Linked by Thom Holwerda on Fri 25th Apr 2008 21:12 UTC
Hardware, Embedded Systems When Asus released its Eee PC, praise was almost universal. People loved the device's size, low price, and the fact it came with Linux appealed to many geeks. Consequently, the device sold rather well, and was a hit for Asus. However, the device had two major shortcomings: its small screen (7" 800x480), and its relatively short battery life. Asus took the critcism to heart, and came up with the Asus Eee PC 900, which has a 9" 1024x600 screen. So, what's the verdict?
Order by: Score:
Comment by sonic2000gr
by sonic2000gr on Fri 25th Apr 2008 21:57 UTC
sonic2000gr
Member since:
2007-05-20

And the verdict is... I am buying it!

I already have the 4G Surf model, upgraded to 1G RAM, running Arch Linux (SSD) and FreeBSD 7.0 (!) (SDHC). Larger screen, faster processor, a lot more disk space. If only battery capacity was larger. Can't have it all I guess...

Reply Score: 3

Looks Nice
by bsharitt on Fri 25th Apr 2008 22:11 UTC
bsharitt
Member since:
2005-07-07

It looks nice, but then again so do a lot of the others. I'm going to wait until the Atom base stuff starts to come out before I get one of the little cheap laptops.

Reply Score: 3

RE: Looks Nice
by Doc Pain on Fri 25th Apr 2008 23:57 UTC in reply to "Looks Nice"
Doc Pain Member since:
2006-10-08

It looks nice, but [...]


Yes, it does, but I may tell you what I miss:

1. The device has a glidepad. It would be great to have an option to buy it with a trackpoint instead. Furthermore, I miss the middle mouse button which is sooo important if you want to run your UNIX / Linux GUI stuff in an adequate manner.

http://www.cnet.co.uk/i/c/rv/e/laptops/asus/eee_pc-901/story_2.jpg

2. Is a german keyboard layout available, too? Can the "Windows" keys be removed? :-)

http://www.trustedreviews.com/images/article/inline/7344-IMG3341s.j...

It really seems to be a nice device, worth contributing to my development hardware, especially when visiting customers - a cool portable computer to demonstrate things, for diagnostics and for inputting source code that comes to your mind when you're not at home.

If I see it correctly, the device would be approx. 500 Euro in Germany (I didn't check its availability in fact) - still too much money for me. But I may continue dreaming.

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: Looks Nice
by Luis on Sat 26th Apr 2008 02:57 UTC in reply to "RE: Looks Nice"
Luis Member since:
2006-04-28

Furthermore, I miss the middle mouse button which is sooo important if you want to run your UNIX / Linux GUI stuff in an adequate manner.

Shouldn't pressing in the middle of both buttons (e.i. pressing both at the same time) do the middle button trick?

2. Is a german keyboard layout available, too?

Sure, the version they'll sell in Germany will have German keyboard layout, why wouldn't it?

If I see it correctly, the device would be approx. 500 Euro in Germany

The announced price was 400 Euro. We'll see once it's available if demand doesn't push the price up.

Reply Score: 3

RE[3]: Looks Nice
by Doc Pain on Sat 26th Apr 2008 13:33 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Looks Nice"
Doc Pain Member since:
2006-10-08

Shouldn't pressing in the middle of both buttons (e.i. pressing both at the same time) do the middle button trick?


Yes and no. Pressing buttons 1 + 2 does a middle mouse click, which usually outputs the edit buffer at the current cursor position. Pressing the physical middle mouse button enables the mouse wheel function - you move the mouse in Y direction and you get a much smoother mouse wheel. Having both functionalities on buttons 1 + 2 at the same time isn't very attractive. Just imagine a double middle mouse button click.

The announced price was 400 Euro. We'll see once it's available if demand doesn't push the price up.


I'm a programmer. We usually estimate values bigger than neccessary, so we won't run into trouble later. Regarding prices, they seem to be much cheaper than we feared. :-)

I'd really like to get such a little helper, but still, 400 Euro is much money here in Germany. And I don't get much money at my current job so it's still "too expensive" - at least for me.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Looks Nice
by zima on Sat 26th Apr 2008 04:18 UTC in reply to "RE: Looks Nice"
zima Member since:
2005-07-06

I'm also really waiting for such device with a Trackpoint...yes, touchpad vs. trackpoint comes down to personal preference, but:
a) even when ones preference is a touchpad, it's harder to use the smaller it gets...which brings us to point
b) it's perfectly suited for such size-constrained machines

Here's hoping Lenovo will do something about it...

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Looks Nice
by StephenBeDoper on Sat 26th Apr 2008 20:15 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Looks Nice"
StephenBeDoper Member since:
2005-07-06

Here's hoping Lenovo will do something about it...


For the forseeable future, you'd probably be best off to pick up a refurb. x31 or x40.

Most of the big laptop makers are stubbornly refusing to sell any laptops below a certain price point (and, by extension, profit margin). It seems to be the Apple business model, where products aren't discontinued when they become technically-obsolete - instead, products are discontinued once the profit margin falls to a certain level.

It seems to be largely a holding-action, to try to prevent laptop computers from becoming as "commoditized" as desktop PCs. I suspect it's going to be ultimately futile - there's obviously demand for low-cost laptops. And with companies like Asus stepping up to fill that demand, that's going to eventually/hopefully to force Dell, Acer, HP, Lenovo, et al.

It was starting to feel as the big-name laptop makers were engaging in round-about/accidental price fixing - by way of an unwillingness to compete on price when it comes to laptops (out of fear of jeopardizing the price premium that laptops typically command).

IMO, that's the best thing about the Eee PC: its existence will (hopefully) shake off some of the stagnation that has become the status-quo with laptops.

Reply Score: 3

RE[4]: Looks Nice
by zima on Sat 26th Apr 2008 22:50 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Looks Nice"
zima Member since:
2005-07-06

I'm not sure...when it comes to "spirit" of your massage, I feel that I wholehearthly agree. BUT in practise I can easily get Acer machine that's actually cheaper than Eee...and HP/Lenovo laptops priced around the same.

Perhaps what you were saying becomes more true with a little twist: other manufacturers want ultraportables to remain a luxury item, while they DO flood market with cheap ordinary laptops.

And yeah, I could go at some point with a Thinkpad X...the thing is, while ordinary 15" laptops are too big for my taste, Eee-style ones are too small. 12-13" is a sweet spot for me (with 14" borderline ok, but I'll still have to pay ~200€ premium now that I'm in a market for new R61)

Reply Score: 1

IBM had the PC110 RE[4]: Looks Nice
by RavinRay on Tue 29th Apr 2008 00:23 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Looks Nice"
RavinRay Member since:
2005-11-26

"Here's hoping Lenovo will do something about it...


For the forseeable future, you'd probably be best off to pick up a refurb. x31 or x40.
"
IBM Japan had a cult hit in the 90's with the palmtop-sized PC110 with DOS/V, Micro PM GUI, and WebBoy browser. Hobbyists have installed all sorts of OS'es on it from Windows 3.1 and OS/2 to NT 4.0 and Linux and even PC/Geos. If Lenovo does a successor it just might have a bigger hit this time around.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Looks Nice
by h3rman on Sat 26th Apr 2008 06:59 UTC in reply to "RE: Looks Nice"
h3rman Member since:
2006-08-09

"It looks nice, but [...]


Yes, it does, but I may tell you what I miss:

1. The device has a glidepad. It would be great to have an option to buy it with a trackpoint instead. Furthermore, I miss the middle mouse button which is sooo important if you want to run your UNIX / Linux GUI stuff in an adequate manner.

http://www.cnet.co.uk/i/c/rv/e/laptops/asus/eee_pc-901/story_2.jpg
"

Seriously, ever since I've been using a Thinkpad (bit worn-out X40), I cannot imagine anyone would want to put up with a laptop without a trackpoint-style pointing device. ;)

But that may also be because the Thinkpads have something else going for it, i.e. the best three "mouse" buttons ever designed on laptops. No to mention the keyboard that doesn't flex like most other crap laptop keyboards do.
If they'd put that on the Eee, that would be smart.

I know, it takes most people at least five minutes to get used to a trackpoint, that's too much for most of use. ;)

If I see it correctly, the device would be approx. 500 Euro in Germany (I didn't check its availability in fact) - still too much money for me. But I may continue dreaming.


In the Hague there's a store that's going to sell it for 400 (the Linux version, Dutch warranty).
I'm thinking of getting my brother one, or the MSI wind, depending on which one of them is the first to be available with a *really* efficient chip. IMHO the goal that any tiny laptop makes should have is 24 hour battery life plus the ability to charge the battery manually if necessary (at the gym, for instance). ;)

I mean, say you're on a train to the south of France and you want to work for hours, then most laptops are still a joke when it comes to battery life.
It can be done, and it will be done, eventually.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Looks Nice
by Moochman on Sun 27th Apr 2008 08:39 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Looks Nice"
Moochman Member since:
2005-07-06

Forget the trackpoint. What I want is a touchscreen (with stylus input). Like the Psion netBook. Now that was a pleasure to use!

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: Looks Nice
by h3rman on Sun 27th Apr 2008 10:08 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Looks Nice"
h3rman Member since:
2006-08-09

Forget the trackpoint. What I want is a touchscreen (with stylus input). Like the Psion netBook. Now that was a pleasure to use!


I hate touchscreens.
But I respect you. ;)

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Looks Nice
by B12 Simon on Wed 30th Apr 2008 16:50 UTC in reply to "RE: Looks Nice"
B12 Simon Member since:
2006-11-08

Can the "Windows" keys be removed? :-)


If you don't mind gaps in your keyboard ;o)

Reply Score: 1

current eee user view
by buff on Fri 25th Apr 2008 22:18 UTC
buff
Member since:
2005-11-12

Being a current eee user I like the new version. The problems I have with the current one are mostly monitor size and keyboard layout. I find I make more typos than a regular sized keyboard and the screen is too narrow to use with gmail and calendar. I would have to try out the 900's keyboard to see if it was better. The eee is a good choice for a portable browsing, word processing machine. I bought a 4 Gig SD card and play mp3s on the machine while typing up reports. If you are looking for something that duplicates a full size laptop you will probably be disappointed. It really shines being so small and mobile.

Reply Score: 2

Mediocre
by tomcat on Fri 25th Apr 2008 22:44 UTC
tomcat
Member since:
2006-01-06

Nothing that really stands out in a crowded field of notebooks in its price range.

Reply Score: 0

RE: Mediocre
by sbergman27 on Sun 27th Apr 2008 13:06 UTC in reply to "Mediocre"
sbergman27 Member since:
2005-07-24

Nothing that really stands out in a crowded field of notebooks in its price range.

Unless you count the form factor, which places it in an entirely different category than the "crowded field of notebooks" in that price range. If you want that form factor, it's a must have. If not, then it's not a candidate. But there are only 2 or 3 devices in it's field.

Of course, this story was really just used as a vehicle for Tomcat to get in his usual comment about how "nondistinctive" the device in question is. Nondistinctive being Tomcat's code word for "It comes with Linux". Of course, he also thinks that it is silly to try to draw artificial distinctions between the eeepc and cell phones, since they are really one and the same thing. So draw your own conclusions regarding credibility. ;-)

http://www.osnews.com/permalink?298605

Edited 2008-04-27 13:09 UTC

Reply Score: 4

RE[2]: Mediocre
by tomcat on Mon 28th Apr 2008 08:25 UTC in reply to "RE: Mediocre"
tomcat Member since:
2006-01-06

Unless you count the form factor, which places it in an entirely different category than the "crowded field of notebooks" in that price range


Yeah, the "this screen is way too damned small and low resolution for the amount that I paid" category. No thanks. My money is better spent on a more powerful notebook for a roughly equivalent price.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Mediocre
by archiesteel on Mon 28th Apr 2008 16:36 UTC in reply to "RE: Mediocre"
archiesteel Member since:
2005-07-02

Yes, nothing is quite as predictable as Tomcat posting negative comments in an EeePC thread.

Nice to see some things don't change, even if you come back to a web site after a few weeks' absence. :-)

Reply Score: 2

INTEL ATOM!!!
by bornagainenguin on Fri 25th Apr 2008 22:48 UTC
bornagainenguin
Member since:
2005-08-07

That's what I'm waiting for myself...

I'll appreciate the bigger screen, no doubt--and I'm sure the extra space will come in handy on the Linux version; but it's the Intel Atom processor that I've been waiting for to make my purchase and I've been following the ASUS Eee almost a year now. Not quite since the announcement but maybe a month or two after it is when I started to get some serious lust for the Eee...

The brain dead (non-mobile) processor was what kept me away. I've already been through that once with my Dell Inspiron 5100 and the last thing I wanted was to go through it again with a ultramobile. As it is the battery life on this Dell is so poor I spend most of my time on it tethered to a power cord. ;)

Once the ASUS Eee is finally on the Intel Atom then I think we'll all start really seeing this device show its potential.

--bornagainpenguin

Reply Score: 2

RE: INTEL ATOM!!!
by buff on Fri 25th Apr 2008 23:08 UTC in reply to "INTEL ATOM!!!"
buff Member since:
2005-11-12

I upgraded the memory on mine to one gig of RAM. On Linux I don't notice any lag using applications like Open Office, Thunar or Audacious. The flash RAM drive no doubt contributes to a zippy feel of applications launching. You would be surprised how much gusto the little CPU puts out. CPU clock speed alone is not the only variable to look at. The architecture of the eee lends itself to quickly launching programs and quick task switching. If you tried one out you would probably agree with me.

Reply Score: 6

RE[2]: INTEL ATOM!!!
by miscz on Fri 25th Apr 2008 23:19 UTC in reply to "RE: INTEL ATOM!!!"
miscz Member since:
2005-07-17

The main advantage of Intel Atom is low power consumption, not the performance boost and that's what bornagainpenguin was referring to. Right now Eee suffers a lot from short battery life, especially after the bump to 900MHz on its Celeron-M and bigger screen.

I've read somewhere that Asus cheated by sending reviewers the high capacity batteries to the reviewers while regular ones had much worse capabitilies.

Reply Score: 3

RE[3]: INTEL ATOM!!!
by bornagainenguin on Fri 25th Apr 2008 23:32 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: INTEL ATOM!!!"
bornagainenguin Member since:
2005-08-07

buff said...

You would be surprised how much gusto the little CPU puts out. CPU clock speed alone is not the only variable to look at. The architecture of the eee lends itself to quickly launching programs and quick task switching. If you tried one out you would probably agree with me.


Check out miscz's post below yours. I don't doubt the processor on the Eee is powerful; that's the point--I want a processor that uses less power. In this case, less is more.

miscz said...
I've read somewhere that Asus cheated by sending reviewers the high capacity batteries to the reviewers while regular ones had much worse capabitilies.


You know...I wouldn't be surprised if that turned out to be precisely what happened, and it'd fit the evidence quite well! I never understood how there could be such differences in reported battery use between what the 'official' reviewers had to say and what ther Eeeuser forums were reporting....

--bornagainpenguin

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: INTEL ATOM!!!
by Luis on Sat 26th Apr 2008 03:03 UTC in reply to "RE: INTEL ATOM!!!"
Luis Member since:
2006-04-28

The flash RAM drive no doubt contributes to a zippy feel of applications launching.

And now a patch[1] was submitted (and applied) to the Linux kernel that will allow faster I/O. You'll need to upgrade to 2.6.26 once it's out, though...

[1]http://lkml.org/lkml/2008/4/20/283

Reply Score: 2

RE: INTEL ATOM!!!
by ohbrilliance on Sat 26th Apr 2008 03:49 UTC in reply to "INTEL ATOM!!!"
ohbrilliance Member since:
2005-07-07

"The brain dead (non-mobile) processor was what kept me away. I've already been through that once with my Dell Inspiron 5100"

You can hardly compare the Celeron-m in the eee to the Pentium 4s in the 5100.. we're talking TDP of 5 watts compared to TDP of 60 to 80 watts. Those Dell 5100s were ovens!

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: INTEL ATOM!!!
by bornagainenguin on Sat 26th Apr 2008 06:18 UTC in reply to "RE: INTEL ATOM!!!"
bornagainenguin Member since:
2005-08-07

ohbrilliance said...

You can hardly compare the Celeron-m in the eee to the Pentium 4s in the 5100.. we're talking TDP of 5 watts compared to TDP of 60 to 80 watts.


I hear you, I hear you...but we're still talking about a device saddled with a processor that won't allow it to be the best it can be. Considering how many of those old P4 crippled laptops are still in working condition due to the strain of overheating and lack of meaningful power management... Can you blame me for being doubly cautious now, not to make the same mistake twice?

ohbrilliance said...
Those Dell 5100s were ovens!


What do you mean were? I'm typing this on my Inspiron 5100 right now, running Hardy Heron 8.04--the display shows my heat as being 138F~ with just Firefox and Synaptic open. If I try to open anything else I'm looking at 160F~...

Still what other (non-Apple) laptop do you know of that can run Windows, Linux and OSX86 as well as this one?

--bornagainpenguin

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: INTEL ATOM!!!
by evangs on Sat 26th Apr 2008 16:17 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: INTEL ATOM!!!"
evangs Member since:
2005-07-07


What do you mean were? I'm typing this on my Inspiron 5100 right now, running Hardy Heron 8.04--the display shows my heat as being 138F~ with just Firefox and Synaptic open. If I try to open anything else I'm looking at 160F~...


On my Macbook 1st gen, the temperature of CPU Core 1 and 2 are hovering around 21.0ºC/69.8ºF. Enclosure bottomside is at 20.0ºC/68.0ºF. I'm sure that's how any Core 2 Duo laptop is going to perform.

The Pentium 4 was a horrible chip for mobile use. 138ºF is hot enough to roast your nuts if you use it as a laptop for any prolonged period of time.

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: INTEL ATOM!!!
by bornagainenguin on Sat 26th Apr 2008 16:30 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: INTEL ATOM!!!"
bornagainenguin Member since:
2005-08-07

evangs said...

On my Macbook 1st gen, the temperature of CPU Core 1 and 2 are hovering around 21.0ºC/69.8ºF. Enclosure bottomside is at 20.0ºC/68.0ºF. I'm sure that's how any Core 2 Duo laptop is going to perform.


Sure, I'm glad they licked the heat issues, but what is the battery life\performance like?

I want an ASUS Eee with an Intel Atom (or even a Via or a Loongson) processor to be able to get the best battery life\performance out of it. A true mobile device.

evangs said...
The Pentium 4 was a horrible chip for mobile use. 138ºF is hot enough to roast your nuts if you use it as a laptop for any prolonged period of time.


LMAO You don't have to tell me! ...and those were a set of my favorite pants too... (j/k!) But yeah the Inspiron 5100 was more of a portable desktop than an actual laptop. I'm glad they're finally making them safe for use in people's actual laps again.

--bornagainpenguin

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: INTEL ATOM!!!
by evangs on Sat 26th Apr 2008 16:45 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: INTEL ATOM!!!"
evangs Member since:
2005-07-07

I get 4 hours if I'm browsing the web and editing text with the occasional compile. It's still much better than what the Eee PC does at the moment, which is why I'm not clamoring for one.

If they sorted out the battery life to last 5+ hours, I might start to be more interested.

Reply Score: 2

RE[6]: INTEL ATOM!!!
by bornagainenguin on Sat 26th Apr 2008 18:58 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: INTEL ATOM!!!"
bornagainenguin Member since:
2005-08-07

evangs said...

I get 4 hours if I'm browsing the web and editing text with the occasional compile. It's still much better than what the Eee PC does at the moment, which is why I'm not clamoring for one.


Exactly. And this is the single factor holding me back right now from buying an ASUS Eee. Once they get the Atom worked into it, then maybe I'll geek.

evangs said...
If they sorted out the battery life to last 5+ hours, I might start to be more interested.


That's what I'm hoping the Atom will do. I'm also hoping for even better performance in that area with the WiFi turned off, and looking forward to seeing what the Linux community will be able to do in terms of performance. Someone above mentioned there's already been some patches submitted to the Linux kernel which should fine tune hard disk performance, and I'm looking forward to more of the same.

--bornagainpenguin

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: INTEL ATOM!!!
by echo.ranger on Mon 28th Apr 2008 16:55 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: INTEL ATOM!!!"
echo.ranger Member since:
2007-01-17

evangs said...
[q]
I want an ASUS Eee with an Intel Atom (or even a Via or a Loongson) processor to be able to get the best battery life\performance out of it. A true mobile device.

--bornagainpenguin



You can get a Via ULV one (of sorts) now...

http://www.everex.com/products/cloudbook/cloudbook.htm

http://www.everex.com/products/cloudbook_max/cloudbook_max.htm

I've actually got the basic 1200 Cloudbook at home, trying a multitude of Linux and BSD distros on it to see what works best over gOS, and aside from it getting a little toasty on the underside its a good mini-notebook with reasonable battery life.

Reply Score: 1

RE[6]: INTEL ATOM!!!
by broken_symlink on Mon 28th Apr 2008 19:08 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: INTEL ATOM!!!"
broken_symlink Member since:
2005-07-06

there is also the hp mininote 2133. i can't really decide between the eee 900, the mininote, or waiting until the summer to get an atom based system.

Reply Score: 1

RE[6]: INTEL ATOM!!!
by bornagainenguin on Tue 29th Apr 2008 01:47 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: INTEL ATOM!!!"
bornagainenguin Member since:
2005-08-07

echo.ranger said...

You can get a Via ULV one (of sorts) now...

http://www.everex.com/products/cloudbook/cloudbook.htm

http://www.everex.com/products/cloudbook_max/cloudbook_max.htm

I've actually got the basic 1200 Cloudbook at home, trying a multitude of Linux and BSD distros on it to see what works best over gOS, and aside from it getting a little toasty on the underside its a good mini-notebook with reasonable battery life.


What's the battery life \ performance on that? I've kept an eye on it off and on (even have a link to the site Ant--the same guy who set up the Eeeuser.com forums--created for it somewhere) but the hinge has always made me a bit leary of it, because of how flimsy the whole device looks with it.

There's also the gOS factor, which really I'm not a fan of--how does a vanilla Ubuntu install run on it?

--bornagainpenguin

Reply Score: 2

Atom...
by pdh97 on Sat 26th Apr 2008 05:28 UTC
pdh97
Member since:
2008-04-26

Does anyone know, when the atom based eee pc will be released?

Reply Score: 1

RE: Atom...
by collinm on Sat 26th Apr 2008 06:54 UTC in reply to "Atom..."
collinm Member since:
2005-07-15

midlle of the summer...

if you see some benchmark of the atom, it's not very powerfull ... new via cpu is faster...

http://laptopcom.blogspot.com/2008/04/first-benchmark-atom-cpu-vs-v...

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Atom...
by renox on Sat 26th Apr 2008 14:01 UTC in reply to "RE: Atom..."
renox Member since:
2005-07-06

if you see some benchmark of the atom, it's not very powerfull ... new via cpu is faster...

http://laptopcom.blogspot.com/2008/04/first-benchmark-atom-cpu-vs-v...


I was expecting this result: the Atom CPU has an in order design whereas the Isaiah has an out-of-order design, so at a given frequency, the Isaiah is faster but I must admit that I'm surprised at the size of the difference..
But for a laptop the performance itself isn't enough for comparison, performance/power usage benchmarks would be more interesting.

Reply Score: 3

RE[3]: Atom...
by collinm on Sat 26th Apr 2008 14:19 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Atom..."
collinm Member since:
2005-07-15

habitually, via have good power saving cpu
that why many company use it in their embedded system

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Atom...
by DigitalAxis on Sun 27th Apr 2008 15:06 UTC in reply to "RE: Atom..."
DigitalAxis Member since:
2005-08-28

Well, that's rather discouraging, then. Hopefully it'll still allow ASUS to make a laptop with equal performance but smaller power drain. The ability to take it anywhere (hell, it's not much larger than my calculator) is somewhat hampered by the constant need for more power.

I'm really starting to want one, especially for (and I know this was essentially a lucky break on ASUS's part) the fact that it's got a much larger screen but the device itself is the same size.

Reply Score: 2

We need an alluminum 10" MacB
by sledgehammer89 on Sat 26th Apr 2008 09:31 UTC
sledgehammer89
Member since:
2006-02-02

We need an aluminum 10" MacBook Atom...

Edited 2008-04-26 09:46 UTC

Reply Score: 3

Screens: Minimum 1024 x 768
by lkcl on Sat 26th Apr 2008 17:13 UTC
lkcl
Member since:
2008-04-26

i love all of these little devices - and will buy absolutely not a single one of them until the screen sizes are a minimum of 1024 x 768, irrespective of size (i would tolerate even a 7in screen at that resolution). 1200 x 800 is ok. 1200 x 900 even with the OLPC innovative screen @ only 8in is ok.

the reason is simple: screen real estate.

i purchased for $USD 2,500 a Fujitsu P1510D lifebook - absolutely fantastic machine. screen size: 1024 x 600. absolutely hopeless.

firefox toolbars at the top take up literally 2/5ths of the screen space, and the status bar at the bottom takes up another 32 pixels. result: nearly half the useable screen space is taken up, making it impossible to view web pages and do any work.

many applications such as KDE are *designed* for minimum 768 pixel-height screens, with reductions in font-sizes to 6 *still* being inadequate, and the popup dialog box "buttons" being off the edge at the bottom of the screen.

no - virtual screening doesn't cut it: the simplest accidental mouse movement results in irritation and much "scrolling" simply does your head in as you try to flick between pages of information.

so - users beware: if you like your information fast and flexible, tolerate the tiny pixels on a 7in 1024x768 or 8in 1200x800 screen, but don't for god's sake get a 1024x600 or 800x480 device.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Screens: Minimum 1024 x 768
by puenktchen on Sat 26th Apr 2008 19:21 UTC in reply to "Screens: Minimum 1024 x 768"
puenktchen Member since:
2007-07-27

firefox toolbars at the top take up literally 2/5ths of the screen space, and the status bar at the bottom takes up another 32 pixels. result: nearly half the useable screen space is taken up, making it impossible to view web pages and do any work.

many applications such as KDE are *designed* for minimum 768 pixel-height screens, with reductions in font-sizes to 6 *still* being inadequate, and the popup dialog box "buttons" being off the edge at the bottom of the screen.


your problems seems to be the software you're using and not the hardware.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Screens: Minimum 1024 x 768
by Rugxulo on Sun 27th Apr 2008 20:33 UTC in reply to "Screens: Minimum 1024 x 768"
Rugxulo Member since:
2007-10-09

firefox toolbars at the top take up literally 2/5ths of the screen space, and the status bar at the bottom takes up another 32 pixels. result: nearly half the useable screen space is taken up, making it impossible to view web pages and do any work.


Press F11 to view full-screen, it definitely helps.

P.S. What's the deal with the difference in storage b/w OSes here? Any (tangible) reason for this??

12GB (4GB built-in + 8GB flash) SSD (Microsoft Windows OS Version)
20GB (4GB built-in +16GB flash) SSD (Linux OS Version)

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Screens: Minimum 1024 x 768
by asupcb on Sun 27th Apr 2008 21:11 UTC in reply to "RE: Screens: Minimum 1024 x 768"
asupcb Member since:
2005-11-10

I guess to hide the Windows "tax." Otherwise they would have to charge more for the version with Windows.

Reply Score: 1

Rugxulo Member since:
2007-10-09

I guess to hide the Windows "tax." Otherwise they would have to charge more for the version with Windows.


I doubt it, it's already been said that the Windows for this machine is only $40, and I can't imagine anybody wanting to downgrade their storage just to not pay a little more. Maybe the Linux version includes all the sources??

Reply Score: 1

lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

"I guess to hide the Windows "tax." Otherwise they would have to charge more for the version with Windows.


I doubt it, it's already been said that the Windows for this machine is only $40, and I can't imagine anybody wanting to downgrade their storage just to not pay a little more. Maybe the Linux version includes all the sources??
"

How much is 8GB of SSD worth? About $40 perhaps?

Makes perfect sense.

Why should a Linux user have to pay an extra $40 just because there are some customers who might want Windows on the same hardware?

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Screens: Minimum 1024 x 768
by renox on Mon 28th Apr 2008 07:53 UTC in reply to "RE: Screens: Minimum 1024 x 768"
renox Member since:
2005-07-06

P.S. What's the deal with the difference in storage b/w OSes here? Any (tangible) reason for this??

12GB (4GB built-in + 8GB flash) SSD (Microsoft Windows OS Version)
20GB (4GB built-in +16GB flash) SSD (Linux OS Version)

The reason is the price: Asus sell those two laptops at the same price but for the Linux laptop instead of paying the price of a Windows license, you get a 16GB flash instead of a 8GB flash..

Reply Score: 2

lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

"P.S. What's the deal with the difference in storage b/w OSes here? Any (tangible) reason for this??

12GB (4GB built-in + 8GB flash) SSD (Microsoft Windows OS Version)
20GB (4GB built-in +16GB flash) SSD (Linux OS Version)

The reason is the price: Asus sell those two laptops at the same price but for the Linux laptop instead of paying the price of a Windows license, you get a 16GB flash instead of a 8GB flash..
"

It is perhaps also relevant to point out that with the Linux version, you also get a full suite of applications, but with the Windows version you just get a bare OS.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Screens: Minimum 1024 x 768
by bornagainenguin on Mon 28th Apr 2008 02:52 UTC in reply to "Screens: Minimum 1024 x 768"
bornagainenguin Member since:
2005-08-07

lkcl said...

firefox toolbars at the top take up literally 2/5ths of the screen space, and the status bar at the bottom takes up another 32 pixels. result: nearly half the useable screen space is taken up, making it impossible to view web pages and do any work.


Personally I don't think it'll be that bad, especially after some tweaking...

This thread on Ueeuser.com forums for instance:
http://forum.eeeuser.com/viewtopic.php?id=19258

I like the second screenshot better than the first, but they both show what can be done.

The Eeeuser.com wiki is also helpful:
http://wiki.eeeuser.com/howto:shrinkfirefox

The example picture in the wiki really shows off what can be done IMHO, and is nice and understated instead of buttons galore like the first one in forum thread listed above.

Of course, the Eee isn't for everyone, its form factor is a result of compromises, for most of its fans those compromises work out to be worthwhile in exchange for having such a portable computer.

If you really need the higher resolutions and simply cannot live with the choices the Eee makes for you, then it might not be the best device for you.

As far as I and many others are concerned though, it's just this side of being perfect...

Rugxulo said...
P.S. What's the deal with the difference in storage b/w OSes here? Any (tangible) reason for this??

12GB (4GB built-in + 8GB flash) SSD (Microsoft Windows OS Version)
20GB (4GB built-in +16GB flash) SSD (Linux OS Version)


Personally I think it's for two reasons...

1) To punish Microsoft for forcing them to bundle the Eee with a version of Windows, when they were perfectly content with letting their users do all the heavy lifting themselves...

2) To help offset the hidden costs of doing tech support now that Windows is added to the mix and as a system builder ASUS has more responsibilities towards its users that can't be pushed off towards user forums like the Eeeuser.com ones.

--bornagainpenguin

Reply Score: 3

RE: Screens: Minimum 1024 x 768
by lemur2 on Mon 28th Apr 2008 11:34 UTC in reply to "Screens: Minimum 1024 x 768"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

i love all of these little devices - and will buy absolutely not a single one of them until the screen sizes are a minimum of 1024 x 768, irrespective of size (i would tolerate even a 7in screen at that resolution). 1200 x 800 is ok. 1200 x 900 even with the OLPC innovative screen @ only 8in is ok.

the reason is simple: screen real estate.

i purchased for $USD 2,500 a Fujitsu P1510D lifebook - absolutely fantastic machine. screen size: 1024 x 600. absolutely hopeless.

firefox toolbars at the top take up literally 2/5ths of the screen space, and the status bar at the bottom takes up another 32 pixels. result: nearly half the useable screen space is taken up, making it impossible to view web pages and do any work.

many applications such as KDE are *designed* for minimum 768 pixel-height screens, with reductions in font-sizes to 6 *still* being inadequate, and the popup dialog box "buttons" being off the edge at the bottom of the screen.

no - virtual screening doesn't cut it: the simplest accidental mouse movement results in irritation and much "scrolling" simply does your head in as you try to flick between pages of information.

so - users beware: if you like your information fast and flexible, tolerate the tiny pixels on a 7in 1024x768 or 8in 1200x800 screen, but don't for god's sake get a 1024x600 or 800x480 device.


You could always use "autohide" of the taskbar.

However, if pixels is what you really need, then in this category of machine you may want to wait for Acer's 12.1 inch Slim Gemstone Aspire, due to be released soon apparently. That device may well have a better size & resolution screen.

http://www.digitimes.com/news/a20080407PD204.html

http://www.electronista.com/articles/08/04/07/new.acer.aspire.specs...

Reply Score: 2

Comment by DevL
by DevL on Sun 27th Apr 2008 08:55 UTC
DevL
Member since:
2005-07-06

"Carrying a 15" PowerBook around gets old at some point, you see."

About the time Apple switched to Intel?


Sorry, had to bite. Am using a Powermac G5 myself so this comment is very tongue in cheek. ;)

Reply Score: 2

Oh dear...
by PJBonoVox on Mon 28th Apr 2008 09:50 UTC
PJBonoVox
Member since:
2006-08-14

"Personally, I see the Eee PC as the MacBook Air 'for the people', and ever since it initial release, I felt strangely drawn towards the little device."

No, the Macbook Air is for people who are concerned about how they appear to other people. Bling, basically. The ASUS Eee PC is for people who actually _need_ an ultra-portable PC.

A rubbish comparison and another reason why OSNews is a worse site for your presence.

Reply Score: 2

900 version
by pistooli on Mon 28th Apr 2008 10:25 UTC
pistooli
Member since:
2005-07-09

just got my EeePC 900 version (I also own the previous 701, 7"version)...

using a 9" display is a big difference (actually the device become usable)

this is one lovable small gadget...

Reply Score: 1