The time is finally here: the first VIA Nano-based notebook! As promised, Samsung is the first to use VIA’s Nano platform, but contrary to expectations, the NC20 isn’t a netbook. It’s a normal laptop, albeit small. Still, this is the first VIA Nano laptop, and therefore, deserves attention.
VIA has often stated that the Nano platform targets normal laptops, but Samsung still made it a small device (the C7-M is supposed to be for netbooks). The screen comes in at 12″ with a 1280×800 resolution. The rest of the NC20 is fairly netbook-spec: the processor runs at 1.3Ghz, it comes with 1GB of RAM, 160GB hard drive, and Windows XP Home.
The NC20 comes with a 6-cell battery, and Samsung claims it will last for 6.5 hours. It weighs in at 1.52kg, with dimensions of 292.4x217x30.7mm. Pricing and availability remains unknown at this point.
http://www.techspot.com/news/33743-samsung-nc20-netbook-to-run-on-v…
it also included the VIA Crome9 intigrated graphics, which are actually rather good in these later incarnations.
It seems to smoke the Intel GMA 500 (Paulsbo):
http://www.notebookcheck.net/VIA-Chrome9-HC.3712.0.html
-Ad
Ya VIA’s S3 and chrome line are doing verry well. just got me one of these https://s3gstore.s3graphics.com/cgi-bin/shopper.cgi?preadd=action&ke…
i was very impressed. looks like we have a real contender to Nvidia and ATI (well in the mid range)
The new intigrated Chrom GPU’s are better than intels 500 seriese (but only on linux) otherwise they are farily comperable on windows.
Edited 2009-02-27 21:17 UTC
i was very impressed. looks like we have a real contender to Nvidia and ATI (well in the mid range)
Last I heard they still haven’t gotten around to create Linux drivers for almost any of their products. Wouldn’t call it a contender for the more popular chips as such. Via does quite ok hardware, but from my experience they do a whole lot less admirable job software-wise…
Didn’t they open the specifications a little while back, or did that not apply to the Nano platform? I thought as long as the specs were open, the community would create drivers. That’s how it’s supposed to work, isn’t it?
I wouldn’t say Via is alone there. Ever seen how bloated some of ATI and nVidia’s Windows drivers can be, with all the systray extras and startup tasks? As a general rule, it seems hardware companies don’t do so well on the software side–they do good drivers, obviously, but their supplied add-on software is usually crap.
You can’t just expect the community to make decent drivers, sure it would be nice if anyone skilled enough cared but…
Regarding software bloat for graphics cards I wouldn’t see a systray icon for graphics settings as something such, just remove it from run in msconfig if you don’t want it.
And haven’t Via always been crap? Atleast the Via KT400 and K8T800 chipsets sucked, and those are just the ones I’ve had, I would assume more or less all the others sucked balls to.
I actually had very good experiences with the Via K8T800-based motherboards I’ve used. They were fast and stable, unlike the nVidia nForce 3 boards I’ve used, who’s supposed hardware “enhancements” ended up causing problems. In particular, anyone remember the hardware firewall in the nForce 3 250GB chipset, and what happened when you tried to use bittorrent with that turned on? No, the K8T800 was a barebones chipset, and was extremely effective at its job.
As for the community writing drivers, I agree. I was making a point, as that is the line it seems the extremists always hide behind: Well, if every specification was open source, the community would provide the driver. In practice, it doesn’t always work that way. Even with open specifications, writing a driver isn’t usually a walk in the park.
http://www.s3graphics.com/en/resources/drivers/chrome_PCIe/#Linux_x…
more here: http://drivers.s3graphics.com/en/download/drivers/chrome_PCIe-Linux…
see the driver selection of OS’s on the left: http://www.s3graphics.com/en/resources/drivers/chrome_500/index.jsp…
and last but not least, pick your distro of choice (legacy drivers): http://www.viaarena.com/default.aspx?PageID=2
Edited 2009-02-28 00:15 UTC
Actually it seems way overpriced – it seems more like a $30 card. The ATI 4670 and Nvidia 9500GT are about the same price. Both have better specifications and 2-4x the RAM.
Smoke? When a real graphics card get 20.000 and the 500 and this one get 150 vs 200? Both are completely useless, there is no “smoke” here, there isn’t even any glow any more .. Both of them sucks to an insane degree compared to anything remotely decent.
If you want to do gaming, then getting a Nano netbook is really silly.
The GMA 500 and Chrome9 are intended to better support compositing UI’s with low power draw. Based on the benchmarks and Q3A tests, the Chrome9 should do a much better job.
If Nano Chrome9 combo is at price parity with Atom Paulsbo, then getting a Nano netbook would seem like a better choice.
-Ad
The video card has half the power of the Intel GMA 950.
I’m writing this comment on a 12″ laptop with an Intel Core 2 Duo 2.6 GHZ CPU and Nvidia 9300 GS video card.
The VIA laptop pales in comparison. I assume it will be extremely cheap?
I’m glad to see it as if I bought a netbook it would be a Samsung. However, the price of ^Alb400 quoted in the article is dangerously high, imho, especially as there is No Intel Inside which might put off the folks for whom PC = Intel + Windows.
For example, a full-up Acer 12.1″ lappie with a core 2, 2 gigs of RAM, a DVD and a 250-gig HD is ^Alb480 in one store near me. Yes, the Acer is heavier and has limited battery life but it strikes me as a much more capable machine and better value even though it costs more. There must come a price point above which the case for a netbook collapses. I’d have thought the price of the present Samsung NC10 is already at a high limit – ^Alb320 or so, whatever the dollar/euro equivalant is. Still, we’ll soon find out what the market can bear, won’t we …
Edited 2009-02-27 21:16 UTC
In Spain it’s already available [1] and it costs 500 euro (444 pounds, 634 dollars).
Oh well, you might still get it for 400 pounds in the UK and 550 dollars in the USA.
[1] http://www.accesoriossamsung.com/v1.2.1d/portatil-netbook-samsung-b…
Does anybody know if the chipset on the Nano platform has a crippled RAM controller? The Nano seems to have x86-64 support:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VIA_Isaiah
The Atom chipsets are crippled to a max of 2GB. If the Nano supports 4GB and at the same price point, I am sold!
-Ad
it is my understanding that they did not cripple the ram controller. this was done as a selling point for them, since the Atom has.
more power to VIA, I cant wait for their next line of CPU’s (drool)
I said the Atom chipset not the Atom itself! Please read properly!
The RAM controller on Poulsbo is crippled. It only supports a max of 1GB (for the US15L) and 2GB (for the US15W).
Read it here, right from the horse’s mouth:
http://ark.intel.com/ProductCollection.aspx?codeName=24973
-Ad
The Nano is not as crippled as the Atom, whose success Intel seems to be scared of:
*x86-64 native
*Out-of-order execution
*No limit on amount of RAM
*No limit on screen size (or was that Microsoft, given the existence of the Dell Mini 12?)
*No limit on screen resolution
*No limit on processor speed
*I’m sure Via wouldn’t mind if they got bundled with an nVidia chipset
*I doubt Via would mind if they got bundled with a touchscreen (again, was this Microsoft?)
Of course, from what I’ve read the Nano has inferior performance to the Atom (or at least, the dual-core Atom that Intel won’t sell for Netbooks) at the same time as higher power consumption.
Via’s main selling point ought to be that they have far fewer strings attached. The Nano seems to be more of a flagship processor from a company that focuses on small and light components, while Intel seems to be ashamed of the existence of the Atom and are trying to keep it from going anywhere.
Edited 2009-02-28 00:55 UTC
Pure FUD. The Atom is an in-order processor because Intel chose not to implement branch-prediction hardware in order to save power. Also in the name of power savings, EM64T-specific hardware and the newer SSE extensions were left out. The Atom platform is _not_ limited in RAM, screen size, or screen resolution; the specific configurations ordered by OEMs determine these factors. And _all_ processors are bound by thermal limits on their clock rate (or “speed”).
In the end, you have the Atom which draws ~5 watts, and the Nano which draws ~20 (not considering chipset draw, which is not Intel’s strong suit). Make your own conclusions, but be sure to include in them the market that Intel’s after, and the fact that the Atom is the only thing making Intel money right now.
Not quite FUD.
Microsoft almost “gives away” XP Home to OEMs who make netbooks, in an attempt to slow the rate at which Linux was being installed on that class of machine. Microsoft put “self-imposed” restrictions on the machine specifications for which they were prepared to offer XP Home to OENs at that bargain price as an option.
So you can’t get a netbook with XP Home with more than 1GB RAM, or 1024×600 screen size, or faster than 1.86 GHz single-core CPU.
These limitations are not due inherently to the Intel Atom processor.
So, if as an OEM you want to offer a netbook class machine with better hardware specs (say 2GB RAM and 1280×800 screen resolution) … then just put Linux on it and go right ahead.
Edited 2009-02-28 07:07 UTC
Just to avoid the shit storm of the century – maybe you should look at the state of Linux before assuming that the lack of Linux uptake/growth on the netbook after Windows XP entered the scene all has to do with ‘big bad Microsoft’.
Having tried OpenSuSE 11.1, Ubuntu 8.10 and ArchLinux, I can assure you that Linux has along way to go in the area of spit, polish and professionalism when it comes to sorting out the rough edges. Avoiding the issue, moderating down comments and screaming in my face isn’t going to fix these issues and they aren’t going to disappear if you suddenly start ignoring them.
Linux on netbooks is indeed a bit of a sad story. For a long time, the only option available were “tame” versions that were essentially locked down to what was offered on the machine. Xandros and SuSe both come from companies that have signed deals with Microsoft …
I’m still in the hunt myself for a version that works out of the box on netbooks as well as I know Linux can work. This quest is not made any easier by the distributions not including in their kernels the wireless drivers and acpi scripts that are actually available.
So far, Ubuntu Jaunty is the best one. It works out of the box on netbooks. Ubuntu 8.10 (Intrepid) doesn’t. Unfortunately, Jaunty is at this time still in Alpha-release stage, so it too at this point doesn’t have the spit and polish that you are looking for.
Even for Arch Linux (which in general is very up-to-date) … I have to go and install a special kernel called kernel-eee.
http://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Installing_Arch_Linux_on_the_As…
Another example … MEPIS 8.0 is stable, solid, and polished (it is basically Debian 5.0) … but wireless and sound don’t work properly on netbooks out of the box. You have to fiddle to get it to work.
Sigh!
So I actually agree with you … but I also note that it can be done. You can set up (with some effort) a very nice Linux OS working on your netbook.
So what is the problem here? Why is this effort necessary? Why can’t there just be a nice, polished, fast, stable, not-tainted-by-Windows (so no Mono) Linux OS offered by OEMs for sale to consumers along with the machines?
There does seem to be a strong reluctance on the part of OEMs to actually work with the Linux distributions …
Thanks for the heads up – right now I am in the process of writing a review of my Acer Aspire One (AOA150); I’ll provide a link to ‘report stories’ on this website; basically an experience trying Linux out and heading back to Windows. Its not going to be popular with the ‘true believers’ but it is something that needs to be written about in a desperate hope of at least someone saying, “hey, you know, he really does have a point – lets start addressing these issues”.
Edited 2009-02-28 08:52 UTC
PS: Just so that you know … I don’t moderate down comments, and I haven’t moderated down any comment that you have made.
I do try to point out alternatives and other factors that people may not have considered, however.
The two things are not mutually exclusive. Microsoft definately has been crippling netbook specs. It’s easily the most annoying thing they’ve done for a long time. Would two gigs of RAM really be such a problem?
Linux may not be perfect but neither is XP. If Microsoft don’t want my custom I can go elsewhere now. They need to stop messing their customers about like this.
1) Way to go misquoting me – heck, why not just re-write sentences entirely if you’re going to abbreviate sentences as to give a distorted retelling of what I actually said. Then again, if you have no valid point to make – why not distort what the original person said?
2) Where is your evidence to show that Microsoft is deliberately crippling netbooks? I’m running Windows XP Home and it is in now way crippled. Where is your evidence to back up your accusations against Microsoft or is this more screaming from the wilderness rather than valid contribution to the discourse?
3) Windows XP is far from perfect, infact, it is a pretty sad indictment on Microsoft that they need to dredge up a 7 year old operating system to work adequately in a constrained device. With that being said, what is even more appauling is the even worse performance both battery and speed when it comes to supporting devices in regards to Linux distributions on the said netbook. From the lack of support for my memory stick readers to the subpar wireless performance.
The Linux world has had 7 years to catch up to Windows XP and still hasn’t surpassed it – Maybe the sader indictment is the fact that Linux distributions still can’t compete with a 7 year old operating system
Edited 2009-03-01 03:28 UTC
Oh really? Do you have any evidence to back these claims?
Based on this information:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_VIA_Nano_microprocessors
The Nano U2series seem to have 8W TDP. The NC20 uses U2250.
-Ad
The
My mistake; I saw figures claiming 20W back when these were released, which I assume refer to the L-series.
As far as the rest of my claims, you may verify them yourself on the Intel Atom wikipedia page. That is, unless your goal was to discredit the entire post based on a single (ancillary) factual error.
I was talking about these claims in your post:
I would like to see some facts on your above claims.
I’ve proven that the Atom platform is artificially limited in RAM up in this thread. I doubt you could buy an Atom netbook that isn’t bundled with Intel’s crippled chipsets.
-Ad
And I pointed you to the Wikipedia page with the answers you seek. EM64T and SSE4 hardware is enabled only on the desktop versions of the Atom, for power considerations.
The Atom platform is not limited in RAM size. OEMs are asked by Microsoft, not Intel, to ship netbooks with 1GB of RAM or less if they want to ship them with a low-priced XP Home license. Thus they order (or contract with Intel for) chipsets with 1GB memory soldered in. Another motivation for this move is the size increase involved in providing a user-accessible memory slot.
On a side note, Dell is bucking this trend with the future release of the 720p Mini 10, which will feature 2gb of memory (and, presumably, not XP Home).
You did not point me to a wikipedia page. You merely mentioned that there are resources in wikipedia on it.
I checked and so far none of of the Atom processors have SSE4. Please cut the crap!
-Ad
… as a typical netbook. Has that same horrid wedge shape to it, as well.
I’m longing for the ARM based netbooks to arrive in June.
I’m longing for an atom alternative to buy – but VIA just have really, really, REALLY crappy Linux hardware support so this isn’t an option for me.
Still i love the underdog
I’m really eyeing up that 12.1 inch model and what is even better it uses Atheros wireless chipset (great for those of us who wish to run a non-Microsoft operating system). The only downside is the price quoted being 499 Euro’s, which is around NZ$1000 – I wonder if the 499 Euro’s include VAT because if that is the case then maybe the price will be cheaper.
Apart from that, it looks like a really nice laptop, hopefully they’ll get their act together and make it available for people outside the US and UK to purchase. Unfortunately Amazon refuses to ship certain devices (this being one of those certain devices) outside the US or the UK – <tongue ‘n cheek>isn’t our money good enough for the snooty people at Amazon? </tongue ‘n cheek>
I did read a comment regarding whether a 12.1 device could still be considered a ‘netbook’ – I say yes. Laptops are now being desktop replacements, and now people want something that is truly portable and isn’t a desktop replacement. This niche is filled by Netbooks which are small, light and compact and aren’t trying to be desktop replacements but what notebooks were originally designed to do – to be portable devices on the go with enough grunt to get work done but never intended to be fully blown desktop replacements.
Edited 2009-02-28 07:03 UTC
If you want to use this new notebook/netbook whatever machine with a non-Windows OS, if it uses VIA graphics as well as the Nano CPU, then it would appear that a Linux driver for the S3 graphics chip has just arrived in the nick of time:
http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=s3_linux_ogl3_va…
Thank you for the link but the Intel graphics do have the advantage of a driver that is opensource, mature and available on more than just Linux.
With that being said, it will be interesting to see how Windows 7 changes things in the future.
Precisely so.
I merely point to the link for the S3 driver if people had heard (previously) that there was no Linux driver for these more recent S3 graphics chips, and hence may have been intending to dismiss this machine on that basis, because they believed it was unsuitable for Linux.
Given that the (regrettably closed-source) Linux driver recently announced supports hardware accelerated multimedia codecs, and claims support for OpenGL 3.0, then if true this may even turn out to be one of the most capable Linux graphics drivers currently available.
Am I missing something? I recall a few years ago doing my research on Linux WiFi trying to find an appropriate card that would work. I ran across a certain Belkin model number on the list, which appeared that it should work, as it supposedly used a well-supported chipset (RaLink or Realtek or something like that). When I bought the damn thing and brought it home, I found out that it actually had an Atheros, which I could barely get working in Ubuntu at the time (6.06 was the first version IIRC that it actually worked). Any other distro? Tough luck.
It’s been a few years now, and I haven’t touched it since (and my sister insisted on running Windows anyway), so I haven’t been able to test it lately. Is Atheros really that well-supported in Linux these days? And if so, is it just certain models? I recall that Atheros being a nightmare, just like all the rest I’ve attempted to get working…
Atheros had an apparent change of heart, and hired some programmers to produce an open source driver for Linux for their chipsets, which is subsequently now part of stock Linux kernels.
http://www.atheros.com/news/linux.html
http://practical-tech.com/network/atheros-becomes-linux-friendlier/
http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news_item&px=NjYyMw
The reverse-engineered madwifi driver, which used to be required, has stopped operations, because now the officially-supported-by-atheros ath5k and ath9k drivers work.
Edited 2009-02-28 13:01 UTC
Atheros chipsets have always been the best supported 802.11g/802.11a chipsets for Unix systems. Originally, via a prorietary, closed-source HAL+OSS driver, then by the madwifi project, then by the OpenBSD reverse-engineered HAL, and now by a fully-OSS HAL+driver (ath5k/ath9k).
However, the wireless networking stack in Linux has gone through a lot changes, re-writes, and periods of brokenness, causing a lot of wireless drivers to stop working, be unstable, work sometimes, and so forth. For a while, there were three separate stacks in the kernel, and some drivers only worked with some stacks and not others. It’s only in the last year or so that Linux has gained a useable and stable wireless stack.
Meanwhile, those use FreeBSD or OpenBSD had working wireless, with roaming, WPA (not OBSD), and super-simple configuration (1 line in rc.conf, couple lines in wpa_supplicant.conf).
The only wireless chipset worth buying is Atheros, even if your laptop has Intel onboard. It just works!
Atheros has been supported for years and years. My first wifi card was a Cisco a/b/g that worked quite well with the Madwifi drivers. This was like 4 or 5 years ago.
Yes, in Spain it’s sold for 499.95 euro VAT included. That’s 431 without VAT.
But I just found that in the UK it’s also available [1] for 377.78 pounds VAT included (that’s 426.54 euro, or 73.5 euro cheaper than in Spain, lovely). Without VAT that’s around 371 euros.
[1] http://www.saveonsamsung.com/Samsung_NC20_White_515405.html
Crome9 ain’t that good, compared to Intels GMA that even runs Compiz rather well. But the VIA CPU are a good design, it should be better then Atom.
But I find battery life to be the top priority so I wait to June and get a ARM based netbook.
1. This notebook has a 12 inch screen which is larger than most netbooks so the battery performance is impressive considering the screen draws more power than anything else.
2. Small screens with low resolutions are not only useless for anything graphics intensive, but they require less horsepower to power them. I can’t see a real use for a high powered graphics card in a screen that is 12 inches or smaller.