Talk:Asus Eee PC/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5

Pictures of the 900 series

I see the first pictures of this model are available from the Register web site.

Nice looking 8.9" screen at last... --Quatermass (talk) 17:25, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Madwifi

There is no "Madwifi" article here to link/wikify to, so, please explain what it is, or take it out of this article. Thank you.
--Jerome Potts (talk) 05:18, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Madwifi is a common wi-fi driver for using Atheros chipsets (EeePC uses these) under Linux.--211.28.35.204 (talk) 18:25, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Factory underclocking

I am the IP address user that removed mention of the underclocking. on the 702 I checked in the /proc/cpuinfo and its running at 900MHz by default. would be good if we could find out exactly which models are underclocked Towel401 (talk) 19:09, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

This is a known issue (for lack of a better word) with the Eee; see http://forum.eeeuser.com/viewtopic.php?id=18383 for some details on it. Try the commands mentioned under the CPUspeed section at the bottom of http://wiki.eeeuser.com/howto:monitorhardware, this will confirm your actual speed. If this still shows 900MHz, we might have to look further into it, but I suspect you'll find it shows 630MHz (or thereabouts). Let us know what you find. Aawood (talk) 19:37, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
Ah yes there's a kernel module that they put in to make it report the speed incorrectly. o well my bad. i'll write a bit on this kernel module someday !\Towel401 (talk) 03:19, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
I wouldn't say it was your bad, you couldn't have known it was reporting incorrectly; besides, this gives evidence the underclocking affects the 8G as well, and future contributors who don't know can just be redirected to this conversation. It's all good! Aawood (talk) 08:28, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
This whole conversation implies that it is bad to run a CPU at lower than its 'maximum rated' speed. Why is that? Running at a lower speed should use less power, avoids the need for a noisy fan, and lets the battery last longer. Surely it would be better to call it 'optimal-clocked' or 'tuned-clocked', or something like that? quota (talk) 13:58, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
Primarily, because that's not stated anywhere, at least that I know. Underclocked is a factual word to use; we know it's underclocked, we have sources and we can test it. On the other hand, there's no source stating it was specifically optimised or tuned. Don't get me wrong, it probably was an optimisation choice for pretty much the reasons you've stated, but without a source it's just conjecture, however likely. There may be an argument for adding a link to information on reclocking, but I'd like someone more knowledgeable about Wikipedia etiquette to weight in on that. Aawood (talk) 14:49, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
Good point -- the terms I suggested were not an improvement. But the use of jargon still grates, given its implications. 'Reduced-clock-speed', or something like that? quota (talk) 11:10, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
Underclocking appears to be the proper term for it and has its own article so we might as well use that term.Towel401 (talk) 07:58, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
In other news it does have a noisy fan and it runs nearly all the time, it still runs quite hot sometimes Towel401 (talk) 07:58, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
Remember that not all Eees have a fan (mine, a Surf 2G Black) does not, or if it does, it doesn't make any noise)... (see discussions in various forums,etc.) quota (talk) 15:35, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Transparency

I think it would be nice if someone could make the background of the eee PC image transparent. 149.225.56.17 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 20:11, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Done. --Kebes (talk) 20:24, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

2nd edition gets other cpu

See this website The new cpu of the 2nd gen EEE pc will be a Intel Atom. Perhaps this might be 64-bit ? Add in article. 81.246.174.123 (talk) 09:30, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

It's already in the article. quota (talk) 11:04, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

It's not mentioned however that the Eee 901 indeed uses a 64-bit cpu; which allows running of 64-bit OS's (to which we will all switch in the near future)

81.241.162.27 (talk) 18:04, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

701 and 702 model 8GB?

Are there two separate versions of the 8G? Mine appears to be a 702 but if you have a look on the interwebs there are places selling 701 8G´s and also plenty of places selling 702´s. is there a difference between them? Towel401 (talk) 17:30, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

fReAky screen

Can someone please explain why this computer has such a freaky screen, with that ugly black border? Why was this necessary, seriously? Danks Holon67 (talk) 14:51, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't know about freaky. The screen's small, presumably to (a) reduce the price and (b) make the battery last longer. Having decided to use a screen smaller than the machine, they've used the space round it for the speakers (to either side) and the webcam (above the screen). Seems a funny way of asking the question really, unless you expect ASUS to come on here and answer for their design decisions.... Casper Gutman (talk • contributions) 16:52, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
The EEE pc 900 that will be released soon, will have a 8.9" screen with speakers on the underside of the laptop http://eeepc.asus.com/global/news03042008.htm Гedʃtǁcɭ 17:16, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Asus Eee PC 900

Please include details in this article about the Windows and Linux versions of the new Eee PC 900 on the specifications table. See http://crave.cnet.co.uk/laptops/0,39029450,49295848,00.htm for details. Dessimat0r (talk) 17:34, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

ASUS website now contains specs on the 900 @ [1] - has them combined into one column with SSD disk size the only difference. Could use this format 210.84.20.86 (talk) 13:54, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
If you can edit this Talk page you can edit the article, too. Please do. Also, recommend you register as a user so you don't show up as as list of small integers :-). quota (talk)

please can you tell me which mobile broadband i can use with my Eee PC 2G surf —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.0.57.104 (talk) 16:24, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Sales

Anyone knows how many units have been sold worldwide? Would be nice to put in the article.--Kozuch (talk) 21:24, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Eee PC 900 resources

Videos:

--Kozuch (talk) 23:12, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Keyboard Info

What is the spacing between centers of keys? 24.26.128.185 (talk) 13:44, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

External links, References, Reviews

I suggest followind section order (as mostly usual in articles):

  • References
  • External links
    • Reviews

--Kozuch (talk) 21:47, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

There's absolutely no need for 10+ review links anyway. Two or three of the most reputable should be added directly to the extlinks section, which should be the last section on the page. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 21:49, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
Agreed. There were once almost no external links at all (except asus.com) on this page... once.--Kozuch (talk) 22:24, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

EEE PC front side bus is 400 MHz

The information about DDR2 frequency is (partly) wrong: the Celeron-M ULV 353 supports only 400 MHz. It means that DDR2 400 MHz are sufficient for all actual models (including the 900). Of course DDR2 533/667 will still work, however it is not required. I was going to modify the article (memory section) however I see that there is a reference for this incorrect information. I'm new to wikipedia posting, please advice.

See details http://www.eeejournal.com/2008/05/eee-pc-cpu-for-700-701-and-900.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by EEE Journal (talk • contribs) 15:47, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

CD connection

I suggest that a CD reader, at minimum, is an essential for any general purpose PC. It should be available to reboot when the OS gets damaged. I infer that there is none. I suggest the two questions here should be answered in the article. To load from disc is it necessary to have available a USB CD drive ? Are recovery discs provided in the box ? Reg nim (talk) 20:35, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Put my request another way - can the article report if there is rom bootstrap that recognises a usb drive. Reg nim (talk) 10:25, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

To answer your question, I have a Linux USB key which I put Ubuntu on and the eeePC 901 BIOS can be set to boot off it without issue. There are no recovery CDs/keys supplied in the box with the eeePC. It looks like it is also possible to netboot the eeePC off it's wired interface. 80.4.12.138 (talk) 07:52, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Graphics card

According to the asus spec page for the 900, http://eeepc.asus.com/global/900.htm , it uses the Intel UMA as it's display card which, correct me if I'm wrong, is different to the Intel GPA on the 700 versions. The table of specifications on the wikipeida page does not reflect this. Or are they actually the same thing? Robket (talk) 21:28, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Table of available asus models

some of these are not on the table [2] Machete97 (talk) 18:16, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Display section - weasel words

"Some users complain.." it says in the display section. If there's a citation for this could it be changed to refer to those who complain in the citation? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.70.188.26 (talk) 18:54, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Criticism section needed!

Every professional review mentions that the Asus Eee has a truly bad keyboard, which literally forces people to make typos. 82.131.210.162 (talk) 09:31, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't 'literally' force people to make typos. 79.77.248.181 (talk) 10:13, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
Better would be to add an "Input devices" section after "Display" that mentions the unusually small keyboard (ideally giving key pitch and discussing some of the compromises) and talks about some of the other features like the touchpad on the various models. (I don't have the information to write this myself). Populus (talk) 21:26, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

It's subjective. My girlfriend loves the keyboard on her Eee and can type very fast on it. --8bitJake (talk) 21:03, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Compatible Operating Systems

The list of known compatible operating systems can be expanded to include Win2k Pro SP4, Win98SE, Xubuntu, DOS, FreeDOS, and others.

For news, info, and details on how to install these OS's and others to the internal SSD, SD card, external USB / HDD, etc. see the EeeUser Forums: http://forum.eeeuser.com/

Felipe (talk) 03:01, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Mandriva officially support their Linux distribution on the eee PC: Mandriva eeePC Support

--RedDogInCan (talk) 07:01, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

The Package

In the Eee 70x packaging you get:

the main unit itself, one battery pack, an quick guide, instruction manual (with how to install Win XP), DVD with drivers and the Xandros Linux (without the external DVD drive), portable travel charger, in some countries the Eee PC storage bag!

The box is sized like a normal notebook PC. We hope that in the next version ASUS will give us more content in the product boxes! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.200.18.226 (talk) 17:13, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

901

section of 900 should include the new 901 and the table should include more of the specs as should the side bar as Asus has put it on their website for citing —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.212.128.80 (talk) 22:47, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

The chart needs to mention Bluetooth and 802.11n at the very least, those are the big new features of the 901 that make it more worth the price increase.--TexasDex ★ 18:21, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

A little ambiguous

"Both the 1000 and the 1000H have up to 2 GB of DDR RAM. " Does this mean that they support up to 2GB of RAM or that they come with up to 2GB of RAM? i hardly think it could be the latter at least for the windows XP model as microsoft have placed strict limits on the XP versions of these sub-notebooks (RAM may not exceed 1GB) not sure if there's limits on aftermarket upgrades (probably would be put in the BIOS) either but i assume not. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.137.100.134 (talk) 04:17, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Macbook Air

Agree with this edit.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=ASUS_Eee_PC&diff=221628417&oldid=221574804

Macbook Air is a totally different class and should be removed. 71.146.95.218 (talk) 18:47, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

They're both modern subnotebooks. You just have to pay the Apple Tax on the MacBook Air. JCDenton2052 (talk) 19:22, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
And a Smart is the same as a Ferrari, they're both modern gasoline automobiles? Agree with removal. --Justfred (talk) 18:12, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
False analogy. The Eee PC and the MacBook Air are in the same class of computers. The Smart and a Ferrari are not in the same class of cars. That would only be valid if I had made an argument that it should be included because they both run on electricity. JCDenton2052 (talk) 23:51, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
MacBook Air [current version] says: "The MacBook Air is a thin, lightweight, Apple Macintosh MacBook notebook computer" Subnotebook [current version] and Comparison_of_subnotebooks [current version] has no mention of the Macbook Air. The MacBook and the MacBook Air have the same screen size. It seems like if the Air belongs here, so does the 76.21.107.7 (talk) 05:27, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

If such a class of computers (that contains the EEE and Air) exists, then just point to the reliable sources that define this class and we can present that information in Wikipedia. Otherwise, the class you speak of is original or at least unreliable and not appropriate to publish here. --Ds13 (talk) 00:33, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Not separate as in in a category by itself. They are different. Wikipedia speaks of a class of Netbooks that does not include the Air76.21.107.7 (talk) 05:27, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Removed. There is no reason for see also to include the Macbook Air (or other similar competing products from other vendors), even if it were in the same "class" which I believe we've established that it isn't.--Justfred (talk) 22:33, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

300,000 units sold

This article states that the ASUS sold over 300,000 units in 2007, and references a Forbes article (http://www.forbes.com/markets/2007/06/07/intel-asustek-laptop-markets-equity-cx_jc_0606markets3.html). However, the Forbes article states that the EeePC "would come to market in late summer with a conservative sales target of moving 200,000 units in 2007" and does not say anything about actual sales. Is there another citation for actual sales? Also, what about a citation for ASUS's "plans to sell several million in 2008?"

Perhaps this ASUS press release will work better, http://www.asus.com/news_show.aspx?id=9039 (see the third paragraph). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.107.0.71 (talk) 22:42, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Factory-Installed Operating System

Is there any substantial difference between the hardware of say, a Windows and a Linux Eee PC?

Say, if I buy a Windows Eee PC (cheaper here!), can I install Linux on it, or if I buy a Linux version, can I install Windows on it instead? --202.8.27.5 (talk) 03:17, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

No (on hardware), yes (on install OS). You can even install other Linux distributions or (with a little work and by breaking the EULA) install OSX.--Justfred (talk) 14:41, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, Justfred! --202.8.27.5 (talk) 00:21, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
Just a quick note: This is true for the 700 series, but NOT for the 900. If you get a 900 with Linux installed you get 20GB of flash storage, whereas if you get the Windows XP version it comes with only 12GB to offset the cost of the Windows license.--TexasDex ★ 16:27, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Links

I'm in favor of removing the excess links; however, eeeuser is the best resource I found for dealing with the machine, seems like it should be included back; the rest can go.

--Justfred (talk) 15:12, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

I second this; the eeeuser website is useful, factual, and comprehensive. To put this in perspective Asus have, on occasions, responded to some support requests by directing users to the EeeUser website. Aawood (talk) 11:20, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
That's of utterly no relevance. External links are for linking to a) the direct home pages of article subjects and b) very select encyclopedic resources which cannot be included in their entirety in Wikipedia. The external links section is not for guidebooks, manuals, help or support, community sites or any number of other things which may be very useful to people who happen to own the product that an article describes. Wikipedia is not a hub to get around the Internet. People who own the product are frankly not really the target audience. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 13:15, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
Who says? A quick check on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:External_links, under what should be linked; "Sites with other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article, such as reviews and interviews.". In fact, it's made clear several times that external links should be considered on a case-by-case basis. With the obvious exception of Asus' homepage, I think you'll have a hard time finding an Eee-related website more worthy of external linking than eeeuser. It's meaningful, it's relevant, and the huge amount of information isn't directly suitable for inclusion in the article. The page also says nothing about disallowing "guidebooks, manuals, help or support, community websites", or anything similar that I could see. Aawood (talk) 14:55, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
Unless you're reading a different WP:EL to me, exactly how is it that a site whose title is (and I quote) "a Blog Forum Wiki Community" not exactly the kind of thing which we should be avoiding per points 10, 11 and 12 of "links normally to be avoided"?
At no point in WP:EL is "support sites", "help" or "guides" given as an example of something to include. This is an encyclopedia, not a guide to the Internet, and if Acer think said site is so important then I assume they link prominently to it from their own page, which puts it only one degree of separation away from us for the truly desperate Eee user who (for some bizarre reason) goes to Wikipedia before Google for their support requests. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 15:06, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
Oh, we're looking at the same page, you're just ignoring half of it. For example, note that points 10, 11 and 12 mentioned fall under "links normally to be avoided" as opposed to "links to always be avoided" or "links to on no account include ever". (Further note that point 11 has an addendum for "those written by a recognized authority"... the site's been recognised by Asus themselves, which is about as close as you'll get... and point 12 has an addendum for wikis with a history of stability and a large numbers of editors, which for a given value of "large" they have.) Further examples include; "Each link should be considered on its merits, using the following guidelines" (note guideline, rather than rule), and Links To Be Considered 4 "Sites which fail to meet criteria for reliable sources yet still contain information about the subject of the article from knowledgeable sources.". We can go back and forth quoting particular lines that suit our side, but I say again it's made pretty clear that what is on that page are guidelines, recommendations, advice, but not rules... and that editors should make case-by-case judgements. In this case, that site should be included. We're only two voices here, we both have our thoughts on what should happen; I invite anyone else who has an opinion to weigh in. Aawood (talk) 19:01, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
As stated above, and in due consideration of WP:EL and other similar pages, I still believe that this link should be included. eeeuser is the canonical resource for eee information, providing far more useful info than the Asus site.--Justfred (talk) 22:30, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
What encylopedic information is present there that cannot be included here? Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 22:44, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
I'm not seeing a guideline in WP:EL that suggests the information in links should be "encyclopedic". The site is full of accessible, relevant, meaningful, relatively unbiased content, but has far too much information to be included here.--Justfred (talk) 00:07, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
What "relevant and meaningful" information is included there that could not be included here? Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 09:15, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure if you've been to the site, but it's *huge*. It's chock full of in-depth details about the workings of the default OS, quirks of the way they've set up the hardware, possible modifications (software and hardware), changes that have been mode both between models and within each model, reviews of the devices and related items, huge stacks of pages on how to get around various system issues... I could go on. "Relevant" and "Meaningful" are both words open to interpretation, but the sheer scope of the site would make it difficult to choose what should be included and to reformat it for Wikipedia style... short of constant debates such as this on every individual detail. You said "Wikipedia is not a hub to get around the Internet"; I'd say it shouldn't try to replace it either. Besides, as JustFred said, there's nothing that says that links in a page should be encyclopedic, but information we hold on Wikipedia itself should be. The point we're making is that that that site, as a whole, is an excellent resource for current and prospective Eee users, as well as people just researching the system, even though it's not in and of itself encyclopedic. That's why we suggest it should be kept as an external link. (After all, if an external link has to be encyclopedic to be included, but encyclopedic information should be brought onto Wikipedia instead of linked to, then there'd be NO external links; that would beg the question why the facility is there in the first place). Aawood (talk) 11:21, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Backtrack

SOMEONE ADD BACKTRACK TO THE OS COMPATABLITY LIST —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.161.35.106 (talk) 19:44, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Display specs

I notice in the sidebar it says that the 1001 model will have a 10" screen. To my knowledge there is no 1001 model, so can somebody with editing piveliges please fix? N3hima (talk) 21:53, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Addition: Asus Eee PC 904 (and others)

Could someone add the 904 model at least?, possible with another table.. (starting to get crowded now). Electron9 (talk) 09:10, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

New 900 models

There are new 900 models (I just got one by surprise). The only change seems to be that both the Linux and XP ones have just one 16GB card (the slower one speed one).

At least the table should be updated with this. 71.135.226.206 (talk) 06:37, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Windows Pre-installed on 701 and 702 Models

I just bought an Asus Eee PC with Windows XP installed on it, and to my surprise, there is no mention of XP pre-installed on the 701 or 702 currently. This article should be updated to include that XP is available now, on both the article about the 700 series, and on the specifications table. (Oh, and if you need proof, just go on the home page for the Asus Eee PC. I can supply a picture of the box my Eee came in for more evidence if needed.) 71.210.87.111 (talk) 01:54, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

News of the 900 series

Why does this occur four times in the article? Can it be in one place?

It seriously looks like there should be a complete section to the article on the new series... instead of sprinling the info about the 900 series throughout the article.

SD-card reader corrupting flashmemories?

"Does the 701 support SDHC cards?"

http://forum.eeeuser.com/viewtopic.php?pid=340298

Electron9 (talk) 23:43, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

My experience has been that the SD card in my eeePC 900 will remain fine up until the point I use suspend to RAM. After this function is used the chance of seeing SD card corruption is very high. This corruption is not seen on USB devices (such as USB flash sticks or USB hard disks). As I only have one SD card with important data on it I am presently reluctant to experiment further.

137.44.10.6 (talk) 09:51, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Bot report : Found duplicate references !

In the last revision I edited, I found duplicate named references, i.e. references sharing the same name, but not having the same content. Please check them, as I am not able to fix them automatically :)

  • "'register_1000'" :
    • {{cite web|url=http://www.reghardware.co.uk/2008/06/03/asus_eee_1000/ | title=Asus announces 10in, HDD-equipped Eee PC }}
    • {{cite web | url=http://www.reghardware.co.uk/2008/06/03/asus_eee_1000/}}
  • "'engadget_1000'" :
    • {{cite web | url=http://www.engadget.com/2008/06/03/eee-pc-901-and-1000-series-specs-and-pricing/ | title=Eee PC 901 and 1000-series to start at USD 550}}
    • {{cite web | url=http://www.engadget.com/2008/06/03/eee-pc-901-and-1000-series-specs-and-pricing/}}

DumZiBoT (talk) 00:28, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Done —Reedy 19:58, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Asus_Eee_PC/Archive_3&oldid=1136535583"