It's always a performance indicator when certain hardware devices aren't used for more serious IT market segments, and if I recall correctly, atoms and neos are not to be used on even the lowest workstation computers. And what core 2 duos are slower than atoms? I'm guessing you're talking about those new dual core atoms that haven't been shipped to most of the world yet, cpus that I don't believe to be faster than any c2d, but I'm curious to know.
On Oct 28, 5:50 pm, Koolguy007 <[email protected]> wrote: > It still beat my old Pentium 4 2.5 GHz gaming rig into the ground (and > yes I know its way obsolete). The new Atom processors are starting to > bypass some of the low end Core 2 Duos. They still aren't power houses > though I will agree. My friend has a 14 inch laptop that he got for > $300, and it ran WoW at about the same speed as it did on my netbook. > His is a Centrino based system with Ati graphics. I don't believe his > was optimized though. It just depends on what you want to do and where > you want to do it. Plus if this thing had enough power to play fun > games then my homework would never get done lol. > > On Oct 28, 12:17 pm, tribaljet <[email protected]> wrote: > > > I agree that everyone has their own opinion on the matter. I'm just > > saying that you have laptops that cost as little as a netbook, and > > outperform it in basically every way. If netbooks had proper cpus, any > > pentium dual core or low voltage core duo would suffice, I wouldn't be > > so against it. And do keep in mind that such cpus are quite cheap to > > manufacture. Oh, and optical drives are quite important for me, that's > > why I wouldn't get a "gaming" netbook, even if I had the money. > > > On Oct 28, 5:11 pm, Koolguy007 <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > Everyone is entitled to there own opinion. I believe the prices of > > > laptops would still be high even if netbooks never came into > > > existence. I'm glad they did as it allowed me to have a cheap reliable > > > laptop for college. About the only game I ever play is Dwarf Fortress > > > which is a cpu stressing application, but the only thing that brought > > > it to its knees was the "hidden fun stuff". To each his own opinion > > > though. I like mine and I believe it was money well spent. > > > > On Oct 28, 11:16 am, tribaljet <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > About the physical harm resistance, there's a big difference between > > > > solid state components and moving parts. netbooks are a grudge on > > > > computing in general, not to mention they're another excuse for not > > > > having lower prices laptops, since there is a new segment called > > > > netbooks. They should have never have become tiny laptops, they should > > > > have arm, nvidia or some soc powering the thing, and limit it to the > > > > purpose they were made for in the first place, light browsing and > > > > productivity apps. I'm against anything that makes overall computers > > > > cost more. > > > > > On Oct 28, 4:11 pm, breaker213 <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > netbooks arent to bad they play pretty much any game made before 2005 > > > > > and some after for example fear works perfect for me with no drop in > > > > > fps at all on the lowest settings spore works great oblivion(using > > > > > oldblivion)works good inside buildings and dungeons outside is > > > > > playable unless you get into a fight killing floor works good on small > > > > > inside levels like doom and pacman maps (there custom ones) those are > > > > > just a few games i can think of those are with > > > > > > acer aspire one > > > > > windows 7 > > > > > 1.6 n270 atom > > > > > 1 gb ram > > > > > > but if you want to do real gaming without having to use lowest > > > > > settings all the time get a laptop or even a desktop not a netbook > > > > > netbooks are build pretty good my friend droped his down the stairs > > > > > and it still works fine i have also droped mine a few times > > > > > (sorry for the mass amount of text) > > -- 9xx SOLDIERS SANS FRONTIERS
