@ AC #3
"""1366x768 10" screen...and a free glasses prescription"
Actually the 8.9" 1280x768 screen on my HP 2133 is quite useable. Probably far moreso than a 1024x600 or whatever sad spec most netbooks come with these days.
And wow, the Macbook is more of a computer than a netbook... which is probably why they cost so much more.
@ AC1 Re: Picturebook
Actually the picturebooks were nothing like netbooks, since they had optical drives and generally cost over $2000 US for the lowest spec version. And the Picturebook was not the original, since it was a poor and over-priced copy of Fujitsu's ultra portable.
"""So if you can achieve those resolutions with an external attached display, then why should there be any limit on the notebook's own display.
Thumbs up to Sony for introducing a 1366x768 resolution on a 10" display."""
Actually the internal screen resolution is arbitrarily limited by Intel to keep netbooks from cutting into sales of real laptops, which are more profitable to Intel. And HP has been selling the 2140 with the same resolution and screen size for some time. They also had the above-mentioned 1280x768 8.9" screen. Over 5 years ago I purchased a Fujitsu with a 10" 1280x780 screen, which was what Sony was using in their ultra portables at the time. I believe Fujitsu has a 5.6" 1280x768 available these days, which is far more impressive than this Sony. I believe Macbooks also have the option for a 1440x900 13" screen, which is better than your quoted 1280x768, but not as good as Lenono's X200, which can be had with a 1440x900 12" wide screen.