Am I unspoiled, or do I just have low standards for performance?

[Turbonium]

I've been using a netbook for the past 2 months for everything, including gaming (limited to older titles). The netbook in question is running a 1 GHz AMD C-60 CPU with 4 GB of RAM, with a 64-bit version of Windows 7.

Right now, I have 61 processes running, with almost 2 GB of RAM being used. Processor usage is stuck at 100%, and there is input lag in this very text box, but that's probably because I'm currently running a Flash app in Firefox, which bogs things down.

All things considered though, the system is fairly response/snappy, and I'm not even using an SSD. I mean, yes, it's SLOW, but it's more than tolerable for regular tasks. The only everyday things that run slow, aside from games, are compressing/decompressing files, and anything Flash. But really, I expected it to be worse. I'm still considering getting another system with a better CPU, but for now (and ignoring the gaming aspect), I can totally see myself using this system for the next 6 months or more without complaints.

Is that weird or what?

Note that my previous system was a 1.6 GHz Core 2 Duo with 2 GB RAM, Intel GMA X3100 graphics (slow, I know), running Vista 32-bit. The CPU was easily more powerful, allowing it to run Flash and such without much of a system slowdown, but this netbook is actually as good or better than it when it comes to games, given the AMD graphics (it runs L4D at above 20 FPS while my old system was sub-10 FPS).

TL;DR: I'm using a netbook. It's not as slow as I thought it'd be. It's actually pretty fast. Am I weird for thinking this?

[OBLAMA2009]

survivin' on a netbook....dayum...

[frozentundra123456]

Originally Posted by Turbonium

I've been using a netbook for the past 2 months for everything, including gaming (limited to older titles). The netbook in question is running a 1 GHz AMD C-60 CPU with 4 GB of RAM, with a 64-bit version of Windows 7.

Right now, I have 61 processes running, with almost 2 GB of RAM being used. Processor usage is stuck at 100%, and there is input lag in this very text box, but that's probably because I'm currently running a Flash app in Firefox, which bogs things down.

All things considered though, the system is fairly response/snappy, and I'm not even using an SSD. I mean, yes, it's SLOW, but it's more than tolerable for regular tasks. The only everyday things that run slow, aside from games, are compressing/decompressing files, and anything Flash. But really, I expected it to be worse. I'm still considering getting another system with a better CPU, but for now (and ignoring the gaming aspect), I can totally see myself using this system for the next 6 months or more without complaints.

Is that weird or what?

Note that my previous system was a 1.6 GHz Core 2 Duo with 2 GB RAM, Intel GMA X3100 graphics (slow, I know), running Vista 32-bit. The CPU was easily more powerful, allowing it to run Flash and such without much of a system slowdown, but this netbook is actually as good or better than it when it comes to games, given the AMD graphics (it runs L4D at above 20 FPS while my old system was sub-10 FPS).

TL;DR: I'm using a netbook. It's not as slow as I thought it'd be. It's actually pretty fast. Am I weird for thinking this?

Each to his own I guess. I bought a tablet instead of a netbook for taking from one lab to another (mainly for browsing and checking e-mail), and sometimes wish I had bought a netbook instead, or something like the dm1z with an E450. If you think a netbook is slow, try an Acer A100 tablet.

Anyway, posters on these forums tend to have high standards for performance. For instance many consider 30 fps unplayable in games, but most of the time is seems perfectly playable to me. As for L4D, the integrated graphics on your old system obviously made it unplayable, but I dont think I would want to play on your netbook either at 20fps. For me, 25 to 30 fps is usually acceptable, but lower than that is annoying.

[Turbonium]

Originally Posted by OBLAMA2009

survivin' on a netbook....dayum...

After a while, you get used to everything being a bit slower, like when you scroll down a web page and it's all choppy, even with smooth-scrolling off.

Originally Posted by frozentundra123456

Each to his own I guess. I bought a tablet instead of a netbook for taking from one lab to another (mainly for browsing and checking e-mail), and sometimes wish I had bought a netbook instead, or something like the dm1z with an E450. If you think a netbook is slow, try an Acer A100 tablet.

Anyway, posters on these forums tend to have high standards for performance. For instance many consider 30 fps unplayable in games, but most of the time is seems perfectly playable to me. As for L4D, the integrated graphics on your old system obviously made it unplayable, but I dont think I would want to play on your netbook either at 20fps. For me, 25 to 30 fps is usually acceptable, but lower than that is annoying.

Well, normally, I wouldn't consider anything under 30FPS to be playable, but I actually played through an entire L4D chapter on my old system (literally 4-5 FPS most of the time), so 21+ FPS on this netbook is amazingly good.

[VirtualLarry]

I like my C-60 based Acer Aspire One 722 Netbook. I added a 120GB Vertex Plus R2 SSD, which makes it a bit more snappy, but only a bit, because the slow CPU in the netbook limits it.

I was surprised to discover that my new Intel Sandy Bridge-based Pentium B970 dual-core Netbook (14" laptop minus DVD drive) was as slow as the C-60, when on battery power. It also gets comparable battery life. Apparently, the Asus software throttles the CPU down to its lowest speed when on battery.

[Eureka]

Originally Posted by VirtualLarry

I like my C-60 based Acer Aspire One 722 Netbook. I added a 120GB Vertex Plus R2 SSD, which makes it a bit more snappy, but only a bit, because the slow CPU in the netbook limits it.

I was surprised to discover that my new Intel Sandy Bridge-based Pentium B970 dual-core Netbook (14" laptop minus DVD drive) was as slow as the C-60, when on battery power. It also gets comparable battery life. Apparently, the Asus software throttles the CPU down to its lowest speed when on battery.

That may also have to do with Windows as well.. in your power settings, if you go into advanced you'll see that Windows (at least Win7) will throttle down CPU on battery by default.

As for OP, everyone has different standards of minimum performance. I used a netbook for a couple years in high school, it's fine for most purposes but I would've liked the ability to use flash reliably.

[Dman8777]

I lived for 4 years with nothing but an eee 900 (900 mhz celeron m). Forget about flash websites and any game newer than diablo 2