch-Laptop-Black/dp/B00BQH8QTI - but it uses a (power hungry) Celeron. Asus have other (Atom) versions on their site, but they all seem to be unavailable (at least for online purchase). Anyone have any suggestions? I want something that is cheap and small, with keyboard, for travel.
57 comments
[ 2.7 ms ] story [ 99.7 ms ] threadhttp://www.google.com/intl/en/chrome/devices/
[update: the acer and samsung are 11.6" and i can find a bunch of similar notebooks with that size screen. what i really wanted was a 10" screen. but thanks!]
The role seems largely to have been taken over by Chromebooks -- Microsoft never really wanted the market to exist and the hardware vendors seem to prefer having an OS vendor to work with. But among notebooks (including ones that are similar to netbooks, whether they are sold as "netbooks" or not) 10" screen size seems to have died off because at that size, the preference is for tablets (possibly with keyboard cases to let them be used like a netbook) rather than traditional notebook form factor.
https://www.google.com/search?q=Acer+Aspire+One+for+sale
Linux works fine on most makes. I have a Samsung NC10 with mechanical hard drive and a surprisingly good keyboard that just chugs away endlessly, but the NC10 seems to develop screen 'jitters' as the hinges age.
I'd argue that Microsoft and Intel killed them with their arbitrary restrictions on what could be a netbook.[1] I imagine they realized netbooks would put a huge dent in their sales of more expensive systems, so they effectively put a stop to them. I'm sure tablets didn't help at all, but the limits kept netbooks just below the edge of usefulness in many cases. So they developed the reputation of being slow and people stopped buying them.
[1] http://www.itexaminer.com/microsoft-adds-to-atoms-restrictio...
If the specs could have been a bit higher and increased in a timely manner, netbooks would have been perfect for a lot of the market. They were limited in speed just below the edge of what most people would consider to be capable.
If Ubuntu netbook edition was more user friendly and more windows-like I'm sure a lot of people would've been very happy with a low specs machine that ran smooth enough for the kind of tasks you'd want to do on a <= 10'' screen.
I agree, and that's the tragedy of the situation.
The first netbooks shipped with Linux, and Microsoft saw that as a threat, so they started licensing Windows at very low rates for netbooks. When the cost difference was minimal to ship Windows on netbooks, that's what vendors did, and the Windows netbooks dominated the market.
Once they'd conquered the market, Microsoft pulled the bottom out by seriously limiting the capabilities of netbooks. Netbooks then developed a reputation of being slow because most of the netbooks on the market were running Windows and were slow. The "netbook" name was already tarnished, making it difficult for the original Linux netbook idea to succeed.
> The first netbooks shipped with Linux
The first netbook shipped with Linux but the launch announcement for the Asus included both Windows XP and Linux. Windows sold better and was more profitable.
> Once they'd conquered the market, Microsoft pulled the bottom out by seriously limiting the capabilities of netbooks.
No, the capabilities of netbooks were always limited. The netbook spec was upgraded twice to allow larger hard drives and screens etc.
You could certainly argue that it wasn't upgraded enough, but then, it was limited to protect sales of laptops that were more profitable for Intel, Microsoft and the netbook OEMs.
Netbooks had two main points: (1) provide a portable PC solution suitable for schools -- see Intel Classmate and, indeed, OLPC; (2) to provide a companion PC for existing PC users.
It was nobody's idea to provide cut-price netbooks that would damage laptop sales.
You might think it's a tragedy but it's just business.
I'm skeptical that the hardware couldn't handle full Windows (because Starter also provided an Anytime Upgrade option), so it seems likely this was an intentional decision to reduce the features of netbooks at the software level, in order to avoid cannibalizing larger PC's and laptops.
EDIT: link to feature limitations for W7 Starter: http://answers.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/forum/windows_7-w...
They didn't want to install a full copy of Windows 7 because they would have had to pay the full price for it (after the usual discounts etc).
After much argument, they came up with a compromise that had acceptable functionality (to Microsoft) at an acceptable price (to the OEMs).
So Microsoft was helping, rather than "not helping".
But you're right: the aim was to sell netbooks without having too big an impact on more profitable sales of laptops.
By that token, Netbooks ain't dead, they just broke free of Microsoft and Intel ;)
MS then did something very insightful, courageous and (to me) disappointing: they sold Windows for next to nothing on netbooks (I think it was $20 or something). This stopped them being disrupted by linux.
Sadly, netbooks faded quickly. Putting what others have said in a different context, what killed netbooks was the same thing that killed desktops and laptops: smartphones and tablets. They are cheaper, more convenient, easier to use - and powerful enough for what people need to do. Desktops, laptops and yes even netbooks overshoot mainstream needs.
FWIW I'm currently using an eee PC 701 (i.e. the original netbook), and it's only the iPhone 5 that finally caught up with it. But that didn't stop earlier iPhones and androids from meeting most people's need better than it.
PS: as for intel, I believe Atoms far too slow in themselves, quite apart from "PCI Express and digital video outputs" http://www.itexaminer.com/intels-atom-is-a-gem.aspx so I don't was Intel that killed them.
You're definitely right that vendors have moved on from netbooks and are putting their energy now into tablets. But that doesn't mean tablets have replaced netbooks. Netbooks have a bunch of use cases that don't apply to tablets and vice versa.
I bought my good old eeePC netbook mainly for:
- Typing on the go. It's much lighter than a regular laptop (was back then), and the model I have has a very good, almost-full-size keyboard.
- Its unprecedented battery life (again, back then). I could even forget the cable at home, and it would last the whole day.
- Meetings. For some reason, we have lots of meetings in my field, and almost everybody brings their laptop (to make notes, follow the slides, etc.). I found the eeePC ideal because it needs no cable (no crawling on the floor) and is small and unconspicuous. If I'm using my notebook in a meeting, at least I don't want to hide behind it.
Compare with a tablet: I can hardly type anything else than text messages on touchscreens. And while laptops are for some reason socially accepted in meetings, I couldn't show up with a tablet. Everybody would think I was just playing. (That's changing slowly, however).
Finally, the biggest difference is that a netbook is a general purpose PC. I can run all programs I need for work on it. That doesn't work on locked-down tablets.
When Windows 8 came out, I was really hoping for cheap 10-inch Atom or ARM tablets with the nice keyboard covers (and an unlocked OS so I could actually do work on them). Such a tablet would really be a worthy netbook replacement.
The most rediculous thing about Metro/Modern UI and Netbooks is that doesn't run on low resolutions, although it would work perfectly since it's mostly text, and completely scalable. It does work on my 24" desktop, where its a complete waste of screen space.
http://www.ebay.com/itm/Apple-MacBook-Air-11-120GB-Flash-4GB...
Also, for the same screen size, it's more than twice the price. #generalization
Otherwise there is still the tablet/keyboard combo.
I liked the netbook form factor; I am still using my Samsung n220 everyday.
And if you're running Linux, you need to avoid the Atom N2xxx at all costs, the graphics are useless. The C847 graphics are good for desktop use (but not for anything more than light gaming)
If you're worried about battery life and heat, trade out the HD for an SSD right away. I did that with an Acer Chromebook and it's quite nice - and the trade will probably make up for any increased CPU power draw at idle.
1/ Deal with an extra inch of real estate
2/ Buy a 7/10" tablet & add a keyboard. Some like the Asus transformer pad includes a keyboard dock. You can also try rooting/chrooting a linux distro onto the tablet all the bells and whistles.
3/ Buy used from e-bay
Also, I think vendors used the switch from 10" netbooks to what we have now to raise the price tag unproportionally.
They could probably build something with a touch screen, detachable keyboard, HD video playback, all day battery life, that could run circles around every netbook, and sell it at around $350 (or even cheaper without touchscreen, and with a fixed keyboard). Instead, they slap in a i7 and 8 Gigs of RAM, that most people won't use anyway, and sell it for twice as an "ulrabook", because there's more money in "premium"...
I started using it to do wearable computing experiments and found that the self-protection system of the hard drive would go into action whenever I went faster than a slow walk, so I replaced the HDD with a SSD.
The new Windows 8 store and all of those apps don't work on it because the screen size is too small, but the desktop is fine for web browsing, Cygwin, etc.
If I fold the machine up and use it to play music, do GPS navigation and some other data collection in the car, it runs 6-7 hours. I get 4-5 hours of tablet-like service if I use it to watch video. Even though the screen is not HD resolution it plays HD files just fine.
Asus Eee PC X101CH 10.1-inch Netbook (Purple) - (Intel Atom N2600 1.6GHz, 1GB RAM, 320GB HDD, LAN, WLAN, Webcam, Integrated Graphics, Windows 7 Starter) First available 30 Oct 2012 http://www.amazon.co.uk/Asus-X101CH-10-1-inch-Netbook-Purple...
However, the netbook specification is very limited (by Intel and Microsoft), and you get better screen resolution and more memory by buying a very slow laptop. This very slow laptop may even be called a "netbook". However, if it uses an AMD chip (ie not an Atom), then it is not bound by Intel's netbook specification.
This is basically a netbook with an Atom-speed AMD CPU:
Acer Aspire V5-121 11.6-inch Laptop (Blue) - (AMD C70 1GHz Processor, 2GB RAM, 320GB HDD, LAN, WLAN, Webcam, Integrated Graphics, Windows 8) First available 17 April 2013 http://www.amazon.co.uk/Acer-Aspire-V5-121-11-6-inch-Laptop/...
The price difference is £13 ($21) which gets you Windows 8 instead of Windows 7 Starter, and 2GB instead of 1GB of memory. Weight is the same (998g vs 1kg).
Microsoft basically killed the netbook market when it stopped selling Windows XP Ultra Low Cost PC edition for peanuts ($15 or less). Windows 7 Starter was offered very grudgingly at much higher cost, and I suspect most netbook buyers would prefer XP.
All the OEMs knew this was coming. Microsoft said the ULCPC offering would be "available until the later of June 30, 2010, or one year after general availability of the next version of Windows." (ie Windows 7) http://www.microsoft.com/en-us/news/features/2008/apr08/04-0...
I did actually suggest to all three that they should combine and pre-load a common version of Ubuntu but they weren't interested. In 2008, in Taiwan, Asus's netbook boss Johnny Chen told me that part of the appeal of Linux was that they could control their own OS.
However, at the time, they didn't know how much pain there was in getting Linux drivers for, for example, a couple of dozen USB modems to work with dozens of ISPs in 32 languages across 50 countries, or whatever. (I'm quoting from memory.)
They also didn't know how much money they would lose trying to support Linux for non-technical buyers. Netbook prices included so little profit that every support incident put you deeper and deeper into the red.
It was actually much cheaper and more profitable for them to install XP ULCPC than to install Linux. With XP they got marketing support (money!) from Intel and Microsoft plus cash-in-hand for installing crapware.
They also knew just about every new peripheral in the universe would work out of the box, and that if it didn't, most buyers would get support from friends, the people next door, the IT guy at work etc.
So maybe they're not actually as silly as you imagine ;-)
No offence here, i'm a linux user myself. Everywhere i go and look all i can see are macbook{air,pro} and i can't really understand why anyone would go with such a cage.
http://www.reddit.com/r/netbooks
http://www.reddit.com/r/suggestalaptop
(+ Quick check on Amazon Germany (where I live), probably cheaper in the US but still around $450.)
I've been really happy with this netbook, and the price was unbeatable.
https://www.google.com/search?q=Acer+Aspire+One+for+sale
I have a Sony Vaio E series 11.6" that I take around, but it's not a great option. For what I do on the road (email, some VS work and Photoshop), it's OK. Unfortunately, it too seems to be going out.
You can still get a fairly decent Acer :
http://www.amazon.com/B007582KGM
Or Asus (still with Celeron): http://www.amazon.com/B00COQK8QYI'm writing this comment on my mini.
http://www.sony.co.in/product/svp11213sn