<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Tue, Jan 26, 2010 at 2:49 PM, Michael Mol <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:mikemol@gmail.com">mikemol@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;">
On 1/26/2010 2:32 PM, Bob Kline wrote:<br>
> Just curious, why a net book at all?<br>
<br>
Not interested in a net book, really. I'd like a Linux-powered *tablet*<br>
device, because I like fast digitization of hand-drawn illustrations.<br>
I'd use my smartphone, except the drawable region is way, way too small.<br>
<br>
> At this time anyway. They all seem<br>
> to use the anemic Atom processor,<br>
> have limited battery life, tiny screens,<br>
> and keyboards for midgets.<br>
<br>
I'm pretty sure I've heard of netbooks with about 8 hours of battery<br>
life. It's certainly possible; Remember the original Sony Vaio?<br>
<br>
Still, I'm not looking for a netbook. I'd like something with an 8.5" x<br>
11" screen. :)<br>
<br>
><br>
> On top of all of that, they cost like any<br>
> machine with relatively custom packaging.<br>
> i.e., a lot.<br>
<br>
Strangely, netbooks can be had for under $300. My current laptop (which<br>
was a netbook by the standards of the time...about two years ago) cost $500. <br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>What I find strange is that most of</div><div>them come with 160GB drives now.</div><div>I'd thought the trend would be to </div>
<div>a few GB of RAM, and maybe 16GB</div><div>of flash. All for fast bootup, and </div><div>ruggedness. For portable use one</div><div>doesn't need a hard drive IMHO. And</div><div>I'm sure they eat up a lot of the cost</div>
<div>of the devices now.</div><div><br></div><div> -- Bob</div><div> </div></div>