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.


"You can bet that Sony built a long-term business plan about being successful in Japan and that business plan is crumbling." -- Peter Moore, 24 hours before his Microsoft resignation














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