Sharon: yes you can build websites and manages business with netbooks.

Professionally? I tend to use my netbook. I’m a writer and computer applications instructor. So mostly what I do is writing, research and studying for my next class. This means I don’t really need the power required to do video editing or other processing-intensive work. At that point, it’s a netbook.

I also travel a great deal. Netbook performance in the travel arena is superior to most laptops, as well. Mine fits into a neoprene sleeve which then fits into my not-too-large purse with no problem. So, that’s what I tend to use.

On the other hand, when I have to do graphics editing, I turn to my larger, more powerful machine.

You talk about a netbook as a media player. Remember, these little babies do not have optical drives (CD, DVD… that sort of thing). If you’re wanting to play movies on it, you’re either looking at movie files resident on a hard drive, an external optical drive, or maybe streaming it on Netflix (which I often do to great success). It does hold my music library just fine, though.

No, actually. Just mentioning processors is not the same as considering and discussing performance differences. And while his audience may not need a lengthy book on the difference between processors, some few sentences about performance (which is not only determined by processor type and speed but also hard drive type and speed and graphics) would have been useful in expanding his argument. Yet he did not include them.

If he or anyone wants to set up an either/or between a $450 netbook and an $1800 notebook, then all of those performance factors come into it.

Who are you talking about that said portability was the “only consideration?”

Brooke’s post waves aside most other considerations, including the internals, and makes it out as a competition based on size and price. “I would expect that most consumers (even ones that must have an ultraportable laptop) won’t be able to justify paying an extra $1000-$2,000 for a MacBook Air- or Toshiba Portege-style design in the face of a compelling array of Netbook offerings.” This statement assumes that the consumer can do on a netbook everything they can do on a MacBook Air, so all that really matters is if they can justify spending the money. That’s the way I read it; perhaps he didn’t mean it that way.

If he’d included other non-ultraportable notebooks in the discussion, then maybe I wouldn’t have seen it as a size and weight-only issue.

If I needed to go out and buy a laptop right now and only had $1000 to spend but wanted something portable that wasn’t a “brick”, I have a lot of non-netbook choices.

I did bring up performance as part of my criteria.

Yes, but not a primary criteria. Or, at least, you did not word it that way. What I’m saying is that performance, which includes “what will I be using this computer for?” is always a primary criteria as well. If you agree then… we agree.

But I cannot ever recover from the crime of making up the fact that you bought a netbook. Mea Culpa.

In other words, yes, he did mention performance factors. I don’t feel he needs to spell out the difference between an Atom and Core 2 Duo to his target audience. There are plenty of articles on this site, too, that don’t stop the conversation to explain the basics of computer hardware when making a broader point.

“And I still feel that consumers who go out looking for a small and light laptop are not only considering size and weight.”

Who are you talking about that said portability was the “only consideration?” It wasn’t me. It wasn’t Crothers. Don’t you think it is wrong to do this? Just as:

“You say that size is the primary criteria, but you’re leaving something out: what do you intend to use that netbook for?”

But I did bring up performance as part of my criteria. It’s right there in my post. Again, why would you pretend that what I said isn’t on the page for everyone to see? You were on enough of a roll to create, for purposes yet unknown, the fiction that I bought a netbook. Never have, never said I did, but you have actions and statements to attribute to others, and little things like facts aren’t going to slow you down.

It is unethical to misrepresent what others have objectively said. Disagree with me all you want, disagree with Crothers-but don’t omit things that we said or invent things that we didn’t. What would motivate this is beyond me, so I’ll leave it for readers to see and judge for themselves.

In Brooke’s post he mentions hard drive size, repeatedly, but processors only once. And when he mentions processors, there’s no discussion of how the difference between an Intel Atom and a Core 2 Duo affects performance. He even says, near the conclusion: “the design and internals are different, but are they different enough?” His answer is no, but that seems to be based on hard drive size and inclusion of 3G without any discussion of the other performance factors. That’s a big chunk to leave out.

Additionally, he mentions price, but doesn’t take into consideration price ranges amongst ultraportables (or, at first, netbooks, it seems) — sorry I wasn’t clearer on that point.

Further, the article is more about netbook vs. ultraportable, not “netbook vs. notebook” as you cast it.

Please see the title of Brooke’s post: “2009: Netbook or notebook?”

I agree that the article is more about ultraportables, but I took my title cue from the original post. In fact, my post above is about netbooks vs. ultraportables plus ultraportables vs budget ultraportables.

And yes, until quite recently there was an extreme divide in prices where ultraportables were typically way over $1000. That makers are belatedly moving to fill that massive gap is something we can than netbooks’ success for, but it is a very apt description of the choices typically faced by buyers.

And I still feel that consumers who go out looking for a small and light laptop are not only considering size and weight. They are considering that plus performance, and when you put those two together for most consumers the choice of netbook or ultraportable will fall away. You say that size is the primary criteria, but you’re leaving something out: what do you intend to use that netbook for? What are your needs? You took that into consideration when you bought the netbook. You determined that it would fulfill your needs and that a more expensive system had specs you did not need, therefore it was not worth spending the money on. Which is exactly what I said.

“He’s setting up a false dichotomy between expensive ultraportables and netbooks without considering several key factors. Price, performance, and consumer need being among the most important to the question.”

In the first paragraph price is mentioned by Brooke. In the fourth, performance items are clearly mentioned as factors to decide between. How could you say these things are not addressed, when they clearly, objectively, were. It is one thing to disagree with an author in your field. It is quite another to misrepresent them, then attack a position they never took.

Further, the article is more about netbook vs. ultraportable, not “netbook vs. notebook” as you cast it. And yes, until quite recently there was an extreme divide in prices where ultraportables were typically way over $1000. That makers are belatedly moving to fill that massive gap is something we can than netbooks’ success for, but it is a very apt description of the choices typically faced by buyers. The divide wasn’t an absolute, but the choices are representative of what consumers have typically faced in the segment.

I’m in agreeance with Crothers that size is the most important criteria in the market for myself and many, others may differ. If size wasn’t a concern, I’d buy a heavy, bulky $600 15″ laptop and get plenty of space and power and features. Since size is primary, however, I’m willing to pay near as much for a poorer-performing but adequate netbook. Others are willing to pay hundreds or a thousand more for an ultraportable that performs like a cheap laptop, again, because portability is primary.

Honestly, this article was written like you set out to disagree with Crothers, then started plucking bits out of context with which to do so. If anyone has doubt, be sure to read what Crothers actually wrote. Chances are you’ll be reeling too, especially when you come back here and reread claims that Crothers didn’t take price and performance into account.