I've been badly burned by "netbooks" powered by Atom CPUs... nice battery life but forget opening Facebook or Youtube, and the ultra low screen resolution doesn't help either when web sites are designed for FullHD+ monitors.
You should have no issues, the Atom used in these is not your 2010 PIII based Atom, it's a modern part that can handle the modern Web.
> "and the ultra low screen resolution doesn't help either when web sites are designed for FullHD+ monitors."
If 1920x1200 is "ultra low screen resolution" then what do you consider high res? The GPD has higher resolution than my 27" 1080p display, and I have to turn up magnification on that just to be able to read comfortably on most sites.
Pentium 3? Ew. I thought the Atoms were descendants of the Core2 family.
> If 1920x1200 is "ultra low screen resolution" then what do you consider high res?
You're right - I had overlooked this in the specs and based my judgment on the "screenshot" a bit below...
Here's a benchmark comparison between the Atom used in the EeePC 901 (N270 @ 1.6Ghz), the GPD Pocket (x7-Z8750 @ 1.6Ghz), and a 1.1Ghz P3: https://www.cpubenchmark.net/compare.php?cmp[]=2968&cmp[]=13...
The P3 is slightly faster than the old Atom in spite of the lower clock, and the new one is over 2x as fast single threaded and over 7x as fast multithreaded.
Specifically, the GMA950 that didn't have hardware video decode for H.264, which was already the mainstream choice for any Internet video. Combined with the anemic in-order Bonnell core, it was dead on arrival for most uses involving any sort of video. Some netbooks even came with a separate Broadcom PCIe card whose only purpose was hardware video decode.
I don't know how far you sit from the screen, nor which websites you typically visit, but unless I miscalculated, your screen resolution is roughly 82 pixels per inch. I also don't know what OS you run, but at least on Windows, things render by default at 96 pixels per inch. (I've heard that some other systems have smaller text than windows though.) Thus on Windows you should be seeing things about 18% larger than "true" size. (That is, things take up more inches on screen than they would on paper.) This is actually too small: according to this Wikipedia article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dots_per_inch, people read the screen from 30% farther than they read paper. So the DPI should be scaled to compensate. Then you need further fudge factors to account for small font sizes some websites use, and some other stuff I'm too lazy to think about now. But still 25 to 50 percent should do it, I think?
When I wear contact lenses instead of my glasses, I browse at normal magnification.