Talk:Subnotebook

Image
The picture does not really illustrate the size well. A hand, ruler, or something for size refrence would help.

Also, there is way too much Sony bias. I think the Toshiba Libretto efforts deserve some more text. And, totally forgotten here, and by me, is the name of the Libretto predecessor manufactured by HP, which ran a DOS shell, and which was ultra-sexy at the time. A noprize to the first person to name it. Hey, for that matter why not start this article with the Timex Sinclair TX-100?? Hmmm?

Oh and, yes, a palmtop is not a subnotebook, but before there were palmtops there were computers designed to be very small and function much like the current subnotebook, and therfore should be included in a history of subnotebooks.


 * Omnibook 300 ? It's down to palmtop dimensions, so maybe you meant the Omnibook 600 ? Both had a notable mouse-on-a-stick that popped out of the right side at the press of a button. --195.137.93.171 (talk) 14:14, 13 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Can you not tell how large a subnotebook computer is from the picture? It seems very clear.  The picture is also a direct illustration of this line in the opening: "Subnotebooks are smaller than full sized laptops but larger than handheld computers."  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.181.25.163 (talk) 05:42, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Palmax PD-1000
The Palmax PD-1000 published around 1999 could also be mentioned. I quote the specs: Cyrix MediaGX Pentium-level CPU running at 166Mhz, 32MB EDO DRAM, 6.1" TFT Display, 1.6/2.1GB Fast HDD. Had/has a touch screen and stylus pen. 83.77.237.184 (talk) 18:10, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Asus S200N
Should you mention the spectacular Asus S200N ?

P4M 1.0 Ghz, 8" screen, 60Gb,, WiFi, 900 grams or approx. Released in 2004, it's still a powerful toy.

I'm writing this from it ;)

MacBook Air
I know some purist may not consider it on this category, even dough it weights as much as some examples listed. Anyway it seems weird not to have a mention either on the page or discussions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ernipiggy (talk • contribs) 07:06, 3 February 2008 (UTC) I would count it seeing as it fits the smaller fit and runs normal OS I would also add the IBM/Lenovo ThinkPad X300 ( thiner than the MacBook Air) yet contains a DvD burner 3 USB ports 1 ethernet port and wirless. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.70.31.100 (talk) 03:17, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Ultraportable redirect
When a user searches for ultraportable, they are redirected to this page (subnotebook). Though this quote at the beginning of the entry makes it clear they are not looking at a page that applies to their search:

"Subnotebooks are smaller than an A4 paper notebook (8.27 x 11.69 inches), but larger than handheld computer computers and ultraportables."

I think it's confusing for readers. Either subnotebooks and ultraportables are the same thing, should be on the same page (at it currently is), and this sentence should be corrected, or ultraportables should have their own page. Any thoughts?
 * Ultraportables should have their own page, as they are between palm-sized and subnotebooks. Vulcan FlipStart is one such example. Ultraportables are good for people who travel and need to carry around as little weight as possible, but who require full OS functions of a regular computer. I am thinking that those people also need to carry around lots of accessories with these. In case of a FlipStart, one would need a USB hub, a USB keyboard, a USB pointing device for normal operation and a USB memory stick to exchange data (or add drivers or somesuch) and an adapter that switches off battery usage while plugged in. -Mardus 21:44, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
 * i agree that ultraportables should have their own page. subnotebooks are SUB-notebooks, in other words, less than. the palm foleo and that sony thing in the picture aren't full laptop computers. they are SUB. ultraportables are the smallest fully functioning laptops available. for example, the dell x1 isn't in the same class as the palm foleo. 66.131.22.154 01:31, 2 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I came to the talk page to make essentially the same observation, and there's still no fix to this. Hmm... --24.23.70.74 (talk) 21:54, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

this is really confusing, I've always thought of ultra-portables as being high end/high power/low weight machines such as the mb air/tosh portege/thinkpad x300, and therefore this redirect seems bizarre, unless my definition of ultraportables is much mistaken. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.2.3.251 (talk) 12:13, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Measurements
Most of the measurements in the main article are in Imperial units while the measurements in the table are in Metric. This makes it very hard to contrast the different models being discussed.

Shouldn't they all be translated into Metric units with the Imperial units kept in parantheses? A column of Imperial units could also be added to the table. Nameless Voice 12:33, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Also, I suggest replacing the column heading "mass" with "weight" instead. Yes, I know they're not the same thing in physics terms, but for everyday purposes they are, and most people want to know how much a notebook weighs (so that's what they search for), not how much mass it has. Tt 225 (talk) 10:27, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

ok so I figure what we keep all american based company products in imperial/american units and put all others in international units hmmm....--Antiedman (talk) 13:48, 20 February 2009 (UTC)


 * You could always use the convert template to include both. Tothwolf (talk) 19:24, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Sharp Actius MM10
I found this blog (http://www.news.com/8301-10784_3-9850943-7.html) that claims that Air isn't the thinnest. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Apontas (talk • contribs) 18:44, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Psion
Do you remember Psion? A small laptop without harddrive. They had different models and the biggest one had a colourscreen. I think Psion belong to this history too.ARKK (talk) 20:32, 17 March 2008 (UTC) Here is the history: http://3lib.ukonline.co.uk/historyofpsion.htm ARKK (talk) 20:44, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Price
The notebooks are mostly purchased for portability, however, some cost $2000, and others cost $500. Would it be a good idea to ass ~price ranges next to the listing? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zarti (talk • contribs) 14:29, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree completley. Add a price, or at least, a price range. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.212.193.29 (talk) 13:49, 11 April 2008 (UTC)


 * doneTMV943 (talk) 06:52, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Added Price Range in beginning of article --Antiedman (talk) 13:57, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Picture?
Can someone explain to me why the Nintendo DS is pictured as part of this article? While it does have WiFi and a touchscreen, the DS does not support many of the other functions of a computer. It's a gaming handheld, not a laptop. Just because it folds up does not make it a laptop. In fact, I have never seen anyone put a DS on their lap to use it. By the same logic, we could say a smartphone, say a Blackberry, Treo, or even an iPhone fits the definition of subnotebook. The only conceivable way that this would make sense would be to include the DS for scale, but I think that it might be more effective to include a ruler for scale if the reader does not know the size of a DS. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.190.151.109 (talk) 04:28, 1 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't think it's that much of a problem; it's specified in the caption that the DS is a handheld, not a subnotebook. While it's true that people might not know the exact size of a DS, it still provides some reference for size, especially when combined with the regular laptop, which most people should know the size of. Plus, it's not a bad shot in itself, of a subnotebook. 74.71.92.252 (talk) 02:08, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

HP 110
Although I don't think that it was called a notebook computer at the time, the HP 110 from 1984 should be listed in the history section. I think that it clearly fits the form-factor of the subnotebook laptop category. 4.232.105.190 (talk) 07:11, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Contradiction
The article says Compaq LTE's dimensions were 1.9 × 8.5 × 11 inches. It later says of the Apple PowerBook 2400c, "it measured 1.9 × 8.5 × 10.5 inches, so it was actually bigger than a Compaq LTE notebook." Which fact is wrong? The size of the Compaq?&mdash;not likely as link from Compaq LTE confirms it. Is it the dimensions of the PowerBook? Or is it the claim that the PowerBook was "bigger"? -Rrius (talk) 07:41, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Ideapad s10
I don't know where best to put this, or I would do it myself. Lenovo has its Ideapad s10 out now, so it should be on this page too. ;) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.102.241.28 (talk) 17:13, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Netbook merge
In my opinion, subnotebooks and netbooks are synonymous. Both have similar features, functions, as well as form factors. Hence I think the netbooks should be merged with subnotebooks.--59.93.206.232 (talk) 11:07, 27 October 2008 (UTC)


 * subnotebooks and netbooks are NOT synonymous, they have different definitions. Considering Netbook was a term most recently coined by Intel, with regards to their atom processor, and then notably utilised by Ubuntu for a special version of their operating systems, you will also notice that many of the netbooks offer SSDs over regular HDDs, they are also built with a focus on the internet (ie: no optical drive, wifi and even wwan) perhaps these are the basis for criteria for what defines a Netbook. What is the criteria for a subnotebook? It is possible that netbooks are a subcategory of subnotebooks.. Netbook could be merged, but only as a subcategory, however, it may be in our best interest to keep it's own article, much like this article is separate from the main laptop article. --Hm2k (talk) 12:18, 27 October 2008 (UTC)


 * disagree to merge: For the reasons given above, I think there is a distinction which needs to be made between netbooks, as scc (small, cheap computers) and subnotebooks, some of which are a) very expensive and b) highly specified. Although they may appear similar in appearance, the technical capabilities and intended (and actual) use is sufficiently different to make the distinction.  Netbooks as a sub-set of subnotebooks seems a reasonable way forward. regards, Lynbarn (talk) 12:58, 27 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Given the above reasons are true, the article should differentiate between subnotebooks, netbooks and UMPCs. Currently, they are all synonymous according to this article. So probably it should be edited to distinguish the terms from each other.--59.93.254.110 (talk) 15:45, 27 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Disagree. Btw, what is a definition of subnotebook???--Kozuch (talk) 09:07, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Sure, the terms subnotebook and netbook are different in that the later is a marketing contrivance (i.e. "New and Improved"). This is not encyclopedic, however. No more than having separate entries for notebook computer and laptop computer, eh. But before just saying that you are FOS, please point out a feature one of your actual netbooks has that is missing from my TEN YEAR OLD SONY PICTUREBOOK. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.215.135.238 (talk) 06:39, 28 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Availability, Price, Solid state storage based, Linux based, did I mention price? Mahjongg (talk) 08:08, 28 October 2008 (UTC)


 * plus Bluetooth, 3/3.5G HSDPA/HSUPA WWAN Connectivity? Regards, Lynbarn (talk) 12:52, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose merge. The link that Hm2k gives above is really helpful.  Here's a quote: "Netbook: This is actually the brainchild of Intel's marketing department to describe sub-$500 notebooks centered around internet-connectivity, such as its Classmate PC. The original Eee PC, XO OLPC Laptop and Cloudbook would fall into this category. While it is technically flackspeak, I actually like it because it's short and fairly specific. Besides being endorsed by Intel (obvs), Ubuntu has officially picked up the term. Judgment: A keeper, even if it was coined by the Man." - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 18:00, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Netbooks are sometimes, but rarely referred to as a sub-subnotebook, this should confirm that they are NOT synonymous. Secondly the netbook term is popular enough to justify having it's own article. In conclusion the netbook article should NOT be merged with subnotebook article. --Hm2k (talk) 21:28, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Strongly oppose as a netbook is a single-purpose "Internet notebook", not a form factor. A notebook is a small laptop and a subnotebook a small notebook. Subnotebooks are usually full featured, general purpose devices, just smaller than their notebook counterparts. Granted netbooks tend to be smaller too but with 13.4" netbooks on the market that is more a function of having less guts, making them thinner and lighter - this will be increasingly evident as truly embedded ARM models hit the market this year. -- samj in out 12:18, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

If everyone disagrees then why does the netbook article start, "Netbooks or subnotebooks" and the subnotebook article start, "A subnotebook or netbook" Surely both articles state they are one and the same? --78.33.40.66 (talk) 15:19, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * then those texts should change, a subnotebook is a predecessor of the netbook. The canonical (first) netbook was the EEEPC, but subnotebooks existed before that, but were extremely expensive (starting at $3000) and therefore not mainstream popular. A good example of such a system is the flybook . A netbook and a subnotebook are definitely NOT the same thing. I think this article needs a mayor overhaul, and only real subnotebooks should be depicted in it. Even the slashdot article mentioned that we seemed to confuse subnotebooks with netbooks here. Mahjongg (talk) 16:49, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, really, let's merge
10 years hence, it's clear that these should have been (and still should be) merged. It's possible that the two are not synonymous—and I'm willing to accept that, with "netbooks" being about network-centric features a la Chromebooks, which have appeared since "netbooks" (and the original proposal above) first started showing up—but Wikipedia doesn't do a good job at observing the difference. The netbook article, for example, doesn't focus, really, on the network-centric aspect, so much as it expounds on the topic as if their defining characteristic were being small form-factor laptops—which is squarely the definition of subnotebooks.

Whether or not they're synonymous, they can certainly live in the same article. Subnotebooks should be the main article, with netbooks being a redirect to a particular point within the article, with a brief blurb of netbook-specific details. The current state of the articles is evidence enough, and the subsequent messages in the Thin-and-light, Subnotebook, UMPC, Netbook??? talk section below further supports the position that it was unwise to have kept these separate. We don't need to maintain this less-than-helpful separation going forward. -- C. A. Russell ( talk ) 04:41, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

... and we can roll into same effort the topic of smartbooks, which is currently referred to in past tense and has attached to it the claim that the smartbook was "produced between 2009 and 2010". The articles' existence makes for an tacit argument that this short phenomenon is noteworthy, which is absurd. From where I'm standing, these are terms that mostly originated in the marketing material of various vendors, and well-meaning Wikipedians unfortunately played right into the hands by legitimizing them with encyclopedia articles, in which place WP:NOPROMO applies.

To be clear: what I'm saying is that three of the articles currently located at...


 * netbook,
 * smartbook, and
 * subnotebook

need to have their contents merged, with said content all living inside the subnotebook article, brief callouts regarding (the existence, at least) varied terminology. That means a dedicated section within the article devoted to the small-but-perceptible(?) nuance and/or some AKAs in the opening sentence. There's no reason these all need to be living separately (especially with most of these articles' claims and other contents being derived from gossipy tech journalism sources), and with our efforts fragmented between three articles that pretend they're different things when really they aren't. -- C. A. Russell ( talk ) 05:04, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Strongly in favor of merging. At the same time, all three of these articles could quite readily be merged into laptop computer, as the marketing distinctions are quite dated and it's been years since any major company has used `subnotebook` as branding vs. just selling laptop/notebook machines in different sizes. Nate (talk) 07:06, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

Oppose merging. Although I think there is quite some duplicate information which should be merged, the articles should become smaller but standalone. Google doesn't handle subsections very well, so when someone Googles for "netbook", the subsection in a subnotebook article doesn't show up immediately. The concepts are definitely notable for a standalone article, I think that's the best option to keep them separately but slimmed down. PhotographyEdits (talk) 15:17, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

Gallery
That gallery is a joke - only netbooks showed.--Kozuch (talk) 09:09, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree, however this does relate to the above dispute over subnotebooks vs netbooks. Please help towards that discussion to help resolve this. --Hm2k (talk) 11:49, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Legacy category?
This new Forrester report (What Makes A Netbook?) apparently cites both subnotebook and ultraportable as "Legacy Categories" with UMPC and MID being "Current Categories". I'm not sure I'm convinced as if I have to look up UMPC/MID/ULCPC/etc. every time I see them what's your average consumer supposed to do? For me the pecking order goes something like this:


 * Laptop/Notebook
 * Subnotebook/Ultraportable
 * Mobile Internet Device

I've deliberately excluded netbooks from this list because I agree with the report in that they are a "true third form factor driven by connectivity". Anyway just something to keep an eye out for. -- samj in out 13:42, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

External video card
External video cards should be mentioned. They allow a lower-cost laptop pc (with sufficiently fast CPU) to run high-end games even without a full high-end graphics card. Also the should have seperate category showing low-cost laptops with a fast cpu (eg dual or quad core 2.5ghz x2 (64bit) yet without good graphics card.

See http://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer/news/577/1015577/asus-shows-the-future-of-graphics and http://www.engadget.com/2006/07/28/ati-to-release-power-hungry-external-video-card

Thin-and-light, Subnotebook, UMPC, Netbook???
This site's differentiation of categories is incoherent - IMO 'Thin-and-lights' are laptops between 14,1 and 13,3 inches, technically identical to larger laptops (current example: MacBook Pro 13"), 'subnotebooks' are between 13,3 and 7 inches, sometimes omitting optical drives but otherwise made for high performance (not-so-current example: Samsung Q35 12,1"), 'UMPCs' are highly-mobile PCs that often lack a full-fleged keyboard and similar input devices (example: Samsung Q1), and finally, 'Netbooks' are low-cost, low-performance laptops that lack the build quality and versatility of thin-and lights and subnotebooks but are way more affordable (example: Samsung NC10). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.128.201.124 (talk) 12:59, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
 * A year has passed since this comment was posted and I think the differentiation between categories in the intro is still incoherent. An example: They are also sometimes confused with netbooks which are a different category of devices that branched off from mini notebooks in general with the coming of the first of such devices, the EEE PC, these are most often much less expensive than Subnotebooks, and optimized for use as portable Internet capable devices.
 * I don't think it makes any sense to treat subnotebooks and netbooks as mutually exclusive categories, especially when the explanation given for the difference is so vague. Certainly there are subnotebooks that were offered for high prices or were old enough to lack wireless cards, and these don't seem to meet the "netbook" description. But how expensive can a netbook be before it's not a netbook anymore? Could it be that netbooks are just lower-end subnotebooks that were sold post-2006, come standard with wireless Internet connectivity in some form and typically lack an optical drive?--Eloil (talk) 17:04, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

need hand in pictures so can get a feel for size
The pictures need a person's hand or something in them, so we can get a feel for the size of the computers. Of course hands differ in size themselves... Jidanni (talk) 23:07, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Pretty sure the Powerbook 100 doesn't count as a "subnotebook".
Look, the thing has the same outline as the Compaq LTE (ie, US Letter paper size), and it's a mere 2.5mm shorter when closed (1.8 inches thick vs 1.9). That's just a "notebook".

I'd have been bold and just deleted it but I dunno if there's anything I can put in its place or how to rewrite the start of that section. But as it stands it seems like an attempt to shoehorn Apple in at the start of the section when it doesn't really belong there. It was more a direct LTE rival than something that was smaller or lighter than it in any significant way (OK, it shaved off *nearly* a pound, but only to 5lb vs 6lb rather than getting *really* light - your arm would still ache after holding it up for a while). 193.63.174.115 (talk) 10:53, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
 * The powerbook Duo can be replaced by extremely more relevant Olivetti Quaderno, I think. Powerbook 100 still can be there. ThisIsNotABetter (talk) 01:04, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Subnotebook. 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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120227141314/http://www.palmtoppaper.com/ptphtml/9/ptp90024.htm to http://www.palmtoppaper.com/ptphtml/9/ptp90024.htm

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 05:26, 25 May 2017 (UTC)