Regarding gman definition…
-light (check)
-long battery life (check)
-no optical drive (check)
-not a primary computer (check)
-weak graphic performance (check)
-thin (check)
-cheap (check)
Good attempt, but a wrong one. The original Eee PC had anything by “long battery life” but they were the ones that brought back the Netbook word from the land of the dead Psions.

I don’t think we need to create a firm definition for netbooks, for me anything with at least 2h battery which I can carry on my pouch/bag/backpack (small, light) and has enough performance, allows me to connect to the ‘net and uses a x86 cpu is a netbook.

In the end my ideal netbook would be similar to the Asus 901, a bit thinner with sata ssd.

With respect, I stand by my point, that this site and many others would love to call all computers laptops. Within reason of course. Technically, this new Acer would be a “thin and light” or “ultra thin” laptop. At the very least, you woudn’t be confusing the general public that these “laptops” don’t actually have optical drives. I’m sure you could also call the CULV’s like the Acer, which walk like a duck and quack like a duck, a duck. Unfortunately, you behave more like sheep, pulling the corporate line on this one. BTW, the duck is really a netbook. Perhaps you could list the reasons for calling this Acer 1410 a laptop, then we can compare notes on what most people consider a netbook to be.

-light (check)
-long battery life (check)
-no optical drive (check)
-not a primary computer (check)
-weak graphic performance (check)
-thin (check)
-cheap (check)

Okay what did I miss here? Walks like a duck, quacks like a duck….but you can’t say because why?

Is the 1410 representative? Well, the 1410 is $399 and the Dell Inspiron 11z (wow Dell is making some crappy netbook/CULVs lately) is also $399. But lots of other 11″ TNLs (Thin ‘n Lites) are much more expensive. Lenovo has just announced their U150 for $699 which is as much as many much more capable laptops. Will the Acer AS1410 take the world by storm and force all the other vendors to compete at this price point? We don’t really know that yet, though I wouldn’t bet against it. However, with the various processor’s available and the extra cost options available, the average TNL price is clearly going to be more than netbooks. Which of course is exactly what Intel wants.

Intel MUST be charging more for the CULV processors in these TNLs, even the lower end Solo and Celeron 743 models. Plus with Pine Trail I can only assume the prices for Atom CPU + chipset is going to be coming down. So we might well see Atom based netbooks come down in price even further.

CULVs currently have LOTS of advantages over netbooks. Better CPU, HDMI, eSata (usually), bluetooth (usually), multitouch (varies somewhat), higher resolution screens, bigger screens, bigger/better keyboards, etc. My guess is you can’t do all those things for no money. So I think we’re going to continue to see a price differentiation between the two lines.

Like others I don’t think we’re going to see netbooks go away. There are size advantages to 10″ netbooks. I do think this will bring an end to those higher spec/higher end netbooks though. Would you still buy an HP 5101 with a 6 cell battery and an HD display for $631?

The 1410′s Comparison Charts table (to add more models to compare) only include ultraportables, not netbooks. Perhaps it’s an oversight.

A comment to the Aspire 1410 review: It would be worthwhile to point out to readers that there are two models of the 1410, the older single-core CULV SU3500 1.4GHz with Vista, and the newer dual-core SU2300 1.2GHz with Win 7 Home Premium. Pricing for the newer version is $400, while the latter is $450. The model being sold from vendors shown along the review is for the older version, and not the version being reviewed.

A more lucid comment to the “netbooks are obsolete” piece: The piece based its argument on invalid evidence. The $399 1410 is a statistical outlier price-wise. Median pricing for CULVs tend to be around the $500-600 range. Of course, there will be some conflict between the CULV low-end and the Atom high-end, and given the CULV’s better perf, it’s a likelihood that the Atom “premium” models will lose out. I expect that the Atom’s price range will drop by about $50, i.e. between $250-400, and with improved video rendering with the new models and with Flash’s GPU-accel future update. CULV will still be in the $500+ in the main, outliers aside, so the differentiation is still viable. A more interesting question is whether the CULV will appear in the 10″ form factor, and how it will fare with the consumer.

You can definitely use our site to compare the AS1410′s benchmarks to any netbooks or notebooks. Just check out the benchmarks / compare page:

http://www.laptopmag.com/review/laptops/acer-aspire-1410.aspx?mode=benchmarks

But the rebuttals to the article are correct, as the latter’s “death of netbooks” prediction is essentially meaningless, given that even the Atom itself is evolving to faster speed (and presumably better price/perf ratio), and that CULVs are blurring the netbook/laptop distinction. Fluff pieces like this cater to the simplistic, binary fly-or-die views, but the reality is that there will be a continuous spectrum of mobile computing capability, from the small/cheap/wimpy on up. Given that Intel is in the driver’s seat of managing the price/perf ratios of both the Atoms and CULVs, it’s safe to say that the Atom will retain its anchor at the low-end, while the CULV will find a price-point niche at the low-to-mid-range below the C2D. This carefully managed equilibrium would only change if AMD can manage to throw out some credible competition.

To sum, the above “netbook is dead” piece is about nothing. Even if its premise comes about (that netbooks will be phased out), it’s still about nothing, as the $300-400 price point for small laptops is here to stay, and changing the name to something other than netbooks won’t make any difference to the consumer.