Print 55 comment(s) - last by marsbound2024.. on Apr 22 at 4:09 AM

The Eee PC grows up -- and so does its price.  (Source: ASUS)
ASUS pushes the Eee PC 900 into uncharted waters with a higher price tag.

When ASUS launched the original Eee PC 701 4G in late 2007, the notebook was praised for its relatively low price, respectable performance for an inexpensive notebook due to its internal solid-state drive (SSD), and compact dimensions/weight. ASUS announced its second generation model in early March along with a few notable upgrades to its screen and storage capacity.

Unfortunately, those upgrades come at a price that pushes the Eee PC 900 squarely into an even higher price bracket. When the Eee PC 900 launches on May 12 in the United States, it will be priced at $549 for both Linux and Windows XP versions.

The Linux version of the Eee PC will come with a 4GB SSD + an additional 16GB internal flash module for a total of 20GB of storage space. The Windows XP model -- due to the licensing fees associated with Windows -- will only feature an internal flash module of 8GB leaving it with just 12GB of total storage space.

The other notable upgrades for the second generation Eee PC include the larger, 8.9" 1024x600 display, 1GB of DDR2 memory, Multi-Touch trackpad, and the inclusion of a 1.3 MP webcam (up from 0.3 MP). Otherwise, the Eee PC still includes an undersized keyboard, three USB 2.0 ports, a VGA port, and an Intel Celeron-M processor which can run at 630 MHz or 900 MHz.

It should be interesting to see if the Eee PC can manage to maintain the momentum of its predecessor given the higher price. It's true that the higher price affords a better user experience, but it may also push potential consumers to look at larger 15.4" alternatives in its price range.

However, for those that are strictly looking for an ultra-portable machine, the Eee PC 900 makes quite a statement as do competing offerings like the HP 2133 Mini-Note PC and the Everex CloudBook Max.

For a more in-depth look at the Eee PC 900, you can check out reviews from bit-tech, CNET, Trusted Reviews and Tech Radar.

Comments     Threshold

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

By nvalhalla on 4/19/2008 9:02:30 AM , Rating: 5
-That's too much money, I can get a Dell for $550

-No, you don't understand! It's small s it's worth more. Sony has a $2000 UMPC.

-Go Linux!

-Go XP, Vista sucks!

-This is too weak, I need native quad core for my winamp player.

-Call me when it can play Crysis.

Any I forgot?

RE: Here
By Brandon Hill on 4/19/2008 9:05:51 AM , Rating: 3
-I'm not buying a Fisher Price notebook; just look at the the thing!
-No optical drive, no sale.
-I can get a 6.5-lb Core 2 Duo, 15.4" notebook with Windows Vista Home Premium and a 160GB HDD for that price.
-ASUS sucks, there's motherboards are crap and I wouldn't buy anything else made by them.

RE: Here
By Flunk on 4/19/2008 11:24:52 AM , Rating: 2
I'm not carrying around a big fat 15inch notebook. Might as well just buy a desktop.

RE: Here
By daftrok on 4/19/2008 5:11:10 PM , Rating: 5
Oh no I can't possibly find a place to fit a 14" x 10" x 1.5" laptop that weighs a whopping 6 lbs. I mean I'd much rather get a 30 lb desktop that's NOT portable.

RE: Here
By Samus on 4/20/2008 12:11:04 AM , Rating: 2
IBM X40's are less than $400 used.

With that in mind, anyone who's bought one of these, whether it be the cheap models or the expensive models, has been Assusraped.

RE: Here
By GaryJohnson on 4/20/2008 10:35:27 PM , Rating: 2
How times have changed. Not so long ago, a link to a Compaq branded product on DT would have seen you tarred and feathered.

RE: Here
By Mattd4AX3 on 4/20/2008 12:06:38 AM , Rating: 2
Gee, I think I need to put Brandon on my "haters" list.

RE: Here
By Samus on 4/21/2008 2:57:39 AM , Rating: 2
Ja bro, hez mad h8r.

RE: Here
By munim on 4/19/2008 9:27:16 AM , Rating: 2
- $100 increase per inch of screen space?!! Puhlease!!
- Awww they took out the modem that wasn't really there?!! No way

RE: Here
By BladeVenom on 4/19/2008 9:28:00 AM , Rating: 5
You want complaints? Here's mine. I wanted to spend an extra $20 on a bigger screen, not an extra $200 on a bigger flash drive.

RE: Here
By ImSpartacus on 4/19/2008 12:45:51 PM , Rating: 3
I don't see why they don't put like two SD slots on the thing so you can throw an 8-16 GB SD card on there and be done with it. Then they can skip the internal flash all together (not the SSD though). SD's would be more convenient anyway.

RE: Here
By daftrok on 4/19/2008 3:36:19 PM , Rating: 5
Convenient yes but if you ran XP on SD cards you would pull your hair out.

RE: Here
By Screwballl on 4/19/2008 11:01:33 AM , Rating: 1
-I can get a used laptop with twice the specs for half the price

RE: Here
By pukemon on 4/19/2008 11:15:19 AM , Rating: 5
- I'm gonna wait until the Atom version comes out

Actually, come to think of it, that's a legit response. Hrmmm...

RE: Here
By Brandon Hill on 4/19/2008 11:29:54 AM , Rating: 4
Considering that the 900 gets worse battery life, that's a VERY legit response.

RE: Here
By DeepBlue1975 on 4/19/2008 1:39:06 PM , Rating: 2
I'm amongst those who say that :D

But maybe I'll get this one anyway. I thought the 20gb or 12gb space was exclusively provided by an SSD, not that it comprised an "internal card you don't have to plug from outside". That's cheating!

For the extra price (the new screen costs them less than $30 extra) I would have wanted a single 16 or 20gb SSD, not just a "partitioned space" including a probably run of the mill flash drive you can get for much less all alone.

Dell says they'll be making one of these in the same price range?
HP says they'll use ATOM by the end of the year?

I think I'll wait for those "true competitors" (the cloudbook isn't in my opinion, the 1st gen of the HP neither because of its crappy via CPU) to evaluate which one fits me better.

RE: Here
By shabby on 4/19/2008 1:41:21 PM , Rating: 2
The atom version will be priced at $999 ;)

RE: Here
By djc208 on 4/19/2008 11:28:56 AM , Rating: 2
- Chevy eeE PC ...bla, bla, bla,.. compared to the Lexus MacBook Air ...bla, bla, bla... and it only costs an extra $1450 bla, bla, bla .... for people willing to pay for quality, ...bla, bla, bla...

RE: Here
By ImSpartacus on 4/19/2008 2:48:38 PM , Rating: 2
Well you pretty much covered everything. We might as well lock the comments on this article.

RE: Here
By SiliconAddict on 4/20/2008 2:19:44 AM , Rating: 2
Go ahead and buy your $550 Dell notebook. When I visit your house to replace the motherboard, or the LCD because of a bad inverter or a host of other problems because the hardware in that $550 laptop is shit...I will laugh.
This is the one thing the average dipshit consumer still hasn't gotten. A $550 Dell is cutting corners trying to make it perform like a good laptop. The end result is a laptop who's quality ranks up there with a laptop pulled out of the local dump. An Eee PC is using parts designed around a $550 laptop. The hardware is meh but the corners being cut aren't anywhere near these "normal" budget PC's and as such the likelihood of getting shit is WAY less.

RE: Here
By Davelo on 4/20/2008 2:25:35 AM , Rating: 2
Yep. My friend just got a Dell XPS with 2 gb of ram, Nvidia graphics and a big screen for $600. Why has this website been pushing this wee pc so much?

RE: Here
By tanishalfelven on 4/20/08, Rating: -1
RE: Here
By Davelo on 4/20/2008 2:29:20 PM , Rating: 3
This is why I hesitate to post anything to online forums any more. There's always some @$$hole who has to post a nasty reply.

For your information the Dell laptop does have Nvidia graphics (8400M). I never said "my gfx has 512 mb video ram, it must be faster than yours", while comparing a x700 512 to a 8800gt". Those were your words, MORON. So you want to call me names from the safety of your keyboard? Are you in California or close? I could visit you and stomp your pencil neck geek @$$.

RE: Here
By abhaxus on 4/20/2008 2:56:16 PM , Rating: 2
what recent game can the 8400 play at reasonable framerates?

RE: Here
By sc3252 on 4/21/2008 2:36:07 AM , Rating: 2
Call of duty 4, Supreme commander, penumbra:Black plague, titan quest, and company of heroes. You would be surprised what those things can do, I was surprised when my brother got one and we started playing games. Every game we tried I thought it would be going at 5FPS, but it would hit very acceptable FPS levels.

RE: Here
By tanishalfelven on 4/20/08, Rating: -1
RE: Here
By baseball43v3r on 4/20/2008 8:45:15 PM , Rating: 3
anyway, the fact that you think 8400m is capable of playing anything, at reasonable frame rates shows what your lack of knowledge.

err... he never actually said anything about the 8400m being capable of playing anything. which shows your lack of comprehension. if you will notice someone else asked what games the 8400 could play, in fact, i dont even think he used the word game in any of his posts...
now go back to your little hole tanis, call me when you become a teenager.

RE: Here
By 4wardtristan on 4/20/2008 7:40:38 PM , Rating: 3
Are you in California or close? I could visit you and stomp your pencil neck geek @$$.

seriously mate, is that called for?

RE: Here
By tastyratz on 4/21/2008 1:14:29 AM , Rating: 3
bitch bitch bitch everyone
who the hell cares?
go have a pillowfight over it like REAL girls.

dell in general makes crap products and you get what you pay for. They practically pay YOU to get their desktops and yet a decent motherboard costs as much as their whole sys. fishy much?

When you buy anything you have the options of

pick 2.

The asus machine makes a better quality product for cheap with lower specs. Dell and other low end laptops in that price range are a faster machine for cheap but its far from quality built.

If you want that $500 dell in a well made form you'll pay twice as much from a real computer manufacturer and there's a reason for it. A dodge neon looks good on paper too but try using one without making everything fall off (just like a cheap dell).

I personally choose the well made product but everyone sets their own priorities I suppose

RE: Here
By swizeus on 4/21/2008 6:10:58 AM , Rating: 2
People..people... don't they compare an ASUS EEE PC (Intel GMA) with A Dell (Geforce 8400). Then Dell would win easily... No Question asked...

ASUS IS overpricing it's EEE PC, thinking there's nothing more valuable than his

we're talking about hundreds of Gigs today and have to go back with a single digit Gig, don't you think you'll be a bit phobia there ? A dual slot SD card will be sweet. You store your OS and programs in your SSD and your file in dual 16 Gigs SDHC, since the main memory has been upped to 1 GB, you won't need any swap (because you won't run heavy duty design software here anyway). Well, all of that is extremely sweet only if you can get both the EEE PC and dual SDHC 16 GB for $500+ price point. Unless that, i'll just buy a 12" $650 ACER (Core Duo T2300,1GB of memory, 120GB HDD, 1 GB RAM, 12", camera) that'll do more than this $500+ shit! You won't be bothered by it's weight if you think about it's functionality (we'll, it's not like it'll break your backbone anyway, not like the 15.4" or 17" notebook in your bag)

Not surprised it costs more
By Nihility on 4/19/2008 10:05:33 AM , Rating: 1
Basically the same technology just more of it.
More RAM, bigger screen, more flash storage. This isn't even an evolutionary update, just more stuff.

It's a shame they're still using that 900Mhz celeron though.

RE: Not surprised it costs more
By Brandon Hill on 4/19/2008 10:34:09 AM , Rating: 2
Yeah, I would have preferred the larger screen and no increase in storage space. I have a 4G model and an 8GB SDHC card and am doing just fine.

At $400, I didn't even think twice and just bought the Eee PC. At $550 today, I have my reservations and just plan on waiting to see what everyone else releases.

My fear is that with ASUS jacking the price of its Eee PC 900 to $550, the days of $299, $349, and $399 "low-cost" notebooks from other manufacturers will be over. With everyone else going to 8.9" displays for this new round of laptops, we can kiss those low prices goodbye.

RE: Not surprised it costs more
By Chadder007 on 4/19/2008 12:17:12 PM , Rating: 2
Im the same, I just wanted the screen with higher res. Im going to pass on this.

RE: Not surprised it costs more
By mixpix on 4/20/2008 6:26:37 PM , Rating: 2
I have the same opinion about the additions to this, but I'm just gonna wait for the Atom and see if they release a model with just a 4GB SSD. I have an 8MB Flash card, I don't need to pay more just to have another one.

4GB and 512 works perfectly fine for XP. I want to upgrade the parts based on my needs, not be "forced" into paying more for upgrades I don't need.

RE: Not surprised it costs more
By Bigjee on 4/19/2008 10:58:26 AM , Rating: 2
Not to forget that the battery life has decreased and is now an hour less than the PC701.

After reading the interview from the ASUS representative the message being put out there was that they would be getting closer to 8hrs of battery life with the upcoming models but this is anything but that.

I am definitely gonna skip this model. Will wait and see what the Atom version brings to the table.

RE: Not surprised it costs more
By Devo2007 on 4/19/2008 2:07:27 PM , Rating: 2
The 8-hour battery life was going to be with the Atom processor -- not the current 900-series model.

RE: Not surprised it costs more
By DeltaRage on 4/19/2008 2:38:27 PM , Rating: 2
I thought the Atom had the same TDP as the current model? Am I way off on that?

RE: Not surprised it costs more
By lamestlamer on 4/19/2008 3:13:32 PM , Rating: 5
Yes, the Atom has by far the highest performance/watt of any CPU. A Celeron-M is a poor replacement for the atom. The Atom has a TDP ranging from roughly .5W to 2W. The Celeron-M has a TDP ranging from roughly 5W to 25W. TDPs don't show the whole picture as the Atom has many more power saving features that allow it to run with significantly less power on average. Even still, in a worst case battery and best case performance scenario, the atom is still a factor of 2 lower power consumption in TDP. However, I doubt that we will see the 2W atom in the EEE as they are fairly expensive and eat at battery life.

I think that the LCD will begin to dominate power usage as we see chipsets and CPUs shrink to nothing. OLED cannot come soon enough.

RE: Not surprised it costs more
By emboss on 4/20/2008 8:41:39 PM , Rating: 2
Yes, the Atom has by far the highest performance/watt of any CPU.

Any x86 CPU ;)

RE: Not surprised it costs more
By Bigjee on 4/19/2008 4:12:49 PM , Rating: 2
I know that. I'm saying that no one mentioned a decrease in battery life. We were lead to believe that the battery life is going to increase rather than decrease.

RE: Not surprised it costs more
By Segerstein on 4/19/2008 7:01:20 PM , Rating: 2
I already have EEE - I bought it in December and I'm perfectly happy with it. I just miss integrated bluetooth as I use it to connect to the internet via my N95 8GB.

I'll wait for the Atom version, and give my current EEE to my sis.

RE: Not surprised it costs more
By icrf on 4/20/2008 9:51:48 PM , Rating: 2
So bluetooth isn't on this one yet? Previous speculation (yeah, I know) with the multi-touch track pad included bluetooth support in it.

But you promised!!!
By marsbound2024 on 4/19/2008 10:33:33 PM , Rating: 2
So much for ASUS keeping its promises for really inexpensive subnotebooks. Didn't really expect a corporation to keep its promises anyways, but yeesh. Why would someone want to spend $549 on this when today, at Best Buy, there was a semi-decent laptop...14.1" screen...for the same price, 2GB DDR2, 160GB HDD (I think). I think it was a Dell. Anyways, it was cheap and much more worth it than this. So much for having continued respect for the EeePC. Started out well, now corporate greed has spoiled it. :(

RE: But you promised!!!
By porkpie on 4/19/2008 11:30:09 PM , Rating: 2
now corporate greed has spoiled it.
If you think its so easy to design and build a machine like this, and price it for less and still make a profit, why not give it a try?

You'll either be rich or you'll go broke trying. In either case, I bet you'll learn enough to not make any more ignorant remarks.

RE: But you promised!!!
By marsbound2024 on 4/20/2008 2:30:19 AM , Rating: 2
They did it with the previous EeePCs, so what's different now? Tech has advanced, ASUS promised really low prices (like $199, $299) in the previous line yet didn't really deliver fully on that. They are not packing anything really powerful into the machine so they can make it smaller. This is a machine of 2006 for the most part... just repackaged in a smaller format. So no real R&D costs. Just has a flash drive. So I think my "ignorant" comments were actually informed, perhaps unlike yourself.

RE: But you promised!!!
By porkpie on 4/20/2008 2:40:46 PM , Rating: 2
They did it with the previous EeePCs, so what's different now?
More storage, a larger display, 1GB of DDR2 memory, a Multi-Touch trackpad, and a 1.3 MP webcam (up from 0.3 MP).

Is that enough to justify an extra $150? I dunno. But I bet Asus has spent a lot more time thinking on the issue than you and I both put together. Who knows? Perhaps they were making a loss on the original Eees, just to get the name established.

In any case, whining about "corporate greed" is pretty childish. If you don't like the price, don't buy it.

RE: But you promised!!!
By marsbound2024 on 4/22/2008 4:09:56 AM , Rating: 2
I'm not whining (the "But you promised" wasn't intended to come off as serious whining). Simply stating that it seems to be a bad business move. If anything, as tech advances and prices go down for similar specs, the older EeePCs should have a slight price cut and the newer ones shouldn't be $549. No I do not plan on buying this unit either. Other than that, it could very well be possible they were making a loss on the originals, but I am kinda doubting it considering the hardware.

$549? Hello HP 2133!
By ChoadNamath on 4/19/2008 4:28:09 PM , Rating: 2
At $499, this would have been worth considering. At $549, I would definitely buy the $549 HP 2133 instead. Yeah, the C7 sucks, but so does the 900MHz Celeron. For the same price, you get a much better keyboard, much better screen, much better chassis, and a lot more storage. I think the HP 2133 even has a slightly longer battery life. If I was buying today, the HP would win hands down.

RE: $549? Hello HP 2133!
By Brandon Hill on 4/19/2008 4:36:13 PM , Rating: 2
I too may be looking at the 2133 in the future... but only when they drop in the Isaiah after the refresh six months down the road. I wouldn't subject anyone to a C7-M on a daily basis.

RE: $549? Hello HP 2133!
By shabby on 4/19/2008 7:37:19 PM , Rating: 2
Competition is going to start heating up soon, with the hp coming out soon and dell working on their own mini laptop prices are sure to fall.

By AOforever1 on 4/20/2008 1:55:26 AM , Rating: 2
This product is way over priced. Great idea, but over priced.

RE: Fail
By tubalcain on 4/20/2008 11:48:24 AM , Rating: 2
Agree. I was thinking, a 9 inch portable DVD player is about $100. Asus is charging quite a hefty fee for screens that they buy in huge bulks, not to mention Celerons or whatever. They make their own motherboards themselves so whatever corners they cut is on them. They need to license this to Vtech or Fisher Price and get the price down to $250-300 as originally promised.

By deeznuts on 4/19/2008 10:31:35 PM , Rating: 2
Looks at specs, looks at price, looks at compromises ... continues to wait.

Hp2133 with a decent proc, I'll bite.

Something simple
By rsra13 on 4/19/2008 11:14:02 PM , Rating: 2
I just want a laptop that I can use the whole day without recharging. Even if I am at home.
Something that lasts ~10 hours with wifi, used for browsing, office, stuff simple like that.

"So if you want to save the planet, feel free to drive your Hummer. Just avoid the drive thru line at McDonalds." -- Michael Asher

Copyright 2016 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki