Gigabyte's M912 gets some specs, possible photo

It's not yet clear whether the image above is actually Gigabyte's forthcoming M912, but at least we're starting to get a clearer picture of the Atom-based laptop's specs. We're thinking maybe this shot could be of another model, though, given the fact that the M912 only has VGA out listed, while we can clearly see what appears to be a full DVI port above. The rest of those specs, for your perusal:

• 8.9-inch WXGA (1280 x 768) convertible touchscreen display, LED backlight
• 1.6GHz Intel Atom CPU, max 1GB RAM
• 120, 160 and 250GB drive options
• 802.11b/g, Bluetooth 2.0 + EDR
• 1.3 megapixel camera, (3) USB 2.0 ports, SD, VGA, Ethernet
• 4 hour battery
• 9.2 x 7 x 1.65 - 1.1-inches, 2.6 pounds

[Via jkkmobile, thanks Julionevada]

[Mike @ Jun 1st 2008 5:42PM]

just cause its white doesn't mean its a dvi port.

[Joe_Templeman @ Jun 1st 2008 5:49PM]

no, but the fact that it looks like a DVI port, means its a DVI port.

[Ryan Block @ Jun 1st 2008 5:49PM]

You're right, a squarish grid of regular pins adjacent to one longer horizontal pin does.

[DestroyerMTL @ Jun 1st 2008 5:50PM]

True, but it sure does look like a DVI port...

[Thi mam(kris120890) @ Jun 1st 2008 5:43PM]

If this is a subnote (someone correct) me then this could possibly rival the msi wind , which i love if thy keep the rightprices, then i might go for this with good prices and specs.

[Genjinaro @ Jun 1st 2008 9:09PM]

Looks like a Tabet PC. Price that at $450-$500 with Linux/Xp T-edition = FLAWLESS VICTORY!

[Jarrett Stewart @ Jun 1st 2008 5:45PM]

I hope Gigabyte brings this to the US. It should be cheap since you can get an HP TX tablet for around $1000.

[mike @ Jun 1st 2008 5:46PM]

That thing is absolutely hideous. Who would waste even a penny of their hard earned money on this piece of garbage?

[Erik @ Jun 1st 2008 6:31PM]

People who don't like Steve Jobs' job being constantly rammed into them, for instance.

Just because it runs Windows, doesn't mean it's a bad computer.

Just because it has an Apple logo, doesn't mean it's good.

[mike @ Jun 1st 2008 6:39PM]

Not quite sure why you brought Jobs into this. This computer looks like an aborted fetus, which is a fact. The only reason anyone would buy it is because they are poor and can't afford anything better.

[Erik @ Jun 1st 2008 6:58PM]

So it's a fact that it looks like an aborted fetus?

I, personally, have never seen one, but I highly doubt that.

Ah, the good old "poor" argument. People can't buy it because they want a cheap tablet, a small form factor device, or a secondary machine. They must be poor.

[zdog @ Jun 1st 2008 7:00PM]

Perhaps you should look up the definition of "fact."

Why, exactly, do you think it looks hideous? Please explain how you might improve upon the design.

[loosely_coupled @ Jun 1st 2008 5:47PM]

I think the Atom has been a total disappoint so far. It's been one of the most hyped processors in a long time.I really hope the dual-core variant is performs much better than the current one, otherwise I think the new Via chip line might be better.

For god sakes, a 1.6Ghz Atom performs like a 3-year old 1.0Ghz pentium M celeron. And even a 1.0Ghz Core 2 ULV wipes the floor with it.

[Sly Fox @ Jun 1st 2008 6:43PM]

true true

[sinjinn @ Jun 1st 2008 7:38PM]

the atom is designed to be cheap and have long battery life . what kind of performance were you expecting?

[iEye @ Jun 1st 2008 5:50PM]

In my honest opinion without bias, the Apple Macbook Air is much more attractive...

[mike @ Jun 1st 2008 5:52PM]

In before Apple hate.

[user @ Jun 1st 2008 5:54PM]

for all i know all, the only thing the MBA is good for is, cutting cake

that beside the point...if this thing is under 500, then this owns the eee and wind, and what ever else is out there

[mike @ Jun 1st 2008 5:56PM]

It looks like an abomination and runs windows.

Yeah, that's a really great deal. I'm so eager to run a computer that has a sub-par operating system on it.

[chickenator @ Jun 1st 2008 5:59PM]

user @ Jun 1st 2008 5:54PM
cutting cake = cutting edge

mmm...it will be great if it's really under 500.
yeah.

[fred @ Jun 1st 2008 6:28PM]

mike:
"In before Apple hate."

mike again:
"It looks like an abomination and runs windows.

Yeah, that's a really great deal. I'm so eager to run a computer that has a sub-par operating system on it."

If you don't like "Apple hate", then maybe you shouldn't give those people ammunition by launching comments that are pretty much the same thing, just directed in the other direction.

[mike @ Jun 1st 2008 6:29PM]

Like they need any provocation. Just go to the cake cutting entry and look at all the unprovoked Apple hate on the comments for that entry.

[Sly Fox @ Jun 1st 2008 7:15PM]

"Its more attractive"..... who cares. When I go to buy a computer do I buy the one that looks the coolest or the one that has the best features.........well I guess you kind of have to compromise a little

[BrettB @ Jun 1st 2008 5:58PM]

The atom isn't meant to be a speed demon. It's a low cost, low heat, processor that gets the job done, just not terribly fast. It is a little overhyped, but I think it's a good choice for people who don't want to pay for multimedia, just basic computing.

[Ignatius @ Jun 1st 2008 7:43PM]

Well, least time I checked, I wasn't planning on installing Crysis onto the Eee 901.

[Ignatius @ Jun 1st 2008 7:50PM]

Wow. I fail. Last time, not least time. Edit button please!

[ReggieXuk @ Jun 1st 2008 5:59PM]

I wont say anything about the Intel Atom until its benchmarked.

[mike @ Jun 1st 2008 6:00PM]

You just said something.

[Nicolas @ Jun 1st 2008 6:48PM]

@mike - You're really funny.


........not

[mike @ Jun 1st 2008 6:52PM]

Such a shame that you are not entertained by me, but I'm not here to amuse you, dimwit.

[Ayle @ Jun 1st 2008 6:53PM]

It has been and get crushed by everything, even the celeron 900 performs better than it...

[Nicolas @ Jun 1st 2008 7:29PM]

Oh Mike you're on a roll tonight aren't you!

[David @ Jun 1st 2008 7:37PM]

a T-roll

[Sly Fox @ Jun 1st 2008 6:41PM]

I don't care how sweet this thing is if i have to keep it plugged in all the time because it has a tiny battery of 4 hours thats probably like 2 hours realistically with wifi on and the screen on any brightness higher than 1.

If anything use it to replace your PC and it be easy to take places. Not to use on the go.

[Sim @ Jun 1st 2008 6:46PM]

Very few laptops are quoted with 4hr battery life, does that mean that they all have half an hour or an hour, being as they are bigger with brighter screens and more parts?

The manufacturers know too well than to be wildly off, so it should do 2-3 hours under normal load at the very least.

[Sly Fox @ Jun 1st 2008 7:02PM]

Is that enough time to do anything significant. Come on my old PSP has better battery life than that

[DarkLight @ Jun 1st 2008 7:47PM]

Dude, engineer =/= magician...

A computer can't have a 10 hour battery life just because you want it, actually I find the 4 hour battery (if it lasts that long) decent

BTW, your PSP is much less powerful than this...

[Sly Fox @ Jun 1st 2008 7:55PM]

you got me on the PSP thing but, I wouldn't mind sacrificing a bit of space on this just to pack in a couple more hours of battery life. and yes they can do that theyre just to scared it'll be to fat

[DarkLight @ Jun 1st 2008 8:06PM]

Well you're kinda right on that, I too wouldn't mind some extra thickness to have it last longer with the same power



(That's what she said)

[Sim @ Jun 2nd 2008 5:12AM]

Well, that's *why* they make them* replaceable...






*Some of them. Notable exceptions apply.

[PEZ @ Jun 1st 2008 7:20PM]

Now that a hint of the Atom Dual Core has been mentioned, I dont even want to look at these single core piles of ass.

[Mike_is_Relentless @ Jun 1st 2008 7:32PM]

Mike, I order you to stop trolling this post.

[TareX @ Jun 1st 2008 7:38PM]

I don't get the Windows-bashing on the comments, but I HOPE it runs Windows.

Linux is pretty much impotent, as far as functionality goes. I want a thin, Windows UMPC with a touch-tablet display. This is perfect in every sense.

However, I heard it runs Linux...

[DarkLight @ Jun 1st 2008 7:52PM]

Linux is just as poweful.. That you don't know how to use it well is another thing

[TareX @ Jun 1st 2008 8:03PM]

How well can it run a powerpoint presentation? How about photoshop CS2?
How many PC games run on Linux? C&C:ZH? PES? yeah I like playing games every now and then, esp if I'm paying good money for a machine.

[DarkLight @ Jun 1st 2008 8:09PM]

It can run a PowerPoint presentation very well (with OpenOffice)

Why Photoshop CS2? Use The GIMP

Why Windows games? Linux has it's own games that are just as fun to play.. Ever tried GL Tron?

[Eddie W @ Jun 1st 2008 8:53PM]

Uh, actually, Linux can run CS2 using WINE, and for a small, portable laptop Linux can be much more efficient (just see how much better the eeepc functions on Linux as opposed to xp). To say Linux is impotent because there aren't any games written for it is ridiculous.

I'm really hoping that enough of these small laptops running Linux cause a shift in the way that software developers decide which platform they're going to release titles for (or what they are going to port to). Then, maybe you'd see more professional game titles and people would start running Linux specifically for gaming.

[TareX @ Jun 1st 2008 9:24PM]

I understand the *potential* for Linux. But currently, in June 2008, Win XP is the OS with the widest range of 3rd party software, including all the high-end games, and programs.

The idea of these portables is to -more or less- have an all-in-one machine. I wouldn't want to be walking around with a fast, efficient laptop with lots of potential, when I could be walking around with yes, a less speedy, less stable tablet that could run every program/game I have perfectly.

I won't get Linux and "hope" developers start programming their big titles for it. That would be ridiculous.

[Mario @ Jun 2nd 2008 7:06AM]

TareX, do you really think you'll be able to play "high-end" games on a sub-notebook that has an Atom processor?

As far as everything else is concerned, Linux works perfectly well. I installed Ubuntu (along-side XP) on my laptop a couple of months ago. I expected to be using XP most of the time, and occasionally dabble in Ubuntu, but I've actually been using Ubuntu exclusively. It's spectacular!

[TareX @ Jun 2nd 2008 9:02AM]

I've heard a lot of good things about Ubuntu, and it's a good idea to have it installed ALONGSIDE Xp. I'd like to to have the XP option on my machine.

As far as PC gaming on UMPCs, the much less powerful Eee PC from last year runs games like C&C:Generals ZH and Pro Evo Soccer 6 flawlessly. The OQO m2 runs high demanding FPS shooters like COD2 beautifully.

So in this day and age, it would be a huge loss when you buy a mini-laptop + touchscreen that can't run Strategy games (which were meant to be played with a touchscreen), or any other big title PC game just because the ultra-fast, super-stable OS running on it can't play them.

If all I need is web-browsing, I have my phone with a 24/7 connection with a desktop-like browser capable of doing that.