Talk:Asus Eee PC/Archive 4

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

Infobox / Processor details

There have been a couple of back-and-forth changes to the processor speed in the infobox, myself being involved in these. The Infobox originally said that the processor was 900mhz, underclocked to 630. However, baring in mind the article is about Eee PC as a whole rather than the original 700 series, this is no longer accurate; the 2G Surf was underclocked further than this, the 900 series are not underclocked, and the new 1000 series don't even use the 900mhz mentioned.

Elsewhere in the infobox, details have been written for the range of specifications available, but these are also now out-of-date in many instances, and it also seems a bit much at this point... aside from duplicating a lot of the information from the spec table in a harder-to-read format, it's going to get more out of hand as more models are released with more changes. The infobox in it's current format is not being maintained, and is long-term unmaintainable.

I invite a more experienced Wikipedia user to suggest the correct approach going forward; in the meantime, I suggest either altering each item in the infobox to just show the min/max available, rather than each possible item for each model, or to go a step further by removing any system specs that are variable across the range, as they're already given more accurately in the specifications section. Rather, the infobox could focus on items that are standard across the range, or on information related to the range as a whole (existing information such as developer, type and website could be extended with worldwide sales, original production date etc). Thoughts? Aawood (talk) 12:25, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree. The infobox is getting too long, and too confusing with multiple versions of the Eee PC. If you look at how other Wikipedia pages on multi-version systems deal with this problem, there are various approaches:
  • Have a minimal infobox that only specifies details common to all models (e.g. manufacturer), and leave the rest of the stats in text. (E.g. ThinkPad.)
  • Have a minimal infobox for common data, and use a table to show the differences between models. (E.g. MacBook, MacBook Pro, HP Pavilion).
  • Put a separate infobox in the sub-section for each model. (E.g. iBook.)
I think any of those approaches is fine, and all are better than the current overly-long infobox. I think the 2nd option is probably best: a short infobox summary, and then a table that allows a quick comparison between the models. --Kebes (talk) 19:58, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I've just simplified it for the moment. Looks a bit neater now. —Reedy 19:03, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Specifications table requires 1356 pixels screen width

The big table in the Specifications section has really good content. But its formatting must have some unusual features in it. Normally, my web browser is very good about reflowing and reformatting html tables to any screen width, even down to 800 pixels across or less -- it just wraps text in each table cell as needed. But this particular table, in the Specifications section, forces sideways scrolling (which I find annoying) if my window width is less than about 1356 pixels. If I go into page edit mode and delete the table entirely, then the entire Article agains fits in any screen width. Rahul (talk) 00:05, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Maybe it's time to rotate the thing? Put the machines on the left, and the items on top. Mariano(t/c) 08:45, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
I was wondering the same today... I've expanded it, but left its overall width the same... —Reedy 18:00, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

retailing

I think it would be nice to mention that the eee PCs are not everywhere available (right from the start).

Here in Australia they started selling the eee pc (first version) exclusively by Myer and only after a few weeks with other retailers. When I first looked many popular online shops did not stock the eee. 210.80.142.30 (talk) 22:30, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

In Spain the Windows XP version is more expensive than the Xandros Linux version. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.126.151.163 (talk) 11:14, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Specification Updates

I've added the 904HD, 1000HD, 900A and 900 16G.

Theres still the 701SD to add, and we list the "Eee PC 8G (702)" extra to what asus lists at [1]

Theres a few empty bits currently, and some that are likely slightly wrong, and some references that might need removing/adding as extras

—Reedy 17:49, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Added the 701SD, and a chipset row. —Reedy 21:24, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

a few minor things

It seems like this article still reads like rumors of when the 700 series was about to come out or just after it came out, so I went through and (non-exhaustively) tried to make clear where a given paragraph referred to the 700 series but didn't say so. -Mzandrew (talk) 07:23, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Also, there's a section that's obsolete, except for historical purposes:

Asus originally announced both a 10-inch (254 mm) and 8.9-inch (226 mm) Eee PC,[5] but later indicated that they do not intend to produce a 10-inch (254 mm) model at this time. At CES 2008, Asus confirmed that new models would be released in Q2 with new features which would include WiMax, and the option of a 7 or 8.9 inch (178 mm or 226 mm) display.[102]

Is it okay to delete this from the article? -Mzandrew (talk) 07:23, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

I'd pretty much say so, its now wrong/irrelevant =) —Reedy 14:04, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

OS Support

There is confusion on whether this PC will support other OS's. Windows 2000 has been favored due to smaller drive footprint and faster booting time, however, compatibility reports have been mixed and a bumpy ride for some. Many prospect buyers could benefit from more detail about how and if it's possible this OS to work properly on the EEE-PC hardware. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.121.92.198 (talk) 04:03, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

There seems to be a conflict between User_talk:Reedy and myself regarding the addition of Windows 2000 in the compatibility section of this article. Instead of reverting the article, I've posted here to avoid an edit war and open up possible discussion. I had added the Windows 2000 table and left it blank in hopes to encourage somebody in-the-know to contribute this information. I can understand a possible reason why they may think this is not needed, being that Windows 2000 is a dated OS, however, it has sparked much interest recently on this particular model due to it's fast boot times, small disk footprint on an otherwise limited hard drive, and simplicity desired for a mini-PC. There has been reports of people successfully installing this OS, however, many have had problems with certain drivers and none of these claims are backed up with verifiable sources yet. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.121.92.198 (talk) 05:16, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Memory

Interestingly, my new Eee 901 linux had 1GB of PC2-3200 (400mhz)

Not 533/667 listed

Did upgrade mine to a 2GB stick of PC-5300 (667mhz) and its loads faster on the stock OS

Whats anyone elses been? As we really should change the table, as it would be the same for other people i suspect... (Presumably for all models, they just can support PC-667)

—Reedy 20:10, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

[2] - Someone else stating it is PC2-3200. —Reedy 20:17, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I am in Hong Kong and bought an EEEPC 901. It was bundled with one 1GHz DDR2 400MHz RAM. (The machine can run on 533MHz clock rate, so I replaced this slow RAM as soon as I bought. The machine can support installing a 667MHz RAM but can only run 533 MHz — being limited by the FSB of Atom N270) --✉ Hello World! 16:55, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Battery

In Malaysia the 1000H is sold with the mentioned 6 cell 6600 mAh in the 80G version only. The 160G version is using a battery of a different technology (did not catch the name), offers only 5700 mAh AND has a bulk about 1 - 1 1/2 cm on the back of the machine. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.50.118.31 (talk) 02:05, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

External links

The "admin approved links" that apparently contain no ads (false) and are non commercial (probably false) that seem to me to be a violation of WP:EL have been re-added. Would someone care to link me to this instance of an admin for some reason allowing guideline violations? Rehevkor ✉ 13:23, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

See Links... and I think we should add back eeeuser.com. -- Raysonho (talk) 01:57, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
Reading through WP:EL I can see little reason to include it. It basically seems like little more than a blog, and not a very comprehensive and outdated one (looking for information on my Eee PC gives me few results.) Unless you're prepared to dig in this rather badly designed site I don't feel it ads anything to the article. Rehevkor ✉ 02:23, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
Actually, not eeeuser.com, but forum.eeeuser.com -- Raysonho (talk) 02:45, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
Well that's even worse WP:EL wise. It explicitly states forums are to be avoided. Rehevkor ✉ 03:08, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
Well, I find it to be really useful. But if WP:EL explicitly states that forums are to be avoided, then I am OK with not including it. -- Raysonho (talk) 03:48, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
I placed the comment "admin approved links" as the two links in question were considered to offer value for the reader as information (I don't know how updated it is now) from the eeeuser page provided and since overclocking is of interest to many of the readers the second site was approved as it is a fact based how-to and links to a free software (open source under the GPL terms) designed specifically for the eeepc. These links have been preserved and in place really since the creation of this article. Unfortunately I cannot find the name of the moderator but this article has been locked in past for external links and stripped of all but the three links which were left in place - considered admin approved. If you look back as far as June 08 (as far as I can go back) these three links are the only ones that have stayed on - until you deleted them of course. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Archerman2000 (talk • contribs) 18:09, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
So that's what you mean. It counts for zilch. Protecting a page is not to be considered an endorsement of the protected page, it is simply to prevent edit warring. Admin attention other than protection is typically only used for flagrant breaches of policy. There is no notion of an 'admin approved' external link - it is not a power they possess, over and above expressing an opinion which is the right of any user. CrispMuncher (talk) 18:31, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
Just because they've always been there doesn't mean they should stay there. Rehevkor ✉ 19:48, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

pronounciation

I do not understand from the article how to read 'eee pc'. Should I say "ee-ee-ee-pee-see"? This could have been made clearer. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.73.248.37 (talk) 13:29, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

"eee-pee-see" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.250.81.77 (talk) 20:07, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

Well done, this article is great. Thanks to all the contributors. --84.227.55.226 (talk) 20:51, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Capitalization

Shouldn't the article name be "Asus Eee PC", as per the Manual of Style? It is quite strange to see the article ASUS as "Asus" because of the MoS, but this one with "ASUS" in all caps. — isilanes (talk|contribs) 10:26, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

News models and specs to be added?

There is a S101 that has been announced in October 2008. Has increased SSD storage. Very few vendors are selling these as of late December 2008. Tim Legg, Illinois USA 72.54.34.34 (talk) 19:34, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

I've see a 900HA advertised but can't find any official specs? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.208.36.118 (talk) 20:39, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

See the specs for all the models here: http://event.asus.com/eeepc/comparison/eeepc_comparison.htm

I've made a small change to the 701-SD spec. It isn't always sold with the 30GB external drive. Personal experience, here in the UK. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.71.223.204 (talk) 22:21, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Not editing the page, but from first-hand experience: - 1000HD does in fact have Bluetooth interface, it doesn't have Wireless-N. - both 904HD as 1000HD processors run at full speed (or 897,72 MHz to be exact) - the "boot time" comparing should be avoided: X windows can start as soon as system enters multi-user run-level without even configuring network, audio devices etc., so it's pretty pointless to judge. Besides, my 904HD boots Win XP (up to login screen) in 24 seconds, as fast as my Linux from Scratch. What does it mean? As much as nothing, it's again comparing "apples to oranges".

Ahem, booting Windows up to the login screen means nothing. After logging in, you're faced with a long wait before you can actually do anything. Besides, wasn't this test done on a 700? You touting your experiences on a 904HD is probably what's really apples to oranges in this case. CapnZapp (talk) 20:35, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
Might be so, but I'm still inclined the comparing boot time should be done with back-to-back unbiased test. An no, "long wait before you can do anything" does not apply in my case. Just my 2 cents worth. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.5.157.64 (talk) 10:32, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Also not editing the page (for current lack of a verifiable trusted source) but AFAIK all 901 models except the 901GO have the primary 4GB SSD on a socketed module which is removable (albeit after opening the case) - this is incorrectly stated as "soldered" in the specifications table. In addition, the Storage section does not mention the 901 at all. I do have many sources from forum.eeeuser.com which I could cite, including pictures of motherboards with SSDs. Member eee4evr of forum.eeeuser.com/145.64.134.224 (talk) 08:08, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

SSD interface

The article claims the larger SSD in the 900 series is a "PCI Express Mini SSD", windows claims both SSDs are on one of the chipset IDE ports. Can anyone further explain what is going on

I believe FLASH_CON is only physically similar to Mini PCIe, which causes the confusion. In fact it's proprietary ASUS connector with one PATA, one SATA lines and +3.3V power. See pinout here : http://img255.imageshack.us/my.php?image=eeeflashconpinoutso8.jpg .
Note1: the PATA present here (on which 8/16GB SSD D: is hooked up in eee901) is _probably_ same line as ZIF connector for 1.8" HDD. (first PATA channel is already used by onboard 4GB SSD)
Note2: there is one documented hack on 901 consisting of soldering in a SATA port. This port CAN be used simultaneously with both(PATA) SSDs.
Note3: there are 3rd party SATA SSD replacement modules for this slot. Hypothetically using one would free up ZIF PATA lines.

Agent_L(2009-03-11) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.252.115.250 (talk) 12:10, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Firefox 3?

When will Asus add official support for Firefox 3 on all Eee's? 213.112.128.157 (talk) 15:11, 12 February 2009 (UTC)


Specs

As an owner of the 900A iv noticed a few discrepancies, the first of which states the 5800MAh battery gives 3h and 30 mins life.. this must be wrong, as i have the standard 4400MAh one and in both xp and windows 7 the battery life is about 3-4 hours average...

Also it states it comes with DDR2-400, mine and my friends both came with DDR2-667 (bought in uk)

and for the soldered SSD it says "8GB or 4GB(USA) or None (Germany)" that supposed to mean only germany has the one with no soldered SSD? cause that's wrong, mine has no soldered one, only the 8GB one in the mini PCI-E socket... in fact i think usa is the only place that has soldered SSDs in 900A's... as far as i know... anyway that's all... 82.30.174.237 (talk) 18:26, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

More on Specs

Nice article. Answers a lot of questions I had about the reconditioned 900's Best Buy is selling. I don't think I can post the link without being accused of spamming, but they seem to be selling them without the 16GB SSD, just 4GB not 20GB. Is there a door for inserting/removing the 16GB SSD? No mention of battery size -- what is the source for the statement BB supplies only the smaller? Any info on noise level of the fan? Andyvphil (talk) 22:54, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Compatability of Linux distributions with ASUS Eee PC

The current article includes a block graphic showing, for a number of Linux distributions, their compatability with ASUS Eee PC.

1 Mandriva is missing from this table. I run Mandriva 2008.1 on both a 701 and a 900A. In both cases Mandriva supports all features of the model.

I am trying to get the wireless of an Eee PC 1000 HE to work with Mandriva 2008.1 and it seems to be impossible, especially since the drivers that Asus provided on the enclosed DVD seem to be the wrong ones (at least that's what ndiswrappers says). So, to speak of "compatibility" is a step too far, IMHO. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.159.75.84 (talk) 20:53, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

2 The current graphic suggests that Arch Linux also supports all features. In my view this is misleading. The basic Arch Linux supports nothing. It does not even have a GUI. It enables people to build bespoke Linux systems. You can create your own package repository and, if you are enough of a Linux geek to know how, you can include in that repository the packages needed for ASUS Eee PC. But the 'out of the box' Arch Linux does not give you anything beyond a shell that accepts command line input. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.238.149.106 (talk) 12:35, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

The "Debian" row is a bit misleading as well since it makes no distinction between stable and unstable. On my 901, touchpad support is available as a kernel recompile (with the appropriate option set) rather than a patch, and Ethernet and RALink wireless both work fine. This is using a kernel source from unstable, stock Debian patches, nothing special. Granted, my kernel was rebuilt based on a configuration taken from the Debian-on-eeePC project's kernel, but the very existence of that project (running a more eeePC-compatible kernel and some eeePC-specific scripts over an otherwise stock Debian install) is another thing the "Debian" row doesn't account for. Given that Linux kernel 2.6.29 has support for pretty much all eeePC hardware now, it might be best to condense everything into a single "Linux" line rather than create these sorts of rapidly-outdated distro wars in table format. — Wisq (talk) 17:44, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Asus 701 SD uses an updated wifi card plz fix in the specstable

Note from Asus user: I am not an experienced wiki user so i am not going to edit the specks chart myself. But i can confirm that the eee 701 SD uses this wireless card.


701 SD does have a new wireless card:

RTL8187SE http://www.realtek.com.tw/products/productsView.aspx?Langid=1&PFid=40&Level=5&Conn=4&ProdID=172



Links about the701Sd wireless card

http://forum.eeeuser.com/viewtopic.php?id=57217 http://img407.imageshack.us/img407/6183/dscf0431qg3.jpg http://syn.theti.ca/tag/rtl8187se —Preceding unsigned comment added by KalliG (talk • contribs) 09:53, 13 April 2009 (UTC) dont foget to tern it on

No documentation for mouse gestures

I own an Eee PC 901, and find that it implements quite a few 1, 2, and 3-finger touchpad gesture commands. Yet its manual (both hardcopy and PDF) describes only the simplest of these. Nor is there any mention of gestures in the mouse applet in Control Panel. An hour of Web searching failed to uncover reliable and complete documentation. Perhaps this lack of documentation and the need for the user to learn by experimentation deserves to be noted in the article. David spector (talk) 20:02, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Specs table?

I'm suggesting moving the specs table to a different article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.10.238.89 (talk) 09:24, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

I would think it belongs here. What are your reasons, and to what new or existing article would you move it? David spector (talk) 16:03, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
I don't know the original poster's complaint, but it does break up the article a lot, meaning the text on the configuration, educational use and popularity are all half hidden by the length of the table. If breaking it up is undesirable, perhaps it could be moved to the end to it doesn't break up the more "encyclopedic" content? ShadowRangerRIT (talk) 16:38, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

I would also suggest making the cells that have data stand out from the ones that don't, maybe by making the blank cells darker. That would make the table much more easy to comprehend...If only Asus actually had such a table. 130.39.205.156 (talk) 16:47, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Asus 900HA

I recently bought (3 months ago) a eeepc 900HA, but i had the problem that it is mentioned almost nowhere. The 900ha is similar to the 900hd and the 900a in that it has the hard disk, and a intel atom. It is not mentioned in the article. When i have time i will add it in the appropiate places. Nando.sm (talk) 05:34, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

There are no so many verities of Eees it'd be unviable to go into intricate detail of every one. The article is a mess of tables as is. Rehevkor ✉ 11:15, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Asus 1005HA models

Just to make things confusing there are three models in the 1005HA class, the 1005HA-B, the 10005HA-V, and the 1005HA-P. I've put a line for the 1005HA-PU1X in the Comparison of netbooks but the table for the Asus page is already too complicated to contemplate adding three more models. Rakerman (talk) 00:33, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

The camera resolution for low-end models is not clear, Asus specs say "1.3M Pixel / 0.3M Pixel - Availability is dependent on selected model." [3] but Best Buy appears to sell the 1005HA-B with a 1.3 megapixel camera. Rakerman (talk) 18:44, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Help!!! my ee pc is Going weird! it flashes between a black screen 2 times every second or so and won't stop, Help! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.219.181.249 (talk) 11:48, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

1008HA and 1101HA models

...too. They too need to be added to the page's comparison table.

Please update the page. CapnZapp (talk) 20:07, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Linux over-represented

The Software section -- and the whole of the article in total frankly -- vastly over represent the role and place of linux. The vast majority of Eee PC netbooks run Windows, yet this article reads like an advertisement for linux.

Their is a lot of evangalism taking place here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.90.147.243 (talk) 18:03, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

The Eee started out as a big linux platform, that's why. As nowadays Microsoft has edged out the competition, feel free to update the article. CapnZapp (talk) 20:05, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Agree... The Eee started out with Linux, it was a real break away - and there are still millions of people using the earlier models with Linux. It IS of major historical interest to see HOW they implemented Linux into the small sized notebook. This is what encyclopedias are all about, to document and record history. However, perhaps in the future, there may be a separate section called LINUX IMPLEMENTATION ON TINY LITTLE NOTEBOOK COMPUTERS! (needs better title :)... ) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.192.8.80 (talk) 00:41, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

I've just had a go at reordering the software section, so it reads a little better now, feel free to edit what ive done though, since i dont know much about eeepcs myself

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Asus_Eee_PC/Archive_4&oldid=1136294309"