Talk:Netbook

message: As User:842U took it upon themselves to demote and rename the trademark section to something about a "genericized trademark" and then revert "citation needed" tags relating to the unjustified claim that the trademark is indeed "genericized" (without edit summary no less), despite having been warned half a dozen times, they were banned for two weeks for disruptive editing. I have archived their rants and old discussions so as we can start again with a clean slate. -- samj inout 04:22, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: 842U's request for review was denied: "Based on the response of the blocking admin here:  I see a clear pattern of edit warring and other evidence of tendentious editing.  You appear to have been warned multiple times for your problematic editing of the netbook article, and have refused to comply with these warnings to desist.  Based on that, I am declining this request." -- samj inout 19:39, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I have explained to 842U what led to the block and hope trust that they will return when unblocked. -- samj inout 12:19, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  User:842U Blocked 

message: User:842U has consistently rejected the Netbook trademark but it really should be included here. There is no proof that "netbook" is a genericized trademark and there likely won't be for another 6 months so in the mean time the article should reflect *reality*, not what we want reality to be. The whole Psion trademark debacle should be covered concisely (eg the c&d letters, save the netbooks, dell, etc.) and Psion should probably get some credit for the Psion Netbook (even if it wouldn't necessarily be classed a "netbook" by today's standards). -- samj inout 05:03, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't have the time to tend to this section right now so I'm tagging it with disputed-section so as we're not telling people psion's trademark actually is generic (even if it probably is). -- samj inout 18:14, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

text: 842U forced this distinction of "netbook" as a trademark for a product name vs category of laptops, yet the trademark *is* for "laptop computers". The distinction remains but it should probably go, as should the statement that it is genericized. The save the netbooks article cites expert legal opinion saying it is, which might be a good idea for this article too. -- samj inout 10:59, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

text: Agreed 100%. -- samj inout 15:48, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  Note: "trade mark law expert at Pinsent Masons" != "activists" :) -- samj inout 19:40, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I thought it was referring to the text of the Save the Nextbook people, my bad!  But I think the reason for my edit still holds ground - we should be clear that this is an expert opinion and not necessarily a fact.  Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge (Talk to Me) 19:42, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

text: Hows "Trademark experts have asseted that [...] sound? Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge (Talk to Me) 19:44, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I think "attest" is a bit strong... went for "Trademark experts believe". -- samj inout 20:33, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

text: Psion's trademark was for "netBook". rowley (talk) 16:49, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually it was for the word "NETBOOK" - case doesn't matter. -- samj inout 17:26, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Psion Trademark 

message: I'm confused!  How does the reference support the assertation if it's not about environmental impact? Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge (Talk to Me) 19:48, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: You're right, sorry removed the stale ref: The Net Impact of Netbooks? It Depends on Who Uses Them for What. There were a bunch of facts dependent on this ref before but they must have been stripped out :( -- samj inout 20:28, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

text: I realise that people freak out whenever one tries to class something "environmentally friendly" but I don't see why we should insist on a higher standard of proof for this point alone. It's true that we can't just say "because it's $%@#ing obvious" so if you find something better then what we have then add away. -- samj inout 22:07, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: UPenn reference

message: Just because Psion has a dedicated article for the Psion Netbook doesn't mean they shouldn't get credit for the term here. I would go so far as to say (given the high quality of the device) that some of the more positive reviews should be included, though I admit I'm yet to see a bad one. -- samj inout 22:51, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. -- samj inout 02:23, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Credit Psion 

message: With the exception of the technology section (tagged with cleanup-section) the rest of the article is in pretty good state. If you're looking for something to do then the technology section would be a good place to start. -- samj inout 02:54, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Technology section 

message: It occurs to me that the external links we have may be better used as citations, as they are not so much general sites related to the article, but articles containing things such as history about the netbook, and so on.  What do you think? ✎ Peter M Dodge (Talk to Me) 22:14, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Anything which reduces the number of external links is good by me :) Any links we have should be very high quality and ideally non-commercial (e.g. not individual reviews, "buying guides", etc.) -- samj inout 05:43, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  A suggestion 

message: So I'd like to see some debate on the "origins" of the netbook. Don't you think it really dates back further than just the OLPC project and at least to the Handheld PC? Both are attempts to make cheaper, more portable computing devices with technology that sacrifices speed for lower energy usage. Just a thought on how to perhaps flush out the history of them. I know the current "netbooks" have only been around for about a year, but surely there's more to their origins than what's currently up there. So what do you all think, is it important enough to devote time to?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tonytnnt (talk • contribs) 05:13, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: No, its simple! The Asus Eee PC 4G was the first netbook, (in the sense we know of it today) all other current netbooks simply copied its design ideas. Its true the OLPC, (or rather the idea of a $100 laptop) was an inspiration for Asus to design the EEE PC, but only an inspiration. Asus did not market their system as a "netbook", but after some competitors made very similar devices the market started calling the class of these devices "netbooks". Mahjongg (talk) 11:58, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed, the Asus was the first truly successful product. If Psion's numbers are correct they only sold 1/2 a dozen netbooks (as in 6 @ $1,299) in the first 2 years! -- samj inout 12:23, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The history of really small yet fully functional folding PCs capable of running Microsoft Windows goes back to the Toshiba Libretto series and others like the Palmax. Most of these were smaller than the smallest of the current netbooks. Some computer magazines named them "palmtops". Since they were made mostly in the late 1990's they predated WiFi. Internet connectivity had to be through a modem or ethernet connection, which could be built in, a proprietary accessory or a PCMCIA or CardBus card. Models with a PCMCIA or CardBus slot may use a WiFi card, which would make them a sort of proto-netbook. The palmtop died out as the market began to demand ever larger and more powerful notebooks and laptops, peaking with beasts like the Dell Inspiron 9100 series that stretched the meaning of "laptop" to more than 10 pounds. Bizzybody (talk) 07:52, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  History 

message: Microsoft will only allow XP to be installed by the manufacturer on netbooks with no more than 1 GB of RAM, requiring Windows Vista otherwise.
Does anyone know whether this is still valid? I couldn't find any official word on the MS website to cite. -- 82.68.11.50 (talk) 09:46, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The various arbitrary limits for access to discounts and cheaper hardware/software (e.g. atom) has been a moving target - have a look for stuff about ULCPC at microsoft.com -- samj inout 12:40, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  1GB limit 

message: theminilaptop.com/how-to-buy-a-mini-laptop-or-netbook.html How to buy a mini laptop or netbook keeps appearing in the external links from seemingly random IP numbers. I keep warning the IPs but I'm considering seeking a blacklist for the domain. -- samj inout 13:57, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok so I've requested the offending site be blacklisted. -- samj inout 16:27, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  External link spam 

message: Netbooks Offer a Chance to Challenge Windows' Long Reign - good ref for the software section. -- samj inout 02:30, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wired Article 

message: Lets allow alternative naming... there is a clear evidnece some vendors use the preposition "mini" for netbooks. Go and beat me on it!--Kozuch (talk) 16:36, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I only have found one, Dell, that does so. Which others in particular? Volatar (talk) 02:51, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not universal. Apple uses "Mac mini" for its nettop. --Damian Yerrick (talk | stalk) 16:31, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

text: HP Mini 1000, HP 2133 Mini-Note PC. DisplaySearch analyst talked about mini-notes and I for sure could find many more references.--Kozuch (talk) 20:02, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Toshiba calls their netbooks mini notebooks, as in the now near cult status device, the NB205.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.38.206.224 (talk) 12:56, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mini notebook 

message: The reference for the stated 90% Windows XP, 10% Linux distribution of operating systems on netbooks no longer appears to exist. An alternative reference needs to be found, or the assertion should be removed from the article.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.105.102.92 (talk) 12:01, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I've changed the ref to the same article on the pcworld.com website. Letdorf (talk) 12:25, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Netbook OS Distribution 

message: Does someone maybe want to elaborate some of the info in those links into the article? I think it is a pitty that high quality sources that cover the topic generally are not used as references right within the article itself.--Kozuch (talk) 20:02, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Elaboration of articles linked in Exteral links section 

message: This section is extremely missleading. It seem to indicate that companies are moving away from Intel processors but all the evidence provided shows one brand releasing one model at a computer show. Also the whole hybrid processors things is backed up by some extremely weak evidence. Some guy talking about how it could be a good thing and making reference to a computer that runs an Intel processor? That doesn't prove anything. JB --202.5.161.62 (talk) 18:18, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed, and in the form presented its conclusion was purely original research. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 18:38, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Trends section 

message: The MIPS section (posted at the end) was removed for two reasons.
1) It seem to indicate that Ultra-Low Cost netbooks is an article.  
It is a product description.  (I found no other links to the product).
Perhaps it would fit in a references section.
2) The parent section "Processor Architectures" is empty.
We can avoid adding a subsection an empty parent section.
It was a misleading section, the MIPS section.
This article, Netbooks is a hot topic.  
I believe a money madness is safe bet.
Witness the "trends" section removal.
Witness the "Psion" issues.
Combining the subsections would cool things down for this hot topic.
It's easier to edit a growing and hot topic when the material is 
within a single section rather that editing the entire article
to remove a section.
Be There Do That (talk) 05:46, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  MIPS subsection removal 

message: Consider adding the subsection "No Operating System" under operating systems.
After all, the lead paragraph admits that netbooks are minimalist.CpiralCpiral 17:47, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Ha ha (laughing). I assume you are joking... :-) Only very simple micro-controller systems can do without an operating system, systems like routers and microwave ovens, but even a much simpler system than a netbook, like an Automotive navigation system needs an underlaying operating system. Especially systems that do any kind of multitasking need an OS with a scheduler, also any system which needs the option to have installable software parts like drivers. All there tasks are done by the operating system. By the way, the Cloud (operating system) isn't actually an OS in the classical sense, it is more an "extended BIOS", that is why it can act as a boot loader for the "normal" OS. It does NOT replace a normal classical OS, but complements it. It is Similar to some Asus motherboards that come with a built in (in ROM) extended BIOS with Linux, named Splashtop, for the same reason. The Google Chrome OS is much like the Cloud (operating system) but acts more like a classical operating system, and works without another (Main) OS. Mahjongg (talk) 20:49, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  No operating system at all 

message: Doesn't Android just use the Linux kernel, but not the GNU library? Matty B 1000 (talk) 16:14, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Android GNU/Linux 

message: I'm not sure about how to fix it, word smithing is not my thing, but the sentence: "Often significantly less expensive than other laptops,[6] by mid-2009, netbooks had been offered to users "free of charge", with an extended service contract purchase.[7]" seems like two fragments from two different sentences spliced together. Reading it makes me ask 'Users of what' and 'extended service contract purchasers' of what?. Clicking on the citation link makes it understandable but I think the sentence should be clarified.  (As I'm new to commenting on wikipedia articles feel free to delete this if it's misplaced) Ssustrich (talk) 20:06, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unclear sentence. 

message: Both of the side images offer a satirical opinion about the device. One shows netbook "accessories" including a large power generator/battery and a bunch of other oversized stuff. The second shows netbook "use" with three women in period costume. While amusing, I doubt either belong in this article.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.127.157.90 (talk) 03:57, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: after having been removed for a long time some anonymous posters are trying to put this  picture back, titled "Satirical image of a Netbook or mini-laptop, poking fun at its very short battery life:". I have since twice removed it, but they keep putting it back. Please help removing this nonsense picture that among other things sports an electric generator larger that the netbook itself, it is clearly meant as a non NPOV comment meant to ridicule netbooks, it has no place in this article. But I don't want to engage in an edit war over it by myself either. comments please: Mahjongg (talk) 21:41, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  Hallo Mahjongg, pleas stop your stupid vandalism.--91.114.253.54 (talk) 17:30, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Grow up. This isn't funny. If the picture keeps on getting added maybe we should request its deletion from the Commons. Do we know if it is used legitimately anywhere? In the meantime, keep on removing it. --DanielRigal (talk) 21:36, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: No and at the moment it isn't used anywhere. Also It originally used to have a Category:Satire tag, but a vandal has removed it, see . I'm fed up with this nonsense. Mahjongg (talk) 02:45, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Given that the edit-warrior who keeps adding this image is anonymous and seems to pop up from a different IP address every time, semiprotection might be needed here. Letdorf (talk) 13:22, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, he has now also posted his "favorite picture" at ECS G10IL (the netbook that seems to be depicted), I have removed it there too, as even there its use is inappropriate. its probably his answer to reading the question  "Do we know if it is used legitimately anywhere?". I think we should try to have the picture removed from commons, otherwise he probably won't stop trying to push his "agenda" (whatever that may be, he can't be seriously thinking he can accomplish anything by all this, except just annoying us). Mahjongg (talk) 20:38, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  Hello Mahjongg i think its enough, realy your edtit history like an Ghostwriter for Microsoft ?.--91.115.35.109 (talk) 16:38, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Wie bitte? What? Your English is so bad, I think you are German, like the guy who posted this ridiculous picture in the first place, (I suspect you are him). Ich glaube du bist Deutsch, so ich kan dir auf Deutsch gleich sagen dass ich NICHT fur Microsoft arbeite. But lets talk English shall we. As I said, I do not work for Microsoft, its a bit silly for you to claim that, as you are the one that, edits this silly picture back in with the reason "Vandalism to force W7 Netbooks". Sounds to me then that YOU are the one to "Work for Microsoft", (you wish) why else do you want to "force Windows 7 netbooks". The picture is clearly meant to "show" that Netbook batteries are so weak that you need solar cells and power generators as backup. It's not funny, and it doesn't belong here. You seem to think that If only I would stop the picture would somehow stay, but as several people besides me who have removed it show, its not generally appreciated in this form, and certainly not in the gallery. If you want to post a picture of the ECS G10IL then post one without the "peripherals", or at least with sensible comments on a place that isn't obnoxious, like on the german site. Wikipedia is NOT your personal soapbox Mahjongg (talk) 00:20, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I get better battery life from my Netbook (an Acer Aspire One AO533-N55Dkk) than I've got from any other laptop I've ever owned or used. Up to around 6 hours. BrianDGregory (talk) 23:55, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Satirical Images 

message: Can someone repair this please? Cant undo automatically due to newer edit, no time to manual repair. Thanks.--Kozuch (talk) 10:34, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: --Tothwolf (talk) 10:56, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vandalism 

message: It is not clear why the Macbook Air is in this article. It does not fit in with the description of netbooks given in the article and I can't find where Apple refers to the Macbook as a Netbook. SpigotMap 15:02, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Surely the Apple Emate 300 in the gallery is not a netbook either: no built in ethernet let alone wireless, 25 mhz processor, discontinued 1997, etc.--Eloil (talk) 06:41, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll go ahead and remove the picture since nobody has disagreed in several weeks. The Emate may be a subnotebook, but without wireless browsing it's missing a key element in common with even the most basic netbook.--Eloil (talk) 15:25, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

text: The 11in MacBook Air is certainly not cheap compared to other netbooks, but in most other respects it is a netbook-class product, IMHO. It is also significantly less powerful (1.6 GHz Core 2 Duo) than other contemporary models in the MacBook range. Letdorf (talk) 13:19, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Obviously creating a design that is much lighter than contemporary heavier models means you need to shrink the battery, which means you will have less energy for powering the processor, which means you are forced to using less powerful CPU's (or be satisfied with a much lower running time). These are just the facts (as long as you use similar technology, it can be different story if you use a different technology, like using ARM processors. or a revolutionary new display and/or storage technology that uses a fraction of the energy of the technology it replaces). Even though for a device as small as the MacBook Air a  1.6 GHz Core 2 Duo isn't exactly in the same category as the simple Intel Atom CPU of most real netbooks. But that isn't the real reason for why the MacBook Air should not be classified as a netbook, the real reason is that it wasn't designed to be one, nor is it marketed to be one. Note that i'm not saying that the designer (apple) totally determines whether its a "netbook" or not by just declaring it is or isn't, but what counts is their aim when designing the device, its clear the MacBook AIR wasn't designed "to be a netbook", or to compete in the netbook market. Mahjongg (talk) 18:01, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, of course there is no hard-and-fast definition of a netbook, but some journalists at least think the 11in MacBook Air (Air, not AIR) should be called a netbook, for instance FT, CNet, ComputerWorld, Computer Weekly, Wired. Regards, Letdorf (talk) 13:53, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I suppose I guess they have a right to their opinion. So you have reliable sources that say they think the netbook Air, (sorry I mean the MacBook Air) "can be called a netbook", no matter what Apple says. So you could put something in the MacBook Air article like "some people think the MacBook Air classifies as a netbook, although apple refuses to classify it as such", because for that you have reliable sources, but you do not have reliable sources for the fact that the MacBook Air is a netbook. I personally believe that all these journo's that describe the MacBook Air as a "netbook" do that with some "tongue in cheek" and glee.   Mahjongg (talk) 00:47, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

text: I agree that it's not necessary to mention the Macbook Air here. We don't need to mention all netbooks, especially ones that don't meet many of the "requirements" of being a netbook. That a few people have called it a netbook is something to be discussed in the Macbook Air article, not here. To be honest I'm a little concerned at the weight of coverage that Apple is getting in this article... We seem already to be devoting quite a bit of space to the fact that Apple doesn't make a netbook... OS X and iOS, iPad, and now Macbook Air. We really don't have to mention Apple in every technology article. Miremare 15:55, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, if we're not mentioning the MacBook Air here (which some people at least think is a netbook), why is the section on the iPad (which really isn't a netbook) still here? Letdorf (talk) 23:12, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I hadn't noticed it was there, but good question, why is it there? as it certainly has nothing to do with netbooks. By the way, IMHO the whole class of netbooks has gone down the drain! The original first few netbooks, like the ASUS EEEPC, -those- were truly netbooks, and were a revelation! but the industry has managed to kill this (for them non profitable) concept of a "netbook", they much rather wished people would keep buying normal notebooks, so instead of adopting and improving on the concept they started killing it. They did it by starting to put windows XP on them, that was the beginning of the end. Lately "netbooks" are not interesting anymore, and the differences between netbooks and just underpowered laptops has gotten smaller and smaller. Mahjongg (talk) 01:55, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

text: For the record, Apple or someone on Apple's behalf is buying Google Adwords against "Netbook", so obviously Apple is are trying to compete in the same market.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.229.239.90 (talk) 04:46, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Macbook Air 

message: In the history section is mentioned that the first netbooks already had SSD disks, which is wrong. A SSD disk by that time was around the price of the whole netbook. Regards
152.96.245.11 (talk) 19:50, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: What time are you referring to? It says the first Eee PC had a SSD, which is true. Miremare 22:11, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  First Netbooks were with SSD? Definitely WRONG! 

message: I feel like there are a couple of problems with the Netbooks in education section:
1) It doesn't seem to be written from a NPOV, and the tone is even a little advertisement-like. "Netbooks have the potential to change the way students and teachers interact", "The benefits of integrating netbooks in the classroom are many, but they are maximized when there is a 1-1 student to computer ratio", etc.
2) It's too long. I don't see any reason why this section should take up 1/4 of an already very long article. The "activities" subsection is pure fluff. The sections on "Effects on student learning", "Costs and logistics", and "Training and staff development", are basically fine, but they convey no information that's specific to netbooks. The information belongs in an article like E-learning.
My suggestion would be to keep the first two paragraphs of the section and chuck everything else (which is what I'll do in a day or two if there aren't any objections). Dindon (talk) 01:56, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I just read the article for the first time, and came to the talk page to say something about this very issue. The entire section does read like it's been written by someone who sells netbooks to schools for a living. That said.. some of it seems to be properly sourced to scientific research, so it may have a place somewhere on Wikipedia. Just not sure that place is this article. -- Mystman666  (Talk) 16:11, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

text: I've cut a significant amount of material from the Netbooks in education section. As I said in my edit summary, I was sad to delete so much sourced information, which someone obviously put some time into, but it just wasn't right for this page. I looked for an article on the use of computers in the classroom, but I just couldn't find one (the closest I could find was still E-learning which is very broad and very long already).Dindon (talk) 05:52, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Problems with "Netbooks in education" section 

message: While editing the section to add citation tags to the few references in the section, I noticed the following commented-out text:
:
and the following commented-out paragraph:
:The netbook brand Skytone Alpha 400 features a MIPS architecture CPU — the 64-bit Loongson that is capable of about 400 million instructions per second, at very low cost.
If only the reference link is in question, then it's not an advertisement, because Engadget is a reputable technology news website and the article manages to be quite neutral. Because of this and the fact that the section itself was not tagged as the comment said it was, I removed the comment and moved the reference into section text. The latter I made a bit more precise after researching information on Skytone's netbook and the Gdium netbook. I did delete the above commented-out text, though.
Also: Clarified some text, removed a __citation needed__ tag and added a reference in its place.-Mardus (talk) 08:25, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  MIPS 

message: An image used in this article, , has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations 
;What should I do?
	Speedy deletions at commons tend to take longer than they do on Wikipedia, so there is no rush to respond. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs.
A further notification will be placed when/if the image is deleted. This notification is provided by a Bot, currently under trial --CommonsNotification (talk) 01:45, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: File:Samsung N145 Plus.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

message: Why we did not include the AMD C-50 class processors in processors list? There are some new netbooks with this processor (like some Acer netbooks), and Intel ATOM Z-series? 200.198.193.241 (talk) 14:31, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: AMD C-50

message: These have little relationship with real application performance. I don't know of a serious netbook (or notebook) review site that uses that for benchmarks. I propose we remove that column. Tijfo098 (talk) 21:26, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  PassMark scores 

message: I've removed the claims about the flash player because they are misleading. Support (or lack thereof) depends on several factors, CPU is only one of them. OS and even device (GPU etc.) also affect it. It's better left for the articles on individual products, like Skytone Alpha-400. There's a page 
here with more details. Tijfo098 (talk) 21:59, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Flash player in CPU section 

message: The third image on the right side of the page (it is currently 16 June 2013 23:02 UTC) is captioned: "A Hewlett-Packard Mini 1000 netbook computer, a type of notebook computer"
This confuses me, that the caption calls a netbook a notebook. One of these must be incorrect: either it is a netbook, and the caption needs fixing; or it is a notebook, and needs removing. Which is it? Jarmihi (talk) 23:02, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Confusing image 

message: The smartbook section at the end of the article needs to be updated by someone knowledgeable. It's roughly five years out of date, written in anticipation of the smartbook's initial release (the citations are news articles from 2008 and 2009) and the main wiki article on smartbooks say they were released between 2009 and 2010). Even though I could draw on the wiki article I don't think I'm the right person to edit this section, as I've never even heard of smartbooks before and am not tech-savvy. Just happened to spot that the section looked dated. [I've never commented on Wikipedia before, so apologies if I've posted this in the wrong spot or committed any other blunders]. 96.237.73.108 (talk) 12:54, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Smartbook section 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Netbook. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110608191451/http://www.prnewswire.co.uk/cgi/release?id=16302 to http://www.prnewswire.co.uk/cgi/release?id=16302
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090923222819/http://eetimes.eu:80/design/217700855 to http://www.eetimes.eu/design/217700855
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 10:46, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 15 external links on Netbook. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090226214405/https://mr.pricegrabber.com/Netbook_Trends_and_SolidState_Technology_January_2009_CBR.pdf to https://mr.pricegrabber.com/Netbook_Trends_and_SolidState_Technology_January_2009_CBR.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111117185323/http://pcplus.techradar.com/node/3257 to http://pcplus.techradar.com/node/3257
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070302144543/http://www.computerworld.com/action/article.do?command=viewArticleBasic to http://www.computerworld.com/action/article.do?command=viewArticleBasic&articleId=9130757
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110608191451/http://www.prnewswire.co.uk/cgi/release?id=16302 to http://www.prnewswire.co.uk/cgi/release?id=16302
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070517090710/http://www.psionteklogix.com/public.aspx?s=us&p=EOLProducts to http://www.psionteklogix.com/Public.aspx?s=us&p=EOLProducts
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120324055132/http://patenthands.com/ph-blog/how-to-lose-a-trademark-netbook-is-probably-generic/ to http://patenthands.com/ph-blog/how-to-lose-a-trademark-netbook-is-probably-generic/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090311003644/http://www.itwire.com/content/view/22488/53 to http://www.itwire.com/content/view/22488/53/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090223171727/http://www.crn.com/mobile/214502133 to http://www.crn.com/mobile/214502133
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090303165628/http://blog.savethenetbooks.com/2009/03/newsflash-intel-counter-sued-by-psion.html to http://blog.savethenetbooks.com/2009/03/newsflash-intel-counter-sued-by-psion.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150520115222/http://products.amd.com/en-ca/NotebookCPUDetail.aspx?id=513&f1=&f2=&f3=&f4=&f5=&f6=&f7=&f8=&f9= to http://products.amd.com/en-ca/NotebookCPUDetail.aspx?id=513&f1=&f2=&f3=&f4=&f5=&f6=&f7=&f8=&f9=
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110906045550/http://products.amd.com/en-us/NotebookAPUDetail.aspx?id=4 to http://products.amd.com/en-us/NotebookAPUDetail.aspx?id=4&f1=&f2=&f3=&f4=&f5=&f6=&
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120322113910/http://news.prnewswire.com/ViewContent.aspx?ACCT=109&STORY=%2Fwww%2Fstory%2F06-02-2009%2F0005036371&EDATE= to http://news.prnewswire.com/ViewContent.aspx?ACCT=109&STORY=%2Fwww%2Fstory%2F06-02-2009%2F0005036371&EDATE=
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.windowsfordevices.com/news/NS6976598029.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090513022550/http://www.fiercewireless.com/press-releases/bsquare-port-adobe-flash-lite-new-google-android-netbook-del to http://www.fiercewireless.com/press-releases/bsquare-port-adobe-flash-lite-new-google-android-netbook-del
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090313034132/http://blog.wired.com/gadgets/2008/12/gadget-lab-vide.html to http://blog.wired.com/gadgets/2008/12/gadget-lab-vide.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:33, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect :Small Laptop Computer and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 June 14#Small Laptop Computer until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion.  DemonDays64 (talk•contribs) 04:08, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Small Laptop Computer" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]]