If only is came with a flash drive I would buy one in an instant.

I'd say yes, but not just because of size or price: the system has a maximum of 1GB of RAM. I don't think it can be considered a full notebook due to that spec.

Let me start by saying, I agree and acknowledge that terms like “Netbook, UMPC, MID, PMP, sub-notebook, smartphone” etc are marketing terms that have no set meaning. I mean, they marketed the MacBook Air as being “Ultra Portable” even though it's footprint is actually larger than that of a MacBook. Ultimately, if Dell wants to market this as a netbook, it can. However, I think we, as consumers, as bloggers, as everyday people, can take ownership of a word and give it meaning. Without a set definition, words are meaningless. So, I will set out *my* criteria for a netbook. And despite what marketing companies might label a device, I'm going to check the specs and come to my own conclusions. That being said, whether a device is a “netbook” or not – that's not going to affect my desire to buy it. I buy because of a device meeting my needs or not – not what its label is.

The Dell Mini 12 is not a netbook. If this thing is a netbook, then the MacBook Air is a netbook. If this is a Netbook, the old 12″ iBooks or PowerBooks were netbooks. It's not a netbook because it's too big. Laptops 12-inch screens have been around for a lot longer than the netbook idea has been. This simply does not qualify.

Just because something has a certain CPU doesn't make it a netbook. There are netbooks with non-Atom CPUs. Netbooks came out before the Atom, so you can't use that as your litmus test. I mean, what about netbooks that use Via processors, or Celerons, or ATOMs? Do they not qualify because they have a different CPU?

A netbook has to fit a number of criteria, the brand of CPU isn't one of them. Here's a quick list:

1) Small – it has to be physically smaller than a normal notebook. 12″ is a full sized notebook. As I've mentioned, the iBook and the Powerbook both had 12″ models years ago – long before the word “netbook” had any meaning. (I'm sure other manufacturers had 12 inch laptops, too, I'm just not as familiar with those models.) If you need a hard and fast number – the screen has to be 10″ or smaller to be a netbook.

2) Light – this is different than small. The frame itself does have to be under a certain size, but it also has to be lightweight. This is where the MacBook Air is netbook-ish – it's lightweight, (compared to other Mac Laptops – but still not very light). But it's not a netbook because it fails number one.

3) Full Internet experience. This means stuff like, of course, full HTML support, but also Javascript, AJAX, and Flash. I mean, if I can't watch YouTube on it, it's not a NETbook. This disqualifies stuff that runs WinCE or some cell phone OS as being a netbook. So just because your cell phone has a widescreen display and a QWERTY keyboard doesn't make it a netbook.

4) Along with that – a full desktop experience. Again, WinCE doesn't cut it. Neither does Android. The OS can be Windows or Linux, or if you want to hack it, Mac OS X – but whatever OS you use – it has to be one that can run programs I'm used to. Firefox, OpenOffice.org, VLC – etc. These types of programs, desktop programs, have to be able to run on it. I'm not saying it will be blazing fast, or that you'll have all the room you want for all the apps in the world on your SSD, but the operating system needs to support standard applications.

5) Cheap. Basically, if I can't buy a model of your computer for less than $500 US – it's not a netbook. Probably need to make that number sub-$400 at this point. Something like the OQO isn't a netbook. It meets all the other criteria – it's small, it runs full Windows XP, it is light, it does the full Internet – but it ain't cheap. Same thing goes for other UMPCs that start above the $1K mark. These are not netbooks. They are tiny notebooks – or clamshell UMPCs – but they are not netbooks.

Dell's Mini 12 fails at least 2 of those. It's too big and too expensive. And, really, if it's more than 2.5 pounds, I'd say calling it “lightweight” is a bit of a stretch, too. I didn't put these in order of importance, but #1 is the biggest one. A device can be lightweight, cheap, offer a full net experience, and a full desktop – but if it has a 21″ screen – it's not a netbook.

Also not mentioned, but worth noting, of course the device has to be portable. Meaning a Mac Mini mght be small, lightweight, cheap, and full powered, but it's not portable. No screen, no keyboard, no battery = not a netbook. But I just thought that was so obvious I didn't list it. However, I think maybe I should, since there are devices out there that would be netbooks, except they lack any form of Wifi. You can't be a netbook without portability, and that includes wireless internet. Make that number 6.

This is a *really* well thought out and thoroughgoing discussion and definition of a netbook, and on first reading I can't fault any of it

I never thought the Dell Mini 12 met the definition of a netbook. However, in my humble opinion, I still think it's OK for Brad to discuss an occasional, interesting related item even if it does not strictly fit the definition of a netbook. It might be an interesting or welcome change of pace. Maybe he could start by saying something like, “this is not really a netbook, but I thought you might be interested in it.”

After re-reading, I like your definition even better, but I would like to see you flesh out the area of the keyboard and the bottom end of the size limits.

I think a netbook has to be able to accomodate touch typing, at least for a dextrous user; so I think anything with below around an 8 inch keyboard would fall into a category like “smaller UMPCs.” (But I don't think it hurts to occasionally discuss these on this site if they have some netbook functionality [but not OQO type stuff].)

For my own use I might be a little more flexible about upper weight and price limits for certain features. For example, a bigger, heavier battery enhances mobility, the most important netbook criterion, by letting you stay gone longer (while detracting from it by being harder to carry).

I guess it goes without saying that the processor and OS have to match up in size well enough for the device to handle the tasks you outline above.

Thanks. I'm glad you like my defintion. I guess another thing I would need to add would be form factor. That kind of goes along with the non-numbered number 6 where I disqualify the Mac Mini. A Netbook needs to be a notebook shaped thing. A clamshell design.

Slight variations like the swivel-to-tablet convertable mode like the Gigabyte – or the unique open all the way with the keyboard on one side and the monitor on the other style of the NoahPad can be made – but it should resemble a laptop/notebook/clamshell device to the average person.

That would disqualify the OQO and other tablet-style UMPCs that might otherwise fit the netbook criteria I just made up.

To recap:

1. Size – less than a 10″ screen
2. Weight – under 3 pounds or very, very close
3. Full Internet – AJAX, Flash, … and Download – that wasn't mentioned earlier, but I should be able to download stuff from the net.
4. Full Desktop – Be it Windows XP, Linux, or Mac OS X – it's got to be the real deal – not some cell-phone OS slapped onto a laptop looking thing (I'm glaring at you, thankfully dead Palm Foleo).
5. Price – Under US$500 for the base model – maybe even $400
6. Portability – runs off a battery, has built-in screen and keyboard, has Wifi (or 3G/WiMax/Bluetooth – something to get wireless internet)
7. Form factor – Looks like a notebook, has a screen, QWERTY keyboard, some sort of trackpad, or touchscreen, or control nub, or something. Clamshell or similar design – swivel tablet is acceptable.

You should ride go karts. Some with flames painted on the sides so they go really fast.

I would like you to continue covering the Mini 12. I have been a regular reader of your site for 2 months now but did not have a chance to check out the current generation of netbooks until this past weekend (I have seen and used the original 7″ EEE PC and OLPC XO before).

I went to Best Buy and checked out the MSI Wind and an EEE with an 8.9 inch screen and was astounded at how small the monitors are. They look a lot bigger when you are just looking at photos online. Then I picked up the Macbook Air, felt how it weighed the same as a netbook, and thought, “Why would I settle for a 10 inch screen if I could get a 12 or 13 inch screen for the same price?” The footprint or dimensions are of course larger than a typical netbook, but for my needs, weight matters more than volume.

For that reason, I have been checking out used and refurbished ultraportables from 3 years ago (like the Thinkpad X41, Toshiba Portege R300, Latitude X1) that weigh as much as a netbook but have 12 or 13 inch screens. They go for the same price as a new netbook (or less) but I am reluctant to pull the trigger since I do appreciate the warranty on a new netbook and the guarantee of a new battery.

I frequent this page regularly because my particular needs are very similar to those of the traditional definition of a netbook:

1) 3 lbs or less
2) $500 or less (the Mini 12 would definitely be stretching it, maybe would be cheaper at Christmas?)
3) Preferably comes with a version of Linux

Up till now, I was waiting for a new EEE 1000H or MSI Wind to hit $300 or less. But with the Mini 12 out now, maybe I should wait until that model gets a bit cheaper. Does anyone know of any other new computers that have 12 inch screens or higher, weigh 3 lbs or lower, and are in the same price range? That info would be super helpful!

Well, one of the biggest complaints against the entire netbook concept is that the keyboard is always going to be too small. There are some really good netbook keyboards out there now. I saw an HP Mini Note at a conference last week, and the keyboard is huge compared to my Eee 701. That being said, it's still not full sized.

If you are getting down to what is a *good* netbook and what is a bad netbook – that's a different issue than what is a netbook and what isn't. By today's standards my groundbreaking 701 is a bad netbook. It has next-to-no storage. It has a tiny keyboard. The screen is small and low res, there is too much wasted bezel, no BlueTooth, only one SD card slot, no webcam…. But it's still a netbook.

If you are asking if someone came out with a 4″ screen, 1Ghz CPU, clamshell device with a tiny thumb keyboard, but a full Desktop OS (something like the Pandora – openpandora.org – but with full desktop Linux, not some ARM-based porta-distro) would I consider that a netbook?

I'm not sure how to express the minimum size. Basically it hasn't been an issue yet. Basically if it is small enough to fit in your pocket, then it isn't going to be a clamshell design. Or it's not going to run a full desktop OS. Or it's not going to cost less than $500. Like would the Fujitsu Lifebook U810 qualify if it was less than $500? That's a good question. Or would the Pandora qualify if it ran Desktop Linux?

That's not something I'm sure about yet. If I had to make a statement on that, I'd say pocketable is too small for the name netbook. Then you are getting into UMPC land – clamshell or not.

But I think market conditions will keep that question from needing to be asked for a while. If you get much smaller than a 7 inch screen, you're either going to have to raise the price, or cut the power/features – and either choice prevents it from being called a netbook, in my mind anyway.

It's a subnote spinoff…

I welcome your coverage of such near relations since at buying decision time one needs to keep track of upper and lower bounds…

I had an eepc 7g and replaced it with an
aspireone to get a bit more room on the hd and provide an alternative that used xp without a problem and still would duel boot a linux if a fully working standard version turned up…

I also use a nokia 800n for times when I want less..

But I want to keep an eye on stronger and lighter net books and their slightly larger kin for the sake of future decisions and advice to others who might want slightly more than the aspireone sized netbooks…

The attraction of Dell is that they support ubuntu which ties their netbooks into that large open source community. The eee's have a strong open source following but Asus has take a different tack in its relationship to opensource which makes their products less useful in the long run in my opinion.

I take issue with criteria #1. A 10 inch screen size maximum is totally arbitrary That's just the level that manufacturers have pushed the limits of netbook-dom in the past few months. I think it also is biased toward people who want netbooks because they fit a certain way in their bag rather than those who are just looking for a light-weight computer.

As for the price criteria, that is certain to change. The HP Mini-Note, under your criteria, would not qualify as a netbook as of a few months ago before the price was drop. Now it is competitive with the prices of other netbooks so it would qualify. The same thing is likely to happen with the Mini 12.

The 10 inch screen is not totally arbitrary, and I've given a number of examples of why it is not arbitrary. If you don't have a size limit, then the term has no meaning. A netbook is all about size. You take away the size limit, what have you got? Underpowered cheap laptops? You might as well buy a used Dell from 2 years ago if you want a cheap 15 inch notebook.

The HP Mini started below $500 – so it qualified. I don't get your point with that.

I can go along with this, but, for my own personal use, I think some touch typing should be doable with a netbook, which would place the eeePC 701 or 900 near the bottom of the size range.

One more thing. This is getting into hair splitting and semantics, but I sort of forgot about the RazorBook clones when we were discussing software and keyboard requirements above. Even though these devices do not offer a “complete” desktop or internet experience, I think they offer enough netbook functionality to be included in the netbook category. Representing the small end of the size range and capability range, they are also the most portable.

Even though these devices have limited room for software in main memory, they can be very valuable specialized tools as well as perform many normal netbook functions such as email, word processing and other office functions, and limited (but sometimes very important) web surfing, with Linux or Windows CE. More and more businesses, banks, etc, are building mobile oriented web sites which are handled with ease by these smaller OS's.

I think this is more for latte-sipping, but sort of broke college students who can't afford a macbook air or a voodoo envy. I think it pretty much mentioned youtube watchers and tweeters in the press release.

the choice of the poulsbo chipset severely limits this device's usefulness for a road warrior IMHO.

That being said I think it's still totally relevant for Brad to continue to cover this type of device on liliputing. The term netbook is still very much under development and I think it makes little sense to rein it in so narrowly already.

I would ove a device like the wind in an 11 or 12 inch version with a screen resolution of 1280×800. To me that would be the ideal netbook. I think it would still be very portable (could easily be under 3 lbs) and cheap and would not need all the core 2 duo magic and optical drive hoopla of a full fledged laptop.

I won't buy a more expensive netbook for the simple reason that Microsoft is forcing Dell and other manufacturers to limit them so much to get XP. If Vista wasn't so bloated and heavy to run, we wouldn't be seeking to load XP instead.

Microsoft was very concerned that people would buy these XP machines in preference over more expensive Vista machines that require much more performance just to run the bloated Vista OS. So they force manufacturers to limit machines like the mini-12 to 1 gig of Ram (and possibly the resolution as well).