"mini" PC's, SSD's, and Linux

[Lennart Sorensen]

On Fri, Jul 03, 2009 at 10:24:27AM -0400, D. Hugh Redelmeier wrote:
> If you care about battery life, there are a couple of things to know.
> 
> Most netbooks come with 3-cell batteries.  An extra-cost option is a
> 6-cell battery, doubling the battery life.
> 
> There seeem to be some newer Asus netbooks that claim very long run
> times: 8.5 to 10.5 hours, if I remember.  I don't know how they do
> this (LED backlights?  more cells? new battery chemistry?).  I think
> they have model suffixes like HA or HE.

The 1000HA does have a very long battery life.  It has a 6 cell battery,
and does just about everything they can to be energy efficient.
My parents-in-law bought one, and so far they are finding that the
battery life is pretty close to what was promised.

My wife's 1008 with a 3 cell internal battery probably does 4 to 5 hours,
which is quite reasonable.  The 1008 takes no space at all in a bag.

> The next Intel chipset should make a significant difference on power
> usage.

Well, it couldn't be much worse. :)

> The Dell Mini 9 is discontinued.  To bad: it had no rotating
> machinery!  No fan, no disk.
> 
> The Mini 10v is logically similar (looks the same to software -- same
> peripheral chips) but it does have a fan and may only come with a hard
> disk.
> 
> The normal Mini 10 (not 10v) comes with GMA 500 video.  Horrible for
> Linux since the open source drivers are really really bad news.
> http://www.happyassassin.net/2009/01/30/intel-gma-500-poulsbo-graphics-on-linux-a-precise-and-comprehensive-summary-as-to-why-youre-screwed/
> 
> I don't have a netbook.  On paper, I like the size of the eepc 700 but
> newer netbooks are all 9" and more.  What you would know, and I don't,
> is how the physical tradeoffs "feel".

Most people find the 7 and 9" are imposible to actually type on.  You can
poke out text, but not type.  The 10" are possible to type on reasonably
well, unless you have huge fingers.

Also the 7" with the 800x480 resolution just doesn't give any space for
anything.  At least 1024x600 is a lot better, which is what the 9 and 10"
seem to have in general, except Dell that thought 1024x576 was sufficient,
never mind the fact that XP always had a minimum requirement of 800x600
listed.  Not sure where Dell got that odd ball screen that no one else
ever used.

-- 
Len Sorensen
--
The Toronto Linux Users Group.      Meetings: http://gtalug.org/
TLUG requests: Linux topics, No HTML, wrap text below 80 columns
How to UNSUBSCRIBE: http://gtalug.org/wiki/Mailing_lists