Bah I've been wanting a netbook but I won't buy one until NVIDIA Ion versions start coming out.

Needs a dual core processor, a little more ram, and more battery.

I would get one with an atom 330 dualcore and 9400M chipset.
Are there any interferences by Intel to sell atom with the ION platform??

Three hours of battery life? No thanks.

I might be able to get behind this but I'd have to see the full spec sheet.

Seriously long bat life is suppose to be a backbone of netbooks.

Yeah, and throw in a 15 inch screen and a 7200 RPM hard drive...Oh wait, its not a netbook anymore.

Higher resolution screens damn it! I can't believe that everyone is seriously ok with these low res lcds.

i am withholding my opinion until tom's gets their hands on it.

The specs look pretty similar to the Gateway LT3103u I just picked up, though I got a 6-cell battery that lasts me a good 5 hours (whole notebook cost me $20 less too). Since that celeron is based on the core architecture it should make for a very capable notebook/netbook though a 6 cell is pretty much a must.

The Celeron IS Dual Core:

http://www.xbitlabs.com/news/cpu/d [...] ssors.html

Please check your info before posting wrong info. (Yes, Im' talking about the Celeron 723.)

the walmart cheap laptop deal for 348 blows that thing out of the water

Sorry, Shadow, but you are wrong: the 723 is single core.
http://ark.intel.com/Product.aspx? [...] MHz+FSB%29

Yeah. Faster processor, more RAM, and better battery life. Wait, now we have a notebook. Seriously. A solution in search of a problem.

Down w/ Netbooks! Having netbooks only show the non-potential buyers of PC games.

Yeah, but makes it a 17" WUXGA screen instead.
Screw 10"+ netbooks. If I'm going to get something the size of a notebook, I want notebook specs...

I like that it has better specs compared to many netbooks... but I think that battery life is the most defining feature of a netbook. I love my Asus 1000H netbook - I can get 8 hours of battery life out of it if I'm not using the internet, and between 6 and 7 if I am; that's just amazing and so useful. 3 hours just doesn't cut it and places this squarely in competition with $500 notebooks in my opinion.

The Notebook Graphic Dilema:
NVidia VGA for CUDA and faster and time bomb (aka defect chip)
or
ATI for slow but no CUDA (It has stream but beside Cyberlink, there is no company that currently able to use it).

But, it's a Dell. Dell = under powered, over priced. I also can't believe my eyes when people post raves about a Celeron. I guess after 23 years of computers, one developes some bias.

Not impressed Dell, No Ubuntu option to save me $50+ bucks either. Why should I pay for a Microbloat license if I don't want it on my netbook?

You're complaining about the resolution? The screen is 11 inches. If the resolution was any lower, you wouldn't be able to read anything on it.

a celeron processor? no thanks =D

Everytime I see mention of this system I think of the $5500 Yamaha receiver RX-Z11. That thing is a beast.

I thought this was supposed to be a low-cost notebook, not a netbook?

Hell, it's hard to tell anymore, the lines are being quite blurred as of late.

I would think most "netbooks" run with an Atom, which does help to provide superior battery life, which might explain why this net/notebook with it's celery processor only sustains about 3 hours.

All guesses on my part though, if I was going for a small PC like this, I'd just go with Asus I think.

People, people, people......your not making much seance today. Your forgetting what a netbook is for. Its most common uses are not for powerful apps. We have our desktops and tricked out laptops for those purposes. Netbooks are for on the go web browsing and maybe some light apps. like word and excel. Save the dual cores and higher end video graphics for your desktop and/or high end laptop.

As was mentioned above I agree that the back bone of the netbook is its long battery life which can be extended with the proper underclock config string.

This would compete with Acer timeline 1810T (in US is 1400.) Personally, this kind of low weight, low cost laptops are due because the laptop manufacturers made alot of money selling small laptops at premium prices over the past few years.

I guess the atom is not up to job when it comes to vista or 7. I am sure, given that the atom is cheaper than celeron (i think), dell would rather go for the atom but since M$ wont allow dell to use Xp anymore dell is forced to use celeron so that it will be enough for vista and 7. I own a HP mini 10 and it runs Xp with a battery life around 4 to 5 hours. With that kind of battery life why would any manufacture want scrap that and build something that eats more juice and cost more and at the dissatisfaction of its customers?
So i guess we have to blame M$ for this. But let me be clear here. I do like Vista and 7 even better, however i believe its a bad idea to force companies like dell and hp to switch over to power hungry hardware so that they can run their software on platforms that were designed to expand battery life. That's counterproductive.

Why not use the Atom instead of that slow celeron?

Actually, I've been running an 8.9" Acer Aspire One with Windows 7 RC for a while now. If anything, it's more responsive than XP on the same machine. However, there are still some moments where I notice the lack of power - given the limited range of tasks I perform on a netbook, this Celeron could conceivably have just enough power to really optimize the netbook experience.




The Celeron is based on the Penryn Core 2 Duo. Even though it has a single core and a crippled cache, it's still much faster than the Atom N270 and N280 in most netbooks. The Atom was designed for two things: low cost of manufacture and low power consumption. As such, it is very simple - I believe it's the first Intel CPU since the original Pentium not to feature out-of-order processing, for example. Core 2 was designed for efficiency and power - even if the Celeron isn't a full-blown Core 2 Duo, it still has the architectural advantage. That said, I would never consider a Celeron for a desktop or full-size laptop. But as it is undeniably a step up from the already adequate Atom, I see it as a nice option indeed for the netbook space.

It will handle 7 without any of the eye candy albeit. I have an Eee pc that runs it just fine. Its underclocked and has a batery life of up to 9 hours. I only use it for on the go web browsing and some non power apps. like word and excel.

I have also used this with a wireless card and M$ streets and trips. It does a fine job.