Is it cheap or inexpensive? Cheap gives negative tone as in poor quality that makes it less costly. I know these are tiny screens, but what I really want to see is higher resolution on these things. I think they should all be at a minimum the partial HD screen of 1280x720 pixels. I would be much more happy with higher resolution yet. While not everyone has perfect vision, those of us with perfect vision would like to use it. I got a Dell Mini 9 for my wife, and while she loves it, I could not use the thing, because I cannot get enough information on the screen to be productive. I want information, and alot of it.

I have the original acer aspire one, and this one looks like a definite improvement over the last one, but it is bigger than the older one.

sexy!

Maybe if these POS ever drop down to around $100, I'll consider buying one. $350 is still too much for what's basically a crappy, outdated, stripped-down laptop.

maybe they could do a no os one (without xp) for $50-$100 less (reduced by what they pay for xp)

what i dont like is the screen resolution (1024x600).

I'm with A Stoner on this one. The new 10 inch has the same resolution as the old 8.9 inch? It may be bigger, but that's only an improvement for people with poor eyesight. When I get a bigger screen, I want more pixels, not bigger pixels. This is the main reason I waited so long to get a LCD monitor. The screen size is nice, but I'm a developer, I want to put more data on the screen, not just see it bigger (not that I would use a netbook for development).

I guess the only real benefit is that the 6-cell battery now comes standard. You know how hard it was to find a 6-cell version of the original in stores? Impossible. Thankfully Newegg got theirs back in stock in time for Christmas.

Why does nobody provide a 1280x768 option? 1024x600 is pretty ass to look at.

HP had their orginal mini-note with a high resolution screen, but the price was in the $800.00 + range.

These units are already near the no profit margin as compared to other laptops...

The 600-line resolution is dictated by MS in order to get the deeply discounted XP licenses that help the Windows devices remain almost as cheap as the Linux devices. We're talking $25 or less XP OEM licenses here.

The licensing fee for XP on a netbook is sweet FA, I think its in the $30 region for local OEMs, with the larger ones paying even less (I think its in the $20 region), its part of the reason Msoft want people to use 7 on netbooks, they'll charge nore for the license. For that money you cannot upgrade the resolution of the screen

plus the atom is not able to accelerate 720 Hd movies anyways.
Perhaps with the upcoming platform yes.

Acer will be selling many of them if their marketing is correct; especially now since Asus is thinking of making theirs nearly $150 more expensive!

this is one of the few netbooks that has an empty space between the keyboard and the edge.. most manufacturers want their keyboards to be as big as possible so typing isnt a nightmare. but i guess price is a bigger factor in this market.

I have two main qualms with the netbooks I've tried: the screen resolution, and the keyboard size. I can do with less than a full-sized keyboard, or at least I THINK I can, but the 80-90% range that most netbooks have is too tiny. I need to have something a bit closer to the size I have on my desktop keyboard.

As far as the screen resolution, I think that $20-30US should be enough to bump the resolution of the screen by a step; keep in mind that the main cost with flat-screen displays is associated with their physical size, as that drives up the likelihood of a defect popping up in any given panel made. I.e, the bulk of the price difference between a 17" and 19" desktop LCD is, in fact, related to the glass, and the cost difference associated with adding more actual pixels is minimal. 1280x720 or 1280x768 is about what the least I'd really find good on one; I don't plan on watching HD movies or gaming, but simply put, that's what I'd need to be able to fit enough simple applications or web browser space so that I can use the thing without feeling cramped.

Basically, what I want out of a netbook, that has yet to really be delivered, is a slightly-larger one that sports a full-size keyboard, (well, full-size for the letter/number keys) a good resolution (at least 1280x720) on a 9-11" display panel, an 8GB-SSD, at least 1GB of RAM, and a CPU/IGP low enough in power draw to give me >6 hours of battery life under normal use. (and at least >2 hours under 100% constant load) I mean, when will Intel stop with this GMA crap, and switch to something like AMD's 55nm GS780 chipsets? I don't care so much about the computing power, but the fact that Intel 945GSE consumes far more power than the Atom it's traditionally paired with.

Well Microsoft is just losing some possible customers. I really do not see why they cannot at least up it to the lowest level of HD standards which is 1280x720. These things can and should be able to replace PMPs for many people, LIKE ME, but if the resolution is crap, I will just stick with a dedicated PMP and not buy a Microsoft powered unit. MS loses, I lose. Ideally a netbook would be able to accomplish the following things in order to be worthy of my money. Act as a PMP, Surf the net with good speed, allow me to have enough information on the screen to actually be worth while using, have built in GPS.

I don't see the point of making the 150 bigger! It still only has 3 usb ports and no dvd drive. I'd expect there'd be room for at least another usb controller or a tvtuner or something that would make the size increase worth it. The original was a really nice piece of kit, but I don't think you make it better by making it bigger.

Hey that's funny. I don't want the shitty low resolution OR windows XP. Sounds like you can fix 2 problems with one solution.