backtop


Print 52 comment(s) - last by Vanilla Thunde.. on Jun 17 at 12:12 PM


Eee PC 1000 in comparison to the Eee PC 901  (Source: blogeee.net)

  (Source: blogeee.net)
Blogeee.net once again leaks an Eee PC notebook

Earlier today, DailyTech brought you news that early specs for the Eee PC 1000 leaked out thanks to an observant Hexus employee. Now, thanks to blogeee.net -- the same site that leaked the Eee PC 901 -- we now have images of the new 10" Eee PC 1000.

The Eee PC 1000 carries on the same new design introduced with the Eee PC 901, albeit on a larger scale. The biggest change notable should be the significantly larger keyboard. The original Eee PC 701 and Eee PC 900/901 featured a tiny, cramped keyboard that many have complained about. The Eee PC 1000, however, joins the HP 2133 Mini-Note PC with a 92% full-size keyboard.

The increased dimensions of the Eee PC 1000 make it a bit closer in size to the MSI Wind which has garnered a lot of attention over the past few weeks. The increased physical dimensions also mean that weight is also up significantly for the newest Eee PC family member.

Whereas the original Eee PC 701 and Eee PC 900 hovered around the two-pound mark, the Eee PC 1000 weighs in at a "hefty" 3.19 pounds. This compares to 2.42 pounds and 2.88 pounds respectively for the 3-cell and 6-cell versions of the MSI Wind.

As reported this afternoon, the Intel Atom-powered device will support up to 2GB of DDR2 memory and can be equipped with an 80GB HDD. Windows XP Home and Linux version of the Eee PC 1000 will be available for purchase as is the case with previous Eee PC models.

Stay tuned for more details on pricing and availability for the Eee PC 1000.

Updated 6/3/2008
ASUS today officially launched its Eee PC 1000 and Eee PC 1000H. The Eee PC 1000 will be available with up to a 40GB SSD while the Eee PC 1000H will be available with up to an 80GB 2.5" 5400RPM HDD.

The Eee PC 1000/1000H and Eee PC 901 are all equipped with an Atom processor and include ASUS's Super Hybrid engine which allows for easy manipulation of CPU speed, CPU voltage, and screen brightness to extend the life of the battery. When running in its most extreme mode, the Super Hybrid Engine can extract 7.8 hours of battery life from the new Eee PCs.

In addition, ASUS is also providing its new Eee PC family with 20GB of dedicated online storage (per machine) to perform backups or store personal data.

Updated 6/12/2008
We told you that we'd keep you informed of pricing for the Eee PC 1000 Series, and word has finally come down from the reps at ASUS. According to PC Magazine, the new 8.9" Eee PC 901 will be priced at a whopping $599 for Windows XP and Linux versions. Stepping up to the 10" Eee PC 1000H with a HDD will set you back $649. The SSD-equipped Eee PC 1000 starts even higher at $699.



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Windows XP...
By vic1218 on 6/2/2008 10:22:58 PM , Rating: 2
I thought Microsoft has placed some restrictions on OEM for pre-installed Win XP...

http://www.dailytech.com/Microsoft+Places+Restrict...




RE: Windows XP...
By vic1218 on 6/2/2008 10:27:24 PM , Rating: 2
Ugh... unfinished post...

My question is does that mean that I can't order an Eee PC with 2GB RAM pre-installed with Win XP ?


RE: Windows XP...
By Brandon Hill (blog) on 6/2/2008 10:28:51 PM , Rating: 2
You can order an Eee PC 1000 preconfigured with 2GB with Linux, but now Windows XP.

All Windows XP machines will be capped at 1GB/80GB


RE: Windows XP...
By vic1218 on 6/3/2008 12:59:03 AM , Rating: 2
Thanks! Let's just hope Asus will make it available before the end of June..

I wonder will Asus launch a Vista version after that...

Any idea on this machine running Vista with 2GB ram?


RE: Windows XP...
By noirsoft on 6/3/2008 1:50:20 AM , Rating: 2
It would almost certainly be Home Basic due to the lack of GPU, but I don't see there being a problem other than that. My 2.4 Ghz original p4 handles Home Premium just fine, so I would guess that the Atom would handle Home Basic.


RE: Windows XP...
By Lonyo on 6/3/2008 4:39:09 AM , Rating: 5
You may be drastically overestimating the Atom here...


RE: Windows XP...
By FITCamaro on 6/3/08, Rating: -1
RE: Windows XP...
By therealnickdanger on 6/3/08, Rating: 0
RE: Windows XP...
By backtomac on 6/3/2008 10:07:50 AM , Rating: 3
The 1.6 ghz Atom is performs about the same as an 800mhz Pentium M.

http://anandtech.com/systems/showdoc.aspx?i=3321&p...

I don't know if Vista can run on such a machine but I doubt it runs well.


RE: Windows XP...
By Reclaimer77 on 6/12/2008 10:50:32 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The 1.6 ghz Atom is performs about the same as an 800mhz Pentium M.


Double OUCH !

Yeah XP is the only way to go here for sure. Simply being able to " run " Vista doesn't really cut it when the specs are this low.


RE: Windows XP...
By idconstruct on 6/13/2008 2:35:28 AM , Rating: 2
At least the fn key is in its place... leaving the ctrl key where it belongs.


RE: Windows XP...
By BarkHumbug on 6/13/2008 3:17:40 AM , Rating: 2
This got me thinking of the whole "Vista Capable" debacle and this quote from Mike Nash, corporate vice president for Windows product management:

quote:
"I PERSONALLY got burnt ... Are we seeing this from a lot of customers? ... I now have a $2,100 e-mail machine."


At least the Eee is a lot cheaper... ;)


RE: Windows XP...
By johnsonx on 6/3/2008 2:39:21 PM , Rating: 1
People run Vista on the existing EeePC 701. Tests I've seen show it boots up a little slower than XP, but overall runs quite well. Vista is far more memory hungry than processor hungry, and clearly responds well to the near-zero seek times of the SSD.


RE: Windows XP...
By Calin on 6/13/2008 4:25:27 AM , Rating: 2
I don't think the Atom is faster than an Pentium 3. Anyway, clock for clock I'd say Pentium 3 should be quite a bit faster.
The speed parity was some 1.7 GHz P4 for 1 GHz P3, if I remember correctly. Your Atom falls quite short of the 2.4 GHz P4 you suggested (and I think original, Willamette processors went up to just 2GHz)


RE: Windows XP...
By StevoLincolnite on 6/13/2008 6:19:07 AM , Rating: 2
It really depended on the Benchmark, the Coppermine Pentium 3 was a little bit slower than the Tualatin Pentium 3, but in non-bandwidth hungry applications the 1.4ghz Tualatin would easily out perform the Early Willamette chips, however the tables turned once the Northwood was released and the clock speeds rose.

You are Correct the Willamette did only scale to a maximum of 2ghz, and almost the entire life-time of the chip, it was being out-sold by the Pentium 3, thanks to the Pentium 4's then reliance on the expensive Rambus memory.

I have an old Pentium 3 1.4 ghz Tualatin~S in another machine, combined with a Radeon 9600XT and 1.5gb of SDRAM @ 150mhz and it manages Vista rather surprisingly well for a machine as ancient as that, even with Aero enabled, Heck it even plays World of WarCraft better than a Friends Machine with a Core 2 Duo 2.0ghz, 2gb of DDR2 667mhz memory and an Intel X3100 Graphics card, mind you it's a laptop and a budget one at that, but you would think the Tualatin would fail miserably against the new architectures.

Benchmarks have shown that the Atom 1.6ghz is comparable to the Pentium M 800mhz, which is rather Interesting, on my old Laptop with a Pentium M 1.6ghz if I dropped the clockspeeds to 600mhz in Vista, it still did basic email, web browsing and what not perfectly fine, even with Aero enabled.

I guess the "Performance" of Vista is heavily Dependant on the users perception in allot of regards, thats why you have people saying you need "At least 4gb of ram" to truly enjoy Vista, and at least a Quad Core, which is simply not true.


RE: Windows XP...
By StevoLincolnite on 6/13/2008 6:19:37 AM , Rating: 2
It really depended on the Benchmark, the Coppermine Pentium 3 was a little bit slower than the Tualatin Pentium 3, but in non-bandwidth hungry applications the 1.4ghz Tualatin would easily out perform the Early Willamette chips, however the tables turned once the Northwood was released and the clock speeds rose.

You are Correct the Willamette did only scale to a maximum of 2ghz, and almost the entire life-time of the chip, it was being out-sold by the Pentium 3, thanks to the Pentium 4's then reliance on the expensive Rambus memory.

I have an old Pentium 3 1.4 ghz Tualatin~S in another machine, combined with a Radeon 9600XT and 1.5gb of SDRAM @ 150mhz and it manages Vista rather surprisingly well for a machine as ancient as that, even with Aero enabled, Heck it even plays World of WarCraft better than a Friends Machine with a Core 2 Duo 2.0ghz, 2gb of DDR2 667mhz memory and an Intel X3100 Graphics card, mind you it's a laptop and a budget one at that, but you would think the Tualatin would fail miserably against the new architectures.

Benchmarks have shown that the Atom 1.6ghz is comparable to the Pentium M 800mhz, which is rather Interesting, on my old Laptop with a Pentium M 1.6ghz if I dropped the clockspeeds to 600mhz in Vista, it still did basic email, web browsing and what not perfectly fine, even with Aero enabled.

I guess the "Performance" of Vista is heavily Dependant on the users perception in allot of regards, thats why you have people saying you need "At least 4gb of ram" to truly enjoy Vista, and at least a Quad Core, which is simply not true.


RE: Windows XP...
By FITCamaro on 6/13/2008 9:46:33 AM , Rating: 2
I've got a dual P3 board with 1.1GHz Tuatalin P3s in it and 1.25GB of SDRAM. Just kinda sitting there right now since I've got a gaming desktop and a video server (which the P3 used to be).

Any takers? :)


RE: Windows XP...
By Vanilla Thunder on 6/17/2008 12:12:41 PM , Rating: 2
pants.


RE: Windows XP...
By omnicronx on 6/13/2008 10:06:58 AM , Rating: 2
I would give the Atom a bit more credit than being as fast as an 800mhz pentium - m. People forget that the Atom was basically built from the ground up, and unlike normal x86 processors, it can only do jobs in order, similar to PPC architechture. To counter this, Intel has brought back hyperthreading to counter the loss in performance. So with the atom it seems to depend on what programs you are running, if you are planning to run single thread only programs, then this is not the processor for you. For surfing the internet, listening to music and watching videos, there should not be a problem with a 1.6ghz atom.

In most tests the 1.6 atom has been on par with the 1.33Ghz Celeron Core2 processor, which leads me to believe that the Atom is probably equivalent to around a 1.2ghz pentium M, which should be more than capable of running Vista Basic.

I personally own a mini-ITX board that runs a celeron 220, and although a bit sluggish at time, it runs Windows Media Center just fine.. All the reviews pitting the 220 vs the 1.6 ghz Atom show they are about on par, with the 220 outperforming the Atom on single threaded where the Atom could not use its hyperthreading feature. I will probably upgrade to an Atom when it reaches 2GHZ, as my celly is running extremely hot without a fan.


RE: Windows XP...
By homerdog on 6/3/2008 7:31:23 AM , Rating: 2
That seems a little counterintuitive.


RE: Windows XP...
By ImSpartacus on 6/3/2008 8:11:59 AM , Rating: 2
Windows costs something. Linux doesn't. So for the same price, you can have either.

If you're smart you get Linux then install XP .)


RE: Windows XP...
By ioannis on 6/3/2008 8:50:20 AM , Rating: 5
...and if you are even smarter, you keep Linux ;)


RE: Windows XP...
By homerdog on 6/3/2008 9:03:27 AM , Rating: 2
Right, I guess they really don't want to go over $299 with this.


RE: Windows XP...
By tuteja1986 on 6/13/2008 12:45:42 AM , Rating: 1
i think Asus have done a super smart thing :! start of cheap... get people interested and keep the hype factor. then increase the price slowly with the new model and see the fools buy em in hug number. Make huge profit on a thing that would cost $350 to make.


By wordsworm on 6/3/2008 8:18:37 AM , Rating: 2
I think this eclipsed the original story. I really like the idea of a notebook that can take a beating. I also like the idea of becoming a Linux geek.

Although I'd love the larger keyboard (for me keyboard size is a key feature), I'd be too afraid of dropping MSI's and breaking Wind to actually buy it.




By ZetaEpyon on 6/3/2008 10:33:21 AM , Rating: 2
As far as taking a beating, I'd be a lot more worried about the LCD display than one of the standard, non-SSD hard drives.


By wordsworm on 6/3/2008 10:05:26 PM , Rating: 2
Ok, this is how to get it:

scenario 1)
LCD breaks, hard drive doesn't. No files lost.

scenario 2)
LCD breaks, hard drive breaks. Files lost.

The key here is: files lost. As something of an armchair artist, the worst scenario is losing unique data that can't really be replaced. Most folks have photos they don't want to lose. Imagine you're storing your photos on your laptop from your camera on your once in a lifetime trip through (insert exotic location here) and you drop the machine. Yeah, sure, losing the LCD sucks too, but it's far from the same trauma as losing your photos, blog, or whatever other unique items you have. So, this is why a 40 GB SSD is exciting to me.


By HeelyJoe on 6/13/2008 12:30:10 AM , Rating: 2
Why don't you just back up your files?


By jeff834 on 6/13/2008 2:06:37 PM , Rating: 2
I'm not trying to be immature but am I the only person who laughed when I read this post? He's very worried about "breaking Wind"? That's comedy gold right there.


Eee Pc
By restrada on 6/4/2008 3:19:12 AM , Rating: 2
What do we have here ...ah, more Eee PC news on Dailytech.

(Yawn)




RE: Eee Pc
By mmc4587 on 6/4/2008 5:00:46 AM , Rating: 4
quote:
by restrada: "yawn"

I second that.
10" is too big to fit in your pocket, so you will need a bag. And since you have to carry a bag you might as well get one that is gasp 2" bigger and carry around a real laptop. Heck you nerds might even build some muscle and live longer!

...I ask myself, "Self, why buy the EE when I can purchase a refurbished Celeron laptop with 2x the battery life, 3x the speed, and 4x the features for $200? Why buy the EE when I can purchase a brand spankin' new dell vositro laptop for $400? Will it really hurt me to carry around an extra 2 pounds?"

...Then I answer, "No! Why would I pay money to downgrade to a less powerful CPU, with less battery life, no DVD drive, a screen too small to see, and a keyboard too small to type on for any given length of time?"

..And now I taunt the college people talking about a light laptop to take around to class, "have you ever seen a college text book? You are going to need a book bag regardless of whether your Laptop weighs 2lbs or 5lbs. Here is my advice, get something useful like a tablet. Then perhaps you will learn to take real notes (complete with flow charts, equations, idea mapping, etc).

I swear...


RE: Eee Pc
By UNHchabo on 6/4/2008 1:06:05 PM , Rating: 2
Not once during my 5-year college career (switched majors, didn't fail out) did I ever need to bring a textbook to class. The closest I came was in English, having to bring a 300-page paperback novel.

Through most of my college career, my backpack contained two spiral notebooks, and a 1-liter Nalgene. The Nalgene was by far the heaviest thing in there.

If I owned an Eee, it would've weighed about the same as a full bottle of water (~1kg/2.2lbs), and I probably would've carried it in my bag. Can't say the same if I had a 15.4" Dell.


RE: Eee Pc
By Omega215D on 6/14/2008 12:54:25 AM , Rating: 2
Again another supposed know-it-all. When you carry a load in a bag it will put a strain on your back. It doesn't matter if you lift weights or are a skinny person the back can and will still be strained. Since the spine and the spinal chord are essential to a balanced body it would be pretty unwise to harm it.

I am in college getting a science degree which means I will usually be carrying some books along with a laptop (there are only so many school computers). Some of the lab books I carry are pretty thick and is a requirement to have them in class along with notebooks. The laptop I carry around is a Apple MacBook which has a weight of 5 LBS. Since it was thin AND pretty cheap I decided to carry it along with my books which I am now paying for with a slowly slumping posture. Carrying my stuff in a side bag can end up straining my back just as well according to my chiropractor.

Any laptop that decreases in weight and hopefully thickness without me paying more than $1500 is a good idea in my book.


I don't get it
By amanojaku on 6/13/2008 12:27:45 AM , Rating: 2
<scratches head>
What am I supposed to use this thing for? With a starting price of $300 these EEE PCs are pretty expensive notepads, instant messengers and/or web browsers. I guess they can hold a few movies, but I don't even like to watch a movie on a 15" laptop. I guess I just haven't gotten into the whole mobile Internet thing yet, except to check mail from my corporate CrackBerry. Which a lot of $100 phones can do. Use cases, anyone?




RE: I don't get it
By BarkHumbug on 6/13/2008 4:11:47 AM , Rating: 2
How about a realistic alternative to the Amazon Kindle, retail price $359? (or any other book reader for that matter) They're selling like hotcakes according to Amazon, which is a mystery to me. While I'd like to have a handy book reader for myself I'm certainly not prepared to pay $300+ for it... ;)

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B000FI73MA/ref=am...


RE: I don't get it
By Icelight on 6/13/2008 4:07:59 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
They're selling like hotcakes according to Amazon, which is a mystery to me.


Are you kidding? People have been clamouring for the portable book for decades.


RE: I don't get it
By BarkHumbug on 6/17/2008 3:27:34 AM , Rating: 2
Yes I know, but as I also stated I'm certainly not prepared to pay $359 for it, is seems just a little steep for the limited function.

Besides, books already are portable you know... ;)


By psychobriggsy on 6/3/2008 5:44:19 AM , Rating: 2
I think these small computers are now starting to miss the point.

At 2 pounds and small, they were extremely portable (although why have *all* these small computers been so fat?) and "throw in the bag"-esque. Cheap enough to not really care too much either. The 8.9" devices look the most tempting as they fix the small low resolution screen in a wide bezel issues of the 7" devices, with a large-enough keyboard.

However there is a 10" laptop market, so it will be interesting to see how it shakes down in the end. I suspect that prices will drop eventually.




By flydian on 6/3/2008 3:05:49 PM , Rating: 2
I have to agree. Not that their size and weight make these things huge, but they're straying a bit far from the point for me too.

A small, light, sub $400 internet/email machine is a nice option. Maybe it's time I just get a crackberry instead. =O


By daInvincibleGama on 6/3/2008 10:16:09 PM , Rating: 2
The 7" subnotebook was too small for me. I want to use this for notes when I get to college, so I need a decent keyboard.

Although it may seem like mission creep on Asus's part, 10" is the perfect size for right now (w/ good battery life).

The 10" laptop market is for expensive high-end laptops that bake. I have a desktop for anything that needs power(sounds like a helicopter). My laptop will be just for light tasks.


$649?
By iFX on 6/12/2008 11:56:14 PM , Rating: 4
No thanks.




RE: $649?
By jpeyton on 6/13/2008 12:39:35 AM , Rating: 2
Agreed. It'll line warehouse shelves at $649; I predict it'll be down to $399 by Christmas.


For $700 you can get
By Nik00117 on 6/13/2008 5:37:56 AM , Rating: 2
ASUS NO NO NO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Your Last EEE PC was so popular for one huge reason, it was a computer that go on the internet for cheap! 700 fucking dollars for a subnetbook? Anything more then 400 is unacceptable.

Before I'd drop 700 on that I'd drop 500 on a dell with a dedicated GPU that can play games.

http://configure.us.dell.com/dellstore/config.aspx...

The 8400 can handle games

http://laptops-reviews.com/articles/333/1/nVidia-8...

Quite frankly ASUS needs to understand one thing, the EEE PC must remain cheap, 700 is not cheap, I just showed you a 500 dollar laptop that can handle most games even out today, i'm sure we aren't tlaking very high settings or anything but it'll handle it.

So ASUS get your head straight and understand for $700 I can a nice full blown laptop that'll play video games.




RE: For $700 you can get
By luseferous on 6/13/2008 6:56:03 AM , Rating: 2
Got to agree, £200-£300max is the area they should be aiming at not trying to go up against 'proper laptops' that are higher specced and for most uses far more practical. with Asus's one selling point being: look how small it is.

As long as MSI stick to their claims on pricing then there is absolutely no reason to buy an Eeepc anymore.

Shame, Asus could really could have continued to make a splash with these. Oh well, they will sell about 5 units then drop their prices at a later date I suppose.


RE: For $700 you can get
By Nik00117 on 6/14/2008 7:41:50 AM , Rating: 2
I agree, even 200 to 300 pounds is a bit much, thats 600 on the high end i'd say £150 to £200 max.


when...
By johnsonx on 6/3/2008 2:35:48 PM , Rating: 2
When are the EeePC's coming out with 17" widescreen, internal DVD-RW, dual 2.5" velociraptors, NVidia GeForce 9800GO graphics, and 3.2Ghz quad-core processors?




RE: when...
By StillPimpin on 6/3/08, Rating: -1
RE: when...
By johnsonx on 6/5/2008 12:09:33 PM , Rating: 3
you're right. I should have said BluRay, not DVD-RW. What was I thinking?


RE: when...
By FITCamaro on 6/13/08, Rating: 0
battery life
By Soulkeeper on 6/13/2008 2:05:31 AM , Rating: 2
nearly 8hrs batt life is promising, almost as good as the old transmeta solutions ...
i remember some of them advertising as 10-12hrs life

a full charge for a full day's work should be the goal imo




Oh boy...
By DeepBlue1975 on 6/13/2008 9:32:56 AM , Rating: 2
699 usd is quite a bit of money, even the $649 version with HDD is too expensive compared to the wind.

What is the justification for them to increase the price so badly compared to the EEE PC 701 when screen prices are not that high on that size class?

ASUS pulled out a nice one when they launched the original EEE, but I think that with these sequels they'll definitely start loosing market to the newcomers that are asking lower prices for similar configurations.

And please, note that I'm just comparing the EEE to similarly sized laptops, not to full sized ones because I still believe that comparing the price of an ultra portable with that of a 15" or even 17" one is not fair at all as each of them targets really different customer targets.




Acer Aspire One
By on 6/13/2008 11:53:47 AM , Rating: 2
The Atom-powered Acer Aspire One is only $379:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=InfFpnNJ7Sw

http://www.acer.com/aspireone/




“Then they pop up and say ‘Hello, surprise! Give us your money or we will shut you down!' Screw them. Seriously, screw them. You can quote me on that.” -- Newegg Chief Legal Officer Lee Cheng referencing patent trolls














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki