Home » News » Laptop News » Gateway LT3103u Calls Itself a Netbook, Isn't » Comments

Comments for Gateway LT3103u Calls Itself a Netbook, Isn't

Comments

Please wait while we process your request

Please wait while we retrieve the user's information

Bio

Your bio is currently empty. Now is a great time to fill in your profile.

This profile is private.

This profile is only shared with friends.

This profile is under review.

We were unable to request friendship with this user.

We were unable to request friendship with this user. Are you logged in?

Your friendship request has been sent to this user.

We were unable to terminate friendship with this user.

We were unable to terminate friendship with this user. Are you logged in?

You are no longer friends with this user.

We were unable to ignore this user.

We were unable to ignore this user. Are you logged in?

This user is now ignored.

We were unable to stop ignoring this user.

We were unable to stop ignoring this user. Are you logged in?

This user is no longer ignored.

pluck_user_mp-abuse_too_long_err

Name withheld

MSIC

1:17 PM on 24 June, 2009

This comment is hidden because you have chosen to ignore MSIC. Show Details Hide Details

Hmm... relatively good processing power, a pretty good resolution, good value for money.... nope, doesn't sound like a netbook to me either!

Score:

Name withheld

Wayne4

1:51 PM on 24 June, 2009

This comment is hidden because you have chosen to ignore Wayne4. Show Details Hide Details

If Gateway LT3103u calls itself a #netbook is wayne ;). name it #crossover or whatever you want, is is also NOT an ultraportable by 'definition ... btw. which 'definition'?

Score:

Name withheld

Helmore

2:07 PM on 24 June, 2009

This comment is hidden because you have chosen to ignore Helmore. Show Details Hide Details

They always state the amount of mAh a battery has, but isn't it important to also provide the voltage level at which it operates? I mean, a 5400 mAh battery working at 7,4 Volts provides a lot less juice than a 5200 mAh battery working at 12 Volts, or am I wrong with that assumption?

Score:

Name withheld

Malderon

2:22 PM on 24 June, 2009

This comment is hidden because you have chosen to ignore Malderon. Show Details Hide Details

Realistically it will be competing with netbooks though - certainly less cheeky than calling it an ultraportable notebook and ending up competing with £2000 Sony Vaio's. I honestly think this looks like a decently specced machine for using as a network video viewer and web surfer.

Score:

Name withheld

MSIC

2:34 PM on 24 June, 2009

This comment is hidden because you have chosen to ignore MSIC. Show Details Hide Details

On reflection, i reckon that if they can bring this in under £350 then it will be quite the bargain, and make me consider dumping my Atom netbook.

Score:

Name withheld

HK

3:02 PM on 24 June, 2009

This comment is hidden because you have chosen to ignore HK. Show Details Hide Details

Trolling on your own site with your own personal definition of a netbook is not cool. This is what netbooks have become, accept it. At the end of the day if this machine comes in at a price that makes it compete with other 'netbooks' with these specs then it should be top of the list for most people looking to buy a portable machine.

Anyway hurry up and post about the HTC Hero, I want to hear if people think it's better or not than the Samsung i7500.

Score:

Name withheld

Andy0d2

3:15 PM on 24 June, 2009

This comment is hidden because you have chosen to ignore Andy0d2. Show Details Hide Details

who cares if its 'not a netbook' since for some people this may be ideal - don't slate something when for some it is a brilliant piece of kit

Score:

Name withheld

gazbarber

3:27 PM on 24 June, 2009

This comment is hidden because you have chosen to ignore gazbarber. Show Details Hide Details

At that price I'd say it's a netbook, doesn't have a DVD driver either (something I'd say is a must on a laptop although not on a high priced ultra portable).

A bit of variety around the netbook price point (even the top end) is surely a good thing. The screen resolution itself will be tempting, it just depends on the battery life due to being an AMD cpu and discrete graphics.

I'm still loving my year old Eee 901.

Score:

Name withheld

Chris

4:16 PM on 24 June, 2009

This comment is hidden because you have chosen to ignore Chris. Show Details Hide Details

@Helmore: I think that's right, but the assumption is that laptops operate at pretty much the same voltage so quoting the capacity in mAh is still a reasonable thing to do.

I suppose Watt Hours would be more useful.

Score:

Name withheld

TarikBos

7:05 PM on 24 June, 2009

This comment is hidden because you have chosen to ignore TarikBos. Show Details Hide Details

alright people, the fact is there is no outlined definition of a netbook... only the one intel is trying to impose, you follow it. or not. TR chose to follow it.

Score:

Name withheld

Keldon

8:00 AM on 25 June, 2009

This comment is hidden because you have chosen to ignore Keldon. Show Details Hide Details

please dont forget people, Microsoft has a very clear definition of what a netbook is and by extension what can be sold with XP installed

Score:

Name withheld

basicasic

8:39 AM on 25 June, 2009

This comment is hidden because you have chosen to ignore basicasic. Show Details Hide Details

Sure it doesn't meet the artificially limited definition for a 'netbook' as dictated by Microsoft and Intel but it sure seems a lot more desirable than one. If they can bring it in under £350 it'll fly off the shelves I reckon.

Score:

Name withheld

Tony Walker

1:03 PM on 26 June, 2009

This comment is hidden because you have chosen to ignore Tony Walker. Show Details Hide Details

Gordon Bennett!!!

No wonder we're getting fleeced as consumers if so many of you think that at a US price of $399 it would be great if they would charge us £350 for the privilege.

$399 is £243.29 at the current exchange rate.

This ripping-us-off has to stop!

Score:

Please wait while we file your abuse report.

We're sorry. We were unable to report abuse at this time.

We limit the number of reactions an individual user can submit over a given period for quality reasons. You have currently reached that limit. Please try resubmitting your abuse report again later.

Comment is too long. Enter 500 characters or less.