I have an HP Mini 210. It's got exactly the same hardware configuration than this Samsung. I'm running Windows 7 64bit, VIsual Studio 2010, SQL Server 2010, and the usual set of desktop applications 'must-have' (office, paint.net, metrotwit, etc). I expanded the the RAM to it's max of 2GB. However, I don't find it too slow. It would be better if it had an SSD but it would actually cost more than the netbook itself.
These netbooks would be a no-brainer to buy if they came with bluetooth and wireless n. I don't include a 3g modem because now I tether to my phone (Nexus One) and don't have to pay for that function :)....
I'm getting to the point where I'm going to be adding another SSD to my desktop.
I'm curious what the performance gain would be with a netbook/laptop like this, if anything noticeable.
I wouldn't normally buy a new ~$300 computer and then pay ~$250 to upgrade one component, but this SSD (x25m g2) is getting old and the new ones on they way will be worth purchasing. I'm trying to determine if it's worth cleaning the SSD and putting it in a netbook, or would it be worth having more solid state space in my desktop? Is the Atom even powerful enough to demand higher performance from its resources?
I would think that a netbook would really benefit from a value class SSD, although even they seem outrageously overpriced compared to complete $300-$400 system. I’m willing to be that a lot of the sluggish feel is from waiting for the anemic 5400 rpm HDD to load programs into memory. I was on a budget so I only upgraded to a X25V, but it has been the best computer upgrade I’ve ever made. I can’t wait for the 80 GB models later this year.
The problem is that the majority of netbooks don't even allow you to actually replace the hard drive. I actually tried to get photos of the inside of the N210, but despite removing every screw from the bottom panel it refused to pop open. I could see the hard drive in there, but be damned if I could actually replace it.
So yes, changing out the drive for an SSD may help, but that's operating on the assumption that you can even change out the drive to begin with, along with the assumption that you're willing to void the warranty to do it.
My own experience with netbooks suggests that the Atom CPU is a huge bottleneck. When you have a CULV laptop with a 5400RPM load a game up in 60 seconds, then have an Atom netbook with a similar 5400RPM drive take three times as long to start a game, I'm pretty sure it's the CPU and RAM that's slowing things down. Really, Atom is state of the art performance from around 2003. Seven years is an eternity in computers, and just like slapping an HD 5870 into an old Athlon 64 system won't provide a good gaming experience, an SSD with Atom is only going to be marginally faster in a few HDD limited situations.
Anyway, some people are fine with the performance, but I suspect most of those people don't know (or what to know) about CULV or other ultraportable options.
Not at all a direct comparison, but Anandtech testing showed the original Atom was roughly equivalent to a 1.2GHz Pentium M. My 1.8GHz Pentium M was faster than the Athlon XP 3000+ that was in my desktop at the time, so Atom at 1.66GHz might be in the same ballpark as your 1700+
I know we have independent testing that suggests Atom was close to the Pentium M, but...
I had a Sony TR2A a lifetime ago with a 1GHz Pentium M, and that notebook was an absolute joy to use. 1GB of DDR, 1GHz Pentium M, slow-as-hell 1.8" hard drive...but it was far more responsive than I've ever felt Atom to be.
In raw number-crunching Atom may be faster, but I get the feeling it's nowhere near as agile.
My only use of Atom has been my carputer, which uses an Atom 330. In that application it works quite well, the only lag I experience is when opening large directories of songs within my front end program. I'm not sure if that is due to the lack of processing power to poorly written software. But I can see it having issues when trying to do more difficult things.
Considering the modest single core/1 GB RAM/5200 Rpm HDD I was amazed when Best Buy told me none of the netbooks they sell come with the original OS install disk.
Granted these machines don't come with DVD drives stock, but many people still have access to external optical drives for clean install purposes.
USB boot drive with OS on it. One of the best/fastest ways to do a clean install, especially when you don't have a built-in dvd drive. I'm probably going to do a fresh install of Win7 by the end of the year on my desktop system and even though I have the dvd my 8GB flash drive should be a much faster way and allows me to keep my dvd scratch-free.
I assume that non of your test shows netbook performance when running on battery? When on battery, performance could be lower to increase battery life. If you shows battery life, than would be nice to know, what kind of performance loss is included in this results.
For example it could be like that: Asus 1001p internet performance on AC: 894 Asus 1001p internet performance on battery: 720 Asus 1001p battery life internet: 455
Samsung N210 internet performance on AC: 843 Samsung N210 internet performance on battery: 840 Samsung N210 battery life internet: 354
I don't know real numbers for this netbooks, but would gladly see it in review. The way it is presented now can lead to wrong conclusions when comparing devices which use some power savings tricks.
Netbooks are the biggest scam. If this was $150 or $200 it would make sense. Netbooks are almost always overpriced for what they are and everyone i've known who's bought them are always complaining about how miserable their experience is.
They early eeePC and other first-gen netbooks were $299 max. Intel and the hardware OEM's saw that most users could in fact get by just fine with this hardware along with Windows XP or (especially) a slimmed-down Linux distribution and got the bejeezus scared out of them. I got this information personally from someone in sales at one of the world's largest hardware resellers.
Since then, even the lowest-end models have had features and size creep up to push the price up to $300 minimum and many into $400-500 range. This is an intentional move to push down the netbook market numbers.
Yeah. Intel freaked, realizing they made the Atom N270 too powerful and that's why the newer Atom development has been focused on power efficiency with a less-than-10% speed increase over previous generations.
Intel did the same thing in the CULV market, too. Why do you think they killed the Celeron SU2300? It was too fast and too cheap, 90% of the much more expensive C2D SU7300 for a lot less than 90% of its price. Those Acer AS1410 with the SU2300 for $399 were an absolute steal, an amazing deal for a small computer with serious price-performance chops.
Intel didn't like that too much, though, and the new Arrandale replacement for the SU2300 isn't as good price-performance wise.
I'm disappointed one of the most tech-savvy hardware review sites would have a writer who thinks he is an arbiter of what is and isn't an OS worth using. MS claimed Windows 7 would be trimmed down enough to run on a netbook, but that was a half-truth at best as you have discovered. MS and Intel don't want you to have a fulfilling experience running on Atom-class hardware. The Linux community does.
Your comments about unnecessary bundled software further reinforce this. We all know software company kickbacks from the likes of McAfee and Microsoft partly subsidise the cost of these devices. Most users who buy this netbook won't be capable of reinstalling a clean version of ANY OS and will be stuck running this preinstalled pig. Another reason netbook Linux distros (such as Ubuntu Netbook Remix) are the right choice for netbooks.
Nowhere did I use the phrase "proper OS." In fact the only place I said anything remotely close was when I mentioned that their instant-on environment didn't take the place of a full Windows installation, because it doesn't. Would you have felt better if I'd been more politically correct and just said "full operating system installation?"
If you want to evangelize Linux that's your prerogative, but don't go looking for fights with us. We take our work seriously and personally I take a lot of pride in what I do here. And as a sidenote, as a writer reviewing kit for a wide audience it's basically in my job description TO be an arbiter of what works and what doesn't. If I'm not speaking from some position of authority, why should anyone listen to what I have to say?
The hardware is different but the results are the same. In searching online for Atom-based results I was only able to produce anecdotal evidence, but I also couldn't produce any anecdotal or academic evidence suggesting otherwise either.
First off, thanks for replying Dustin! One of the great aspects of Anandtech and Dailytech are that the writers and editors engage the audience and you did not disappoint.
I feel like I touched a nerve a bit... I'm not looking for a fight - just debate. Indeed I am a Linux evangelist, and netbooks are a great platform for spreading the word. As I pointed out, your experience running Windows 7 on this hardware was disappointing compared to desktops and laptops you are used to. This is due to 2 things: - unlike Vista, Windows 7 will install on a netbook, but truly it doesn't really scale down enough to be usable. Better luck next time on something Windows-mobile derived? - a fairly big problem in this industry of excessive trial software factory installed on any OEM PC Both of these problems go away on a Linux distro intended for netbooks.
Thanks for the link. Indeed Linux generally has poorer battery life on Linux, but this is mitigated by trimming down the install and having more appropriate power settings (and even hardware-specific optimizations) in netbook distros. Note the review you linked was running the full-blown Ubuntu on an eeePC and his Linux knowledge was novice-level at best.
Finally, you most certainly did use the phrase "proper OS" (or I wouldn't have posted in the first place). I guess my whole post can be boiled down to "A full typical desktop or laptop OS install is not appropriate for these devices -- especially a crapware-laden OEM Windows install! But that doesn't mean netbooks don't have their place". Sorry for the excess wordiness :)
Even web surfing performance leaves a little something to be desired, and the fact that you can put a proper operating system on a netbook only continues the illusion that the Atom is somehow capable of doing anything other than making you wait while your program loads.
I tried UNR (9.10 & 10.04) on my Toshiba NB205, but the number of 'issues'i had to solve in order to get it mostly working wouldn't make me think that netbooks are better suited, as a whole, than Windows XP, say. I threw an OEM install of XP Pro on it, and it works like a champ. Where the performance of OpenOffice underUNR was abysmal, Office 2003 runs like greased lightning on the thing. It even runs Office 2010 very well.
I'm no MS fanboy, but putting Pro on it made me stop thinking of the Toshiba as a toy, and makes me consider it a really portable computer that's lacking a little oomph, but still has enough balls to get work done in a timely fashion. I have 2GB installed in mine, and I usually use it connected to a 22" display through the VGA port, and it works as well my older Lenovo T61 for most things that aren't CPU-bound. If I could put more than 2 GB in it, I'd consider giving Windows 7 a shot.
I'd seriously like to consider an ION2-based netbook with Windows 7, but i like the solid 8 hour battery life with the crap Intel graphics under XP so i think i'll leave well-enough alone.
I thought the Samsung and the Toshiba shared innards, but apparently not; my HD is as easy to remove as a conventional laptop (unscrew the cover for the drive bay, and swap).
I'm glad I got my Samsung NC10 while they shipped with Windows XP as standard. It's a great machine (only things you can't do are demanding graphics and HD video stuff).
Instead of a culv the best option out ther are the Athlon II / Turion II Neo ultrapotables/"netbooks". As well as any culv in cpu performance with the huge advantage of the Ati hd4200 IGP.
Whoever buys an atom really buy out of ignorance. And then comply in topics like these about the slow feeling.
After selling my netbook and buying a Dual Core CULV SU2300 ACER 1410 with Windows 7 Home Premium 64 bit, I have never looked back. The 11.6 inch ultra-portable laptop isn't noticeably larger or heavier. However, the difference in performance was immediately apparent. The current atom processors are too slow for anything other than the basics. They are only suitable for those who absolutely need long battery life. If you enjoy waiting for multiple web pages to load or slow USB 2.0 throughput, then go out and buy one now. If not, wait to see what kind of performance the new dual core N series atom CPUs will provide.
We’ve updated our terms. By continuing to use the site and/or by logging into your account, you agree to the Site’s updated Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
23 Comments
Back to Article
InternetGeek - Wednesday, July 28, 2010 - link
I have an HP Mini 210. It's got exactly the same hardware configuration than this Samsung. I'm running Windows 7 64bit, VIsual Studio 2010, SQL Server 2010, and the usual set of desktop applications 'must-have' (office, paint.net, metrotwit, etc). I expanded the the RAM to it's max of 2GB. However, I don't find it too slow. It would be better if it had an SSD but it would actually cost more than the netbook itself.These netbooks would be a no-brainer to buy if they came with bluetooth and wireless n. I don't include a 3g modem because now I tether to my phone (Nexus One) and don't have to pay for that function :)....
vol7ron - Wednesday, July 28, 2010 - link
I'm getting to the point where I'm going to be adding another SSD to my desktop.I'm curious what the performance gain would be with a netbook/laptop like this, if anything noticeable.
I wouldn't normally buy a new ~$300 computer and then pay ~$250 to upgrade one component, but this SSD (x25m g2) is getting old and the new ones on they way will be worth purchasing. I'm trying to determine if it's worth cleaning the SSD and putting it in a netbook, or would it be worth having more solid state space in my desktop? Is the Atom even powerful enough to demand higher performance from its resources?
flgt - Wednesday, July 28, 2010 - link
I would think that a netbook would really benefit from a value class SSD, although even they seem outrageously overpriced compared to complete $300-$400 system. I’m willing to be that a lot of the sluggish feel is from waiting for the anemic 5400 rpm HDD to load programs into memory. I was on a budget so I only upgraded to a X25V, but it has been the best computer upgrade I’ve ever made. I can’t wait for the 80 GB models later this year.Dustin Sklavos - Wednesday, July 28, 2010 - link
The problem is that the majority of netbooks don't even allow you to actually replace the hard drive. I actually tried to get photos of the inside of the N210, but despite removing every screw from the bottom panel it refused to pop open. I could see the hard drive in there, but be damned if I could actually replace it.So yes, changing out the drive for an SSD may help, but that's operating on the assumption that you can even change out the drive to begin with, along with the assumption that you're willing to void the warranty to do it.
JarredWalton - Wednesday, July 28, 2010 - link
My own experience with netbooks suggests that the Atom CPU is a huge bottleneck. When you have a CULV laptop with a 5400RPM load a game up in 60 seconds, then have an Atom netbook with a similar 5400RPM drive take three times as long to start a game, I'm pretty sure it's the CPU and RAM that's slowing things down. Really, Atom is state of the art performance from around 2003. Seven years is an eternity in computers, and just like slapping an HD 5870 into an old Athlon 64 system won't provide a good gaming experience, an SSD with Atom is only going to be marginally faster in a few HDD limited situations.Anyway, some people are fine with the performance, but I suspect most of those people don't know (or what to know) about CULV or other ultraportable options.
mino - Thursday, July 29, 2010 - link
Are you joking ?My as-cheap-as-it-gets Athlon XP 1700+ from 2003 would eat any netbook for breakfast.
Remember, 2003 wast the year of Arhlon 3200+, Pentium 3.2EE and Radeon 9800 ...
State-of-the-art 2000/2001, I might agree.
Atom might be competitive with Athlon 1.4 in SSE2 multimedia encoding. But it will not stand a chance in general purpose x86/SSE stuff.
Think 1GHz PentiumIII/Athlon with Geforce Ti 200. That's about it.
strikeback03 - Thursday, July 29, 2010 - link
Not at all a direct comparison, but Anandtech testing showed the original Atom was roughly equivalent to a 1.2GHz Pentium M. My 1.8GHz Pentium M was faster than the Athlon XP 3000+ that was in my desktop at the time, so Atom at 1.66GHz might be in the same ballpark as your 1700+Dustin Sklavos - Thursday, July 29, 2010 - link
I know we have independent testing that suggests Atom was close to the Pentium M, but...I had a Sony TR2A a lifetime ago with a 1GHz Pentium M, and that notebook was an absolute joy to use. 1GB of DDR, 1GHz Pentium M, slow-as-hell 1.8" hard drive...but it was far more responsive than I've ever felt Atom to be.
In raw number-crunching Atom may be faster, but I get the feeling it's nowhere near as agile.
strikeback03 - Thursday, August 5, 2010 - link
My only use of Atom has been my carputer, which uses an Atom 330. In that application it works quite well, the only lag I experience is when opening large directories of songs within my front end program. I'm not sure if that is due to the lack of processing power to poorly written software. But I can see it having issues when trying to do more difficult things.Computer Bottleneck - Wednesday, July 28, 2010 - link
Considering the modest single core/1 GB RAM/5200 Rpm HDD I was amazed when Best Buy told me none of the netbooks they sell come with the original OS install disk.Granted these machines don't come with DVD drives stock, but many people still have access to external optical drives for clean install purposes.
7Enigma - Thursday, July 29, 2010 - link
USB boot drive with OS on it. One of the best/fastest ways to do a clean install, especially when you don't have a built-in dvd drive. I'm probably going to do a fresh install of Win7 by the end of the year on my desktop system and even though I have the dvd my 8GB flash drive should be a much faster way and allows me to keep my dvd scratch-free.popej - Thursday, July 29, 2010 - link
I assume that non of your test shows netbook performance when running on battery? When on battery, performance could be lower to increase battery life. If you shows battery life, than would be nice to know, what kind of performance loss is included in this results.For example it could be like that:
Asus 1001p internet performance on AC: 894
Asus 1001p internet performance on battery: 720
Asus 1001p battery life internet: 455
Samsung N210 internet performance on AC: 843
Samsung N210 internet performance on battery: 840
Samsung N210 battery life internet: 354
I don't know real numbers for this netbooks, but would gladly see it in review. The way it is presented now can lead to wrong conclusions when comparing devices which use some power savings tricks.
evident - Thursday, July 29, 2010 - link
Netbooks are the biggest scam. If this was $150 or $200 it would make sense. Netbooks are almost always overpriced for what they are and everyone i've known who's bought them are always complaining about how miserable their experience is.Taft12 - Thursday, July 29, 2010 - link
They're only SUPPOSED to be $150-200.They early eeePC and other first-gen netbooks were $299 max. Intel and the hardware OEM's saw that most users could in fact get by just fine with this hardware along with Windows XP or (especially) a slimmed-down Linux distribution and got the bejeezus scared out of them. I got this information personally from someone in sales at one of the world's largest hardware resellers.
Since then, even the lowest-end models have had features and size creep up to push the price up to $300 minimum and many into $400-500 range. This is an intentional move to push down the netbook market numbers.
synaesthetic - Thursday, July 29, 2010 - link
Yeah. Intel freaked, realizing they made the Atom N270 too powerful and that's why the newer Atom development has been focused on power efficiency with a less-than-10% speed increase over previous generations.Intel did the same thing in the CULV market, too. Why do you think they killed the Celeron SU2300? It was too fast and too cheap, 90% of the much more expensive C2D SU7300 for a lot less than 90% of its price. Those Acer AS1410 with the SU2300 for $399 were an absolute steal, an amazing deal for a small computer with serious price-performance chops.
Intel didn't like that too much, though, and the new Arrandale replacement for the SU2300 isn't as good price-performance wise.
Taft12 - Thursday, July 29, 2010 - link
I'm disappointed one of the most tech-savvy hardware review sites would have a writer who thinks he is an arbiter of what is and isn't an OS worth using. MS claimed Windows 7 would be trimmed down enough to run on a netbook, but that was a half-truth at best as you have discovered. MS and Intel don't want you to have a fulfilling experience running on Atom-class hardware. The Linux community does.Your comments about unnecessary bundled software further reinforce this. We all know software company kickbacks from the likes of McAfee and Microsoft partly subsidise the cost of these devices. Most users who buy this netbook won't be capable of reinstalling a clean version of ANY OS and will be stuck running this preinstalled pig. Another reason netbook Linux distros (such as Ubuntu Netbook Remix) are the right choice for netbooks.
Dustin Sklavos - Thursday, July 29, 2010 - link
Nowhere did I use the phrase "proper OS." In fact the only place I said anything remotely close was when I mentioned that their instant-on environment didn't take the place of a full Windows installation, because it doesn't. Would you have felt better if I'd been more politically correct and just said "full operating system installation?"If you want to evangelize Linux that's your prerogative, but don't go looking for fights with us. We take our work seriously and personally I take a lot of pride in what I do here. And as a sidenote, as a writer reviewing kit for a wide audience it's basically in my job description TO be an arbiter of what works and what doesn't. If I'm not speaking from some position of authority, why should anyone listen to what I have to say?
And finally, sorry to tell you, but Linux distros presently produce substantially reduced battery life: http://techreport.com/articles.x/18883/7
The hardware is different but the results are the same. In searching online for Atom-based results I was only able to produce anecdotal evidence, but I also couldn't produce any anecdotal or academic evidence suggesting otherwise either.
Taft12 - Friday, July 30, 2010 - link
First off, thanks for replying Dustin! One of the great aspects of Anandtech and Dailytech are that the writers and editors engage the audience and you did not disappoint.I feel like I touched a nerve a bit... I'm not looking for a fight - just debate. Indeed I am a Linux evangelist, and netbooks are a great platform for spreading the word. As I pointed out, your experience running Windows 7 on this hardware was disappointing compared to desktops and laptops you are used to. This is due to 2 things:
- unlike Vista, Windows 7 will install on a netbook, but truly it doesn't really scale down enough to be usable. Better luck next time on something Windows-mobile derived?
- a fairly big problem in this industry of excessive trial software factory installed on any OEM PC
Both of these problems go away on a Linux distro intended for netbooks.
Thanks for the link. Indeed Linux generally has poorer battery life on Linux, but this is mitigated by trimming down the install and having more appropriate power settings (and even hardware-specific optimizations) in netbook distros. Note the review you linked was running the full-blown Ubuntu on an eeePC and his Linux knowledge was novice-level at best.
Finally, you most certainly did use the phrase "proper OS" (or I wouldn't have posted in the first place). I guess my whole post can be boiled down to "A full typical desktop or laptop OS install is not appropriate for these devices -- especially a crapware-laden OEM Windows install! But that doesn't mean netbooks don't have their place". Sorry for the excess wordiness :)
Even web surfing performance leaves a little something to be desired, and the fact that you can put a proper operating system on a netbook only continues the illusion that the Atom is somehow capable of doing anything other than making you wait while your program loads.
dmjazzijeff - Thursday, July 29, 2010 - link
I tried UNR (9.10 & 10.04) on my Toshiba NB205, but the number of 'issues'i had to solve in order to get it mostly working wouldn't make me think that netbooks are better suited, as a whole, than Windows XP, say. I threw an OEM install of XP Pro on it, and it works like a champ. Where the performance of OpenOffice underUNR was abysmal, Office 2003 runs like greased lightning on the thing. It even runs Office 2010 very well.I'm no MS fanboy, but putting Pro on it made me stop thinking of the Toshiba as a toy, and makes me consider it a really portable computer that's lacking a little oomph, but still has enough balls to get work done in a timely fashion. I have 2GB installed in mine, and I usually use it connected to a 22" display through the VGA port, and it works as well my older Lenovo T61 for most things that aren't CPU-bound. If I could put more than 2 GB in it, I'd consider giving Windows 7 a shot.
I'd seriously like to consider an ION2-based netbook with Windows 7, but i like the solid 8 hour battery life with the crap Intel graphics under XP so i think i'll leave well-enough alone.
I thought the Samsung and the Toshiba shared innards, but apparently not; my HD is as easy to remove as a conventional laptop (unscrew the cover for the drive bay, and swap).
stephenbrooks - Friday, July 30, 2010 - link
I'm glad I got my Samsung NC10 while they shipped with Windows XP as standard. It's a great machine (only things you can't do are demanding graphics and HD video stuff).synaesthetic - Thursday, July 29, 2010 - link
Too bad people don't actually use netbooks the way they were originally intended.srsly guys, they're not full-power laptops, they shouldn't have Windows 7 on them...
Lolimaster - Tuesday, August 3, 2010 - link
Instead of a culv the best option out ther are the Athlon II / Turion II Neo ultrapotables/"netbooks". As well as any culv in cpu performance with the huge advantage of the Ati hd4200 IGP.Whoever buys an atom really buy out of ignorance. And then comply in topics like these about the slow feeling.
freeman70 - Sunday, August 8, 2010 - link
After selling my netbook and buying a Dual Core CULV SU2300 ACER 1410 with Windows 7 Home Premium 64 bit, I have never looked back. The 11.6 inch ultra-portable laptop isn't noticeably larger or heavier. However, the difference in performance was immediately apparent. The current atom processors are too slow for anything other than the basics. They are only suitable for those who absolutely need long battery life. If you enjoy waiting for multiple web pages to load or slow USB 2.0 throughput, then go out and buy one now. If not, wait to see what kind of performance the new dual core N series atom CPUs will provide.