Talk:Comparison of subnotebooks

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Comparison of subnotebooks article.
Article policies
This article is part of the Linux WikiProject, a group of Wikipedians interested in improving the encyclopaedic coverage of articles relating to Linux, and who are involved in developing and proposing standards for their content, presentation and other aspects.
If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.

Contents

[edit] Editing Guidelines

Please try to follow the formatting of the rest of the article, in particular:

  • Avoid jargon.
  • Follow the general formatting of the rest of the table.
  • Use ? not ? or unknown or a blank field.
  • Use comparison of web browsers as a reference.

Aronzak (talk) 11:45, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Why "Gb"? The ASUS Eee PC#Specifications storage has 4 gigabytes - not gigabits.--Alvin-cs ✉ 15:11, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
I vote for "GB". It's what's used pretty consistently in the articles that this article links to. —Fleminra (talk) 02:37, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Agreed. The style should be consistent throughout the article, and the predominantly accepted convention is to use the lowercase "b" for "bit" and the uppercase "B" for "byte". Not only is this the convention recommended by most standards bodies, but it is also the convention predominantly used throughout Wikipedia (e.g. see Gigabyte). So, the article should really be using "MB" and "GB". (More strictly, RAM should be specified in GiB, not GB.) --Kebes (talk) 14:52, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Fair enough. If there is consistency. I didn't want this article to become a sea of blue, needing to define every term. Aronzak (talk) 10:59, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] OR

This page is not original research. All of the figures given are those from the articles of the netbooks themselves. I intended this page as a reference, since many pages stick one or two links at the bottom (olpc xo says see also and has a list.) I am open to suggestions for differences in categories if those already in the table aren't good enough. Could anyone with queries/concerns post them here?

There is already such a comparison in the article on subnotebook PCs. "UMPC" is a term coined by Microsoft for a tablet PC platform.137.195.229.160 (talk) 10:31, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
That might be the case, but Microsoft has no legal rights to the term, as its just a term Microsoft was using for a -class- of devices, (computers that can be -used- while moving around, instead of being carried to a place, and then used while not moving) It's a term that other manufacturers are also using for devices that can be used -while- the user is on foot. There is no valid reason why such alternative systems can't use the term "ultra mobile PC", as well, just as non windows based systems may still be called "Personal Computers", although many users associate the term "PC" with Wintel machines. Mahjongg (talk) 01:40, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Merger

I thought of this page in response to a slightly out of place section in subnotebook The page can be divided up into low cost, linux based etc... Aronzak (talk) 09:52, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree that this page should stay, but it shouldn't be called UMPC because by strict definition these are not. Comparison of subnotebooks? I can see this table growing significantly (different versions, etc.), and so agree with the impulse to put it on its own page. However, the table that exists in the subnotebook article should have been moved and then modified instead of forking with a completely new table. --Sstrader (talk) 21:20, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
Once the table grows, it can be divided up to different articles that link to each other Aronzak (talk) 10:44, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Done. Code for reference is on my talk page. Should the page be mover to comparison of subnotebooks (with netbooks as a subheading)? Aronzak (talk) 10:33, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Stuff it, I'm doing that now. Aronzak (talk) 10:40, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Naming of UMPC

The article used to be called comparison of umpcs

Look at the UMPC article. None of these even remotely qualify.137.195.229.160 (talk) 10:28, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
The press is referring to them as UMPCs, some of the manufacturers are also, but I agree that some of them are closer to the definition of a subnotebook, for example the EEE-PC will be awkward to use as a UMPC, it clearly was designed to put on a table (or a lap) to use it. But the CloudBook was clearly designed to be used, and is advertised, as an Ultra mobile PC. True, they are not all "Project origami" compatible systems, but that is not the only definition of an UMPC in common use. Mahjongg (talk) 01:49, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Brunen IT?

AndrewHowse added the following entry? |-! ONE A110/120 | Brunen IT | 7" | €199/€279 | Linpus Linux | VIA C7-M 1GHz | Onboard 2Gb/4Gb flash memory | 512 Mb A google search "brunen it linpus" turns up 2 results, neither of them actually referring to a brunen "one a110". I'm removing this until he can verify that this isn't a joke. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aronzak (talk • contribs) 11:25, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Wasn't me. It was User:77.132.136.104. --AndrewHowse (talk) 12:35, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
OK. It stays deleted then. Aronzak (talk) 01:38, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Page name

Lets change Comparison of Subnotebooks for Comparison of subnotebooks.--Kozuch (talk) 10:22, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Fine with me. Aronzak (talk) 09:13, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] VIA OpenBook

VIA OpenBook should be included.--Kozuch (talk) 23:27, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I already noticed this when you changed the low cost mobile computing template. Thanks anyway. Aronzak (talk) 12:21, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 'Display Resolution' column for Netbooks

I think its an important data given such small screen size for Netbooks, if someone have this data then pl add the same. Thanks. Vjdchauhan (talk) 09:09, 1 June 2008 (UTC).

Searched and added myself. Vjdchauhan (talk) 14:56, 2 June 2008 (UTC).
Ummm... Do others think that this is necessary? There are starting to be quite a few columns. This isn't just a place to dump information, more to link to the articles on the laptops themselves, and to provide a simple comparison of them. Perhaps this is justified, but I'm thinking of removing dimensions. It's easy to see the difference between 128 and 258 and 512 MB of ram, harder to tell the difference between 220 mm × 150 mm × 30 mm and 245 mm × 196 mm × 44 mm (especially when people are adding measurements in inches: 9 × 6.7 × 1.16 inches) Any thoughts? I really originally intended this page to show that some are more/less expensive and have higher/lower specs as a result. This should have encyclopedic content - showing the considerations of the design of the devices, not just a list of products. Aronzak (talk) 12:29, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
And also, what about weight? They're all roughly 1 kg, with no surprises. Who cares? Aronzak (talk) 12:32, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Added pretty colours to weight, {{yes for over 1 kg, {{free for under. Aronzak (talk) 13:45, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Include section on tablet pc's

Include tablet pc section and insert the Digital Textbook too. Thanks.

87.64.161.249 (talk) 18:58, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Go for it.Add whatever you likeAronzak (talk) 13:45, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Split netbooks section?

I propose that the netbooks section be split into current and upcoming/planned. Aronzak (talk) 11:11, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Done it now Aronzak (talk) 13:48, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
If anyone disagrees, put it here. It's difficult to determine current/future (consider prototypes, reviews etc etc...) Aronzak (talk) 13:49, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
This was a good move I think.--Kozuch (talk) 15:17, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] References

Kozuch, when do you think that there will be enough references on the page to take down the Refimprove? Aronzak (talk) 11:11, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I've moved the refimprove tag from whole article to last two tables (6(3 I added to XO-2),3 refs, of an 18 ref article) Happy with 9 refs in first netbook table? Aronzak (talk) 13:47, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Actually, I think it would be nice to provide a direct ref for every single row of any table in the article. Sure, you might call it reference doubling, especially when coresponding device article is wikilinked, but a direct ref is direct ref (not everyone reads the linked article therefore refs should be supplied directly). Also, merging refs in the very first column is nice accessible I think even if they reference price for example.--Kozuch (talk) 15:17, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Subnotebooks vs. Netbooks

As I see the Netbook section grow, I start to think it would be better to split it in a new article called Comparison of netbooks, because netbooks actually are not typical subnotebooks (cheaper, lower specs etc.).--Kozuch (talk) 15:22, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I had intended that. The pages shall link to each other, and be part of a template?Aronzak (talk)

[edit] HTC Shift

HTC Shift is not much of a netbook I think, but rather a true (and very expensive) UMPC.--Kozuch (talk) 15:26, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

That's what I thought. Remove or reclassify?Aronzak (talk) 14:02, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] WikiProject Linux

Technically I'm a member of WikiProject Linux. I think I just nominated this page to be reviewed. Aronzak (talk) 14:02, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] OLPC Price

What should the OLPC price say? I think G1G1 is over. Given that there is controversy over price, it should have a lot of references, but not a lot of words in a table.Aronzak (talk) 14:08, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, that's tricky. Some short way of writing, "not commercially available", and an asterisk to the details? Maybe putting the details on the OLPC page instead of this page? Cretog8 (talk) 18:13, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Table design

Should the tables be sortable? I changed the one on the bottom, and I think it look better with the multi line title. Unfortunately the second line counts as part of the table, and will 'sort' itself, so the tables cannot be sorted. I do think that they look better though. The focus could be taken away from numerical numbercrunching of to yes/no ie.Linux and/or Windows supported, etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aronzak (talk • contribs) 13:05, 12 June 2008 (UTC)