Linked by Thom Holwerda on Fri 25th Apr 2008 21:12 UTC
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?
Thread beginning with comment 311591
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Recent Original Stories
Recent Comments
Headlines
Random Comments
Random Stories
Random OS Link
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)