Asus eee PC 1000H

Discussion in 'NZ Computing' started by Gib Bogle, Jan 5, 2009.

  1. Gib Bogle

    Gib Bogle Guest

    Gib Bogle, Jan 5, 2009
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. On Jan 6, 9:41 am, Gib Bogle <> wrote:
    > I'm seriously considering buying one of these (to use while travelling
    > and for presentations).http://www.playtech.co.nz/product.php?action=showdetail&id=6297
    > Any reports or comments would be appreciated.


    probably only last a year before faulty...
    they seem lightly built.
    plus display isnt much, would the processor even run a powepoint
    presentation?
    invest in a quality thinkpad next time you pass thru KL or sinagapore,
    half the price of NZ
    John in Wembley, Jan 7, 2009
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Gib Bogle

    Gib Bogle Guest

    John in Wembley wrote:
    > On Jan 6, 9:41 am, Gib Bogle <> wrote:
    >> I'm seriously considering buying one of these (to use while travelling
    >> and for presentations).http://www.playtech.co.nz/product.php?action=showdetail&id=6297
    >> Any reports or comments would be appreciated.

    >
    > probably only last a year before faulty...
    > they seem lightly built.


    The fact that it is light is the main appeal. I haven't heard of early
    faults - have you?

    > plus display isnt much, would the processor even run a powepoint
    > presentation?


    The processor will certainly run Powerpoint with no trouble (1.6 GHz is
    plenty of power), but the issue of screen resolution for a remote
    display/projector is a major one that I need to find out about.

    > invest in a quality thinkpad next time you pass thru KL or sinagapore,
    > half the price of NZ


    I don't really want a full-size laptop.
    Gib Bogle, Jan 7, 2009
    #3
  4. Gib Bogle

    PeeCee Guest

    "Gib Bogle" <> wrote in message
    news:gk2tet$qf3$...
    > John in Wembley wrote:
    >> On Jan 6, 9:41 am, Gib Bogle <> wrote:
    >>> I'm seriously considering buying one of these (to use while travelling
    >>> and for
    >>> presentations).http://www.playtech.co.nz/product.php?action=showdetail&id=6297
    >>> Any reports or comments would be appreciated.

    >>
    >> probably only last a year before faulty...
    >> they seem lightly built.

    >
    > The fact that it is light is the main appeal. I haven't heard of early
    > faults - have you?
    >
    >> plus display isnt much, would the processor even run a powepoint
    >> presentation?

    >
    > The processor will certainly run Powerpoint with no trouble (1.6 GHz is
    > plenty of power), but the issue of screen resolution for a remote
    > display/projector is a major one that I need to find out about.
    >
    >> invest in a quality thinkpad next time you pass thru KL or sinagapore,
    >> half the price of NZ

    >
    > I don't really want a full-size laptop.




    Gib

    Can't give you chapter & verse on the 1000H but I did set up an ASUS Eee Box
    202 with Atom N270 CPU as a display device recently.
    The two are closely related hardware wise, using the Intel GM945 chipset if
    I remember correctly.

    Resolution output was not an issue maxing out at over 2000 x 1200.
    720p HD Video ran fine.
    We were using it to display either Powerpoint or Flash based advertising on
    large LCD TV's.
    Worked a treat as with a little fiddling we could leave them to the staff to
    just switch on and they would automatically run the advertisments.
    They also made for a tidy installation by mounting everything on the back of
    the LCD.
    (We ran them sans keyboard & mouse)

    Best
    Paul.
    PeeCee, Jan 7, 2009
    #4
  5. Gib Bogle

    ~misfit~ Guest

    Somewhere on teh intarwebs "Gib Bogle" typed:
    [snip]
    > The processor will certainly run Powerpoint with no trouble (1.6 GHz
    > is plenty of power)


    Gib, we are long past the days when you could judge "power" by Hz. An Atom
    (single core N270)1.6 GHz, while being an impressive little CPU, is nowhere
    near as powerful as a Core2Solo at 1.6, or a Celeron 420 at 1.6. It's not
    even as powerful as the Pentium M 1.6GHz "Banias" in this 4 year old
    ThinkPad I'm using, by quite a long shot. It may well be about equal in work
    throughput to a Pentium 4 "Williamette" <cough>dog<cough> 1.6GHz though.

    Please, let's not fall back into the old ways of judging a CPU by it's speed
    in Hz alone. The Pentium 4 1.6GHz wasn't as fast (in most ways) as the top
    Pentium IIIs that ran "slower", that it replaced.

    Cheers,
    --
    Shaun.
    ~misfit~, Jan 7, 2009
    #5
  6. Gib Bogle

    Lodi Guest

    >On Thu, 08 Jan 2009 11:50:04 +1300, ~misfit~ wrote:

    > Somewhere on teh intarwebs "Gib Bogle" typed: [snip]
    >> The processor will certainly run Powerpoint with no trouble (1.6 GHz is
    >> plenty of power)

    >
    > Gib, we are long past the days when you could judge "power" by Hz. An
    > Atom (single core N270)1.6 GHz, while being an impressive little CPU, is
    > nowhere near as powerful as a Core2Solo at 1.6, or a Celeron 420 at 1.6.
    > It's not even as powerful as the Pentium M 1.6GHz "Banias" in this 4
    > year old ThinkPad I'm using, by quite a long shot. It may well be about
    > equal in work throughput to a Pentium 4 "Williamette" <cough>dog<cough>
    > 1.6GHz though.
    >
    > Please, let's not fall back into the old ways of judging a CPU by it's
    > speed in Hz alone. The Pentium 4 1.6GHz wasn't as fast (in most ways) as
    > the top Pentium IIIs that ran "slower", that it replaced.
    >
    > Cheers,


    Apologies for the ignorance but how is a computer's speed judged. I'm
    more software than hardware orientated. I just go by CPU speed and RAM
    when someone asks me to recommend a new laptop or desktop. I always
    thought it was much of a much-ness nowadays.

    A few google keywords will be fine. Please no statistic-filled poly-
    syllabic discourse that you hardware gurus love revelling in :)

    Regards
    Lodi
    Lodi, Jan 8, 2009
    #6
  7. Gib Bogle

    ~misfit~ Guest

    Somewhere on teh intarwebs "Lodi" typed:
    >> On Thu, 08 Jan 2009 11:50:04 +1300, ~misfit~ wrote:

    >
    >> Somewhere on teh intarwebs "Gib Bogle" typed: [snip]
    >>> The processor will certainly run Powerpoint with no trouble (1.6
    >>> GHz is plenty of power)

    >>
    >> Gib, we are long past the days when you could judge "power" by Hz. An
    >> Atom (single core N270)1.6 GHz, while being an impressive little
    >> CPU, is nowhere near as powerful as a Core2Solo at 1.6, or a Celeron
    >> 420 at 1.6. It's not even as powerful as the Pentium M 1.6GHz
    >> "Banias" in this 4 year old ThinkPad I'm using, by quite a long
    >> shot. It may well be about equal in work throughput to a Pentium 4
    >> "Williamette" <cough>dog<cough>
    >> 1.6GHz though.
    >>
    >> Please, let's not fall back into the old ways of judging a CPU by
    >> it's speed in Hz alone. The Pentium 4 1.6GHz wasn't as fast (in most
    >> ways) as the top Pentium IIIs that ran "slower", that it replaced.
    >>
    >> Cheers,

    >
    > Apologies for the ignorance but how is a computer's speed judged.


    By amount of work done in a set time.

    > I'm
    > more software than hardware orientated. I just go by CPU speed and RAM
    > when someone asks me to recommend a new laptop or desktop. I always
    > thought it was much of a much-ness nowadays.


    Hell no.

    > A few google keywords will be fine. Please no statistic-filled poly-
    > syllabic discourse that you hardware gurus love revelling in :)


    LOL.

    You could look up whetstone, dhrystone and MIPs. Also SuperPi, a simple test
    of a CPU's raw power much loved by overclockers as the CPU can often produce
    a different result with the same Hz but faster bus speed. There are a few
    simple benchmarking utilities around that simply give an (unexplained)
    score. I still largely use CPUMark ver 1.0 as I have results for comparison
    going back over a decade. It only tests one core so I simply multiply the
    result for multi-core CPUs.

    However, there are better (read: More complex) benchmarks out there. Most
    review sites Use SiSoft Sandra, a hardware 'discovering' and testing
    programme. 3DMark also gives a result for CPU and that is often quoted in
    reviews.

    There was a term coined by hardware journalists at the end of the last
    millenium / beginning of this one that was used to explain dinosaurs like
    the Pentium 4; The Megahertz Myth. It basically refers to how Intel designed
    and marketed the P4 on MHz alone as they were so upset that AMD beat them to
    the magic 1GHz figure (if only by days). Intel spent the next 5 years making
    inefficient CPUs with big MHz numbers and the punters made their purchases
    on that basis. It's what forced AMD to use their XPxxxx+ rating, to try to
    counter Intel's perverting/distorting of the market with big numbers and
    poor architecture.

    Cheers,
    --
    Shaun.
    ~misfit~, Jan 8, 2009
    #7
  8. Gib Bogle

    Gib Bogle Guest

    ~misfit~ wrote:
    > Somewhere on teh intarwebs "Gib Bogle" typed:
    > [snip]
    >> The processor will certainly run Powerpoint with no trouble (1.6 GHz
    >> is plenty of power)

    >
    > Gib, we are long past the days when you could judge "power" by Hz. An Atom
    > (single core N270)1.6 GHz, while being an impressive little CPU, is nowhere
    > near as powerful as a Core2Solo at 1.6, or a Celeron 420 at 1.6. It's not
    > even as powerful as the Pentium M 1.6GHz "Banias" in this 4 year old
    > ThinkPad I'm using, by quite a long shot. It may well be about equal in work
    > throughput to a Pentium 4 "Williamette" <cough>dog<cough> 1.6GHz though.
    >
    > Please, let's not fall back into the old ways of judging a CPU by it's speed
    > in Hz alone. The Pentium 4 1.6GHz wasn't as fast (in most ways) as the top
    > Pentium IIIs that ran "slower", that it replaced.
    >
    > Cheers,


    All true, but I don't doubt that it has ample power for my purposes
    while on the road: email, web browsing, Powerpoint editing/displaying.
    The one thing I might need to check is playing a video.

    Gib
    Gib Bogle, Jan 8, 2009
    #8
  9. Gib Bogle

    Gib Bogle Guest

    Lodi wrote:
    >> On Thu, 08 Jan 2009 14:35:32 +1300, ~misfit~ wrote:

    >
    >>> Somewhere on teh intarwebs "Lodi" typed:
    >>>> On Thu, 08 Jan 2009 11:50:04 +1300, ~misfit~ wrote:
    >>>> Somewhere on teh intarwebs "Gib Bogle" typed: [snip]
    >>>>> The processor will certainly run Powerpoint with no trouble (1.6 GHz
    >>>>> is plenty of power)
    >>>> Gib, we are long past the days when you could judge "power" by Hz. An
    >>>> Atom (single core N270)1.6 GHz, while being an impressive little CPU,
    >>>> is nowhere near as powerful as a Core2Solo at 1.6, or a Celeron 420 at
    >>>> 1.6. It's not even as powerful as the Pentium M 1.6GHz "Banias" in
    >>>> this 4 year old ThinkPad I'm using, by quite a long shot. It may well
    >>>> be about equal in work throughput to a Pentium 4 "Williamette"
    >>>> <cough>dog<cough>
    >>>> 1.6GHz though.
    >>>>
    >>>> Please, let's not fall back into the old ways of judging a CPU by it's
    >>>> speed in Hz alone. The Pentium 4 1.6GHz wasn't as fast (in most ways)
    >>>> as the top Pentium IIIs that ran "slower", that it replaced.
    >>>>
    >>>> Cheers,
    >>> Apologies for the ignorance but how is a computer's speed judged.

    >> By amount of work done in a set time.
    >>
    >>> I'm
    >>> more software than hardware orientated. I just go by CPU speed and RAM
    >>> when someone asks me to recommend a new laptop or desktop. I always
    >>> thought it was much of a much-ness nowadays.

    >> Hell no.
    >>
    >>> A few google keywords will be fine. Please no statistic-filled poly-
    >>> syllabic discourse that you hardware gurus love revelling in :)

    >> LOL.
    >>
    >> You could look up whetstone, dhrystone and MIPs. Also SuperPi, a simple
    >> test of a CPU's raw power much loved by overclockers as the CPU can
    >> often produce a different result with the same Hz but faster bus speed.
    >> There are a few simple benchmarking utilities around that simply give an
    >> (unexplained) score. I still largely use CPUMark ver 1.0 as I have
    >> results for comparison going back over a decade. It only tests one core
    >> so I simply multiply the result for multi-core CPUs.
    >>
    >> However, there are better (read: More complex) benchmarks out there.
    >> Most review sites Use SiSoft Sandra, a hardware 'discovering' and
    >> testing programme. 3DMark also gives a result for CPU and that is often
    >> quoted in reviews.
    >>
    >> There was a term coined by hardware journalists at the end of the last
    >> millenium / beginning of this one that was used to explain dinosaurs
    >> like the Pentium 4; The Megahertz Myth. It basically refers to how Intel
    >> designed and marketed the P4 on MHz alone as they were so upset that AMD
    >> beat them to the magic 1GHz figure (if only by days). Intel spent the
    >> next 5 years making inefficient CPUs with big MHz numbers and the
    >> punters made their purchases on that basis. It's what forced AMD to use
    >> their XPxxxx+ rating, to try to counter Intel's perverting/distorting of
    >> the market with big numbers and poor architecture.
    >>
    >> Cheers,

    >
    > Thanks for that Shaun. I particularly liked.....
    >
    > "If a computer is able to calculate PI to the 32 millionth place after
    > the decimal without mistake, it is considered to be *moderately* stable"
    >
    > I'll tell you now that when our silicon-based companions finally gain
    > self-awareness us carbon-based types are going to be in serious trouble
    > for making them do pointless exercises and then judging them harshly.
    >
    > FWIW, I'm not too sure how helpful benchmarking software is when I don't
    > have the computer to run it on (assuming someone is asking for my opinion
    > of an intended purchase which *surprisingly* happens quite regularly).
    >
    > I've never really given much credence to review websites, be they for
    > cameras, computers or travel destinations. I'd only feel sure if I were
    > the one running the tests. So I tend to stick to my "much of a much-ness
    > theory" with a caveat of "but I don't really know what I'm talking
    > about". Has yet to get me into trouble.
    >
    > In fact when my brother said he had a £400 budget to buy his son a laptop
    > for his first year at university I told him to get a Dell Studio 15
    > purely because the artwork on the case is sooooo cool. He may be down a
    > MIP or two but just think how many co-eds will hit on him when he whacks
    > that big boy down on the table :)


    Yeah, I always get a great response when I whack my big boy down on the
    table. ;-)
    Gib Bogle, Jan 8, 2009
    #9
  10. Gib Bogle

    oneofus Guest

    Gib Bogle wrote:
    > John in Wembley wrote:
    >> On Jan 6, 9:41 am, Gib Bogle <> wrote:
    >>> I'm seriously considering buying one of these (to use while travelling
    >>> and for
    >>> presentations).http://www.playtech.co.nz/product.php?action=showdetail&id=6297
    >>>
    >>> Any reports or comments would be appreciated.

    >>
    >> probably only last a year before faulty...
    >> they seem lightly built.

    >
    > The fact that it is light is the main appeal. I haven't heard of early
    > faults - have you?
    >
    >> plus display isnt much, would the processor even run a powepoint
    >> presentation?

    >
    > The processor will certainly run Powerpoint with no trouble (1.6 GHz is
    > plenty of power), but the issue of screen resolution for a remote
    > display/projector is a major one that I need to find out about.
    >


    They have the same display capabilities for external monitors/projectors
    as a full size laptop.
    I use an eeepc with a micro bluetooth through my cellphone as a data
    connection, and it definitely fills a niche that a smartphone, pda or
    full size laptop doesn't. Theres a lot of extra weight in a lappy with
    the extra glass and the hdd. I use 16GB USB and 16GB SD cards for
    storage and transfer and that's plenty. It takes up no more room in a
    shoulder bag than a small hardback book.
    I have used it for the usual office stuff, audio editing, viewing and
    making pdfs, photo editing, downloading and playing podcasts, music
    ebooks, audiobooks, watching full length xvid videos.
    They seem quite rugged, I've had mine completely apart to clean up a
    liquid spill, I followed a youtube tutorial, and there is a good online
    community of users and modders http://www.eeeuser.com/
    Next experiment is connecting through wifi to my phone with joikuspot
    http://joikuspot.com/ Anyone tried it ?
    oneofus, Jan 8, 2009
    #10
  11. Gib Bogle

    ~misfit~ Guest

    Somewhere on teh intarwebs "Lodi" typed:
    >> On Thu, 08 Jan 2009 14:35:32 +1300, ~misfit~ wrote:

    >
    >>> Somewhere on teh intarwebs "Lodi" typed:
    >>>> On Thu, 08 Jan 2009 11:50:04 +1300, ~misfit~ wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> Somewhere on teh intarwebs "Gib Bogle" typed: [snip]
    >>>>> The processor will certainly run Powerpoint with no trouble (1.6
    >>>>> GHz is plenty of power)
    >>>>
    >>>> Gib, we are long past the days when you could judge "power" by Hz.
    >>>> An Atom (single core N270)1.6 GHz, while being an impressive
    >>>> little CPU, is nowhere near as powerful as a Core2Solo at 1.6, or
    >>>> a Celeron 420 at
    >>>> 1.6. It's not even as powerful as the Pentium M 1.6GHz "Banias" in
    >>>> this 4 year old ThinkPad I'm using, by quite a long shot. It may
    >>>> well be about equal in work throughput to a Pentium 4 "Williamette"
    >>>> <cough>dog<cough>
    >>>> 1.6GHz though.
    >>>>
    >>>> Please, let's not fall back into the old ways of judging a CPU by
    >>>> it's speed in Hz alone. The Pentium 4 1.6GHz wasn't as fast (in
    >>>> most ways) as the top Pentium IIIs that ran "slower", that it
    >>>> replaced.
    >>>>
    >>>> Cheers,
    >>>
    >>> Apologies for the ignorance but how is a computer's speed judged.

    >>
    >> By amount of work done in a set time.
    >>
    >>> I'm
    >>> more software than hardware orientated. I just go by CPU speed and
    >>> RAM when someone asks me to recommend a new laptop or desktop. I
    >>> always thought it was much of a much-ness nowadays.

    >>
    >> Hell no.
    >>
    >>> A few google keywords will be fine. Please no statistic-filled poly-
    >>> syllabic discourse that you hardware gurus love revelling in :)

    >>
    >> LOL.
    >>
    >> You could look up whetstone, dhrystone and MIPs. Also SuperPi, a
    >> simple test of a CPU's raw power much loved by overclockers as the
    >> CPU can often produce a different result with the same Hz but faster
    >> bus speed. There are a few simple benchmarking utilities around that
    >> simply give an (unexplained) score. I still largely use CPUMark ver
    >> 1.0 as I have results for comparison going back over a decade. It
    >> only tests one core so I simply multiply the result for multi-core
    >> CPUs.
    >>
    >> However, there are better (read: More complex) benchmarks out there.
    >> Most review sites Use SiSoft Sandra, a hardware 'discovering' and
    >> testing programme. 3DMark also gives a result for CPU and that is
    >> often quoted in reviews.
    >>
    >> There was a term coined by hardware journalists at the end of the
    >> last millenium / beginning of this one that was used to explain
    >> dinosaurs like the Pentium 4; The Megahertz Myth. It basically
    >> refers to how Intel designed and marketed the P4 on MHz alone as
    >> they were so upset that AMD beat them to the magic 1GHz figure (if
    >> only by days). Intel spent the next 5 years making inefficient CPUs
    >> with big MHz numbers and the punters made their purchases on that
    >> basis. It's what forced AMD to use their XPxxxx+ rating, to try to
    >> counter Intel's perverting/distorting of the market with big numbers
    >> and poor architecture.
    >>
    >> Cheers,

    >
    > Thanks for that Shaun. I particularly liked.....
    >
    > "If a computer is able to calculate PI to the 32 millionth place after
    > the decimal without mistake, it is considered to be *moderately*
    > stable"
    >
    > I'll tell you now that when our silicon-based companions finally gain
    > self-awareness us carbon-based types are going to be in serious
    > trouble for making them do pointless exercises and then judging them
    > harshly.


    Hehee! 'Ware the wrath of the machines!

    > FWIW, I'm not too sure how helpful benchmarking software is when I
    > don't have the computer to run it on (assuming someone is asking for
    > my opinion of an intended purchase which *surprisingly* happens quite
    > regularly).


    Yeah, I know the feeling. However, what I do is find a general
    review/comparison of CPU families (Tomshardware have them often) which gives
    me some idea of how much work any given CPU within the same family can do as
    it's pretty much linear with MHz if the architecture is the same. I can then
    base any recommendation on that knowledge, taking into account budget and
    intended use.

    > I've never really given much credence to review websites, be they for
    > cameras, computers or travel destinations. I'd only feel sure if I
    > were the one running the tests.


    Yeah, I would agree with that view for complete devices but for discrete
    components like CPUs it's a lot simpler. Less touchy-feely opinion and more
    facts.

    > So I tend to stick to my "much of a
    > much-ness theory" with a caveat of "but I don't really know what I'm
    > talking about". Has yet to get me into trouble.


    LOL, again, know the feeling.

    > In fact when my brother said he had a £400 budget to buy his son a
    > laptop for his first year at university I told him to get a Dell
    > Studio 15 purely because the artwork on the case is sooooo cool. He
    > may be down a MIP or two but just think how many co-eds will hit on
    > him when he whacks that big boy down on the table :)


    Hehee! That comes under the category of "intended use".

    Cheers,
    --
    Shaun.
    ~misfit~, Jan 9, 2009
    #11
  12. Gib Bogle

    ~misfit~ Guest

    Somewhere on teh intarwebs "Gib Bogle" typed:
    > ~misfit~ wrote:
    >> Somewhere on teh intarwebs "Gib Bogle" typed:
    >> [snip]
    >>> The processor will certainly run Powerpoint with no trouble (1.6 GHz
    >>> is plenty of power)

    >>
    >> Gib, we are long past the days when you could judge "power" by Hz.
    >> An Atom (single core N270)1.6 GHz, while being an impressive little
    >> CPU, is nowhere near as powerful as a Core2Solo at 1.6, or a Celeron
    >> 420 at 1.6. It's not even as powerful as the Pentium M 1.6GHz
    >> "Banias" in this 4 year old ThinkPad I'm using, by quite a long
    >> shot. It may well be about equal in work throughput to a Pentium 4
    >> "Williamette" <cough>dog<cough> 1.6GHz though. Please, let's not fall
    >> back into the old ways of judging a CPU by
    >> it's speed in Hz alone. The Pentium 4 1.6GHz wasn't as fast (in most
    >> ways) as the top Pentium IIIs that ran "slower", that it replaced.

    >
    > All true, but I don't doubt that it has ample power for my purposes
    > while on the road: email, web browsing, Powerpoint editing/displaying.


    It should be fine for those. Paul ran a benchmark using CPUmark ver. 1.0 on
    an Atom 1.6 for us in Sept. of last year (I just Googled it) and I checked
    the results against my saved results for CPUs over the years. It got a score
    of 111. For comparison, the closest score to that I have on record is an old
    Celeron Tualatin 1.4GHz with a score of 110. My ThinkPad's Pentium M
    (Banias) 1.6GHz gets 176 and a Celeron 420 1.6GHz I bought last year gets
    211.

    I just wanted to make the point that not all CPUs running at 1.6GHz are
    created equal. The Atom wins the "power to weight ratio" hands down, however
    it's only able to handle a little more than half of the work that a
    single-core Celeron 420 1.6 can get through.

    > The one thing I might need to check is playing a video.


    I'll shamelessly steal from one of Paul's posts to this group dated August
    28th 08,
    http://groups.google.com/group/nz.comp/msg/77fffa382ef6c028?dmode=source&output=gplain
    on the results of his test with an Asus Eee box running the same CPU (and
    graphics accelerator AFAIK):

    "I was curious to see how it handled HD video. i.e. would it make a HTPC?
    Well if you want 1080i & up no it won't do, sound goes OK but Video is just
    a series of stills.
    However bring it back to 720p and it runs just fine. "

    I'm pretty sure it'd be fine for xvid//DivX or normal res video.

    Cheers,
    --
    Shaun.
    ~misfit~, Jan 9, 2009
    #12
  13. Gib Bogle

    oneofus Guest

    Gib Bogle wrote:
    > ~misfit~ wrote:
    >> Somewhere on teh intarwebs "Gib Bogle" typed:
    >> [snip]
    >>> The processor will certainly run Powerpoint with no trouble (1.6 GHz
    >>> is plenty of power)

    >>
    >> Gib, we are long past the days when you could judge "power" by Hz. An
    >> Atom (single core N270)1.6 GHz, while being an impressive little CPU,
    >> is nowhere near as powerful as a Core2Solo at 1.6, or a Celeron 420 at
    >> 1.6. It's not even as powerful as the Pentium M 1.6GHz "Banias" in
    >> this 4 year old ThinkPad I'm using, by quite a long shot. It may well
    >> be about equal in work throughput to a Pentium 4 "Williamette"
    >> <cough>dog<cough> 1.6GHz though.
    >>
    >> Please, let's not fall back into the old ways of judging a CPU by it's
    >> speed in Hz alone. The Pentium 4 1.6GHz wasn't as fast (in most ways)
    >> as the top Pentium IIIs that ran "slower", that it replaced.
    >>
    >> Cheers,

    >
    > All true, but I don't doubt that it has ample power for my purposes
    > while on the road: email, web browsing, Powerpoint editing/displaying.
    > The one thing I might need to check is playing a video.
    >
    > Gib


    I have a standard 701 and it plays xvid movies fine, quite useful as a
    travelling entertainment centre.
    oneofus, Jan 9, 2009
    #13
  14. Gib Bogle

    Damos Guest


    > All true, but I don't doubt that it has ample power for my purposes
    > while on the road: email, web browsing, Powerpoint editing/displaying.
    > The one thing I might need to check is playing a video.
    >
    > Gib


    I'll echo what several others have said.
    I have an E901 with the second sdd replaced with a 64G I bought from the
    US.
    Regarding its video handling ability I use it to stream movie avi's
    wirelesly so I can watch them in bed.

    Haven't tried playing any games with it as I have a desktop with 24" Dell,
    but it can easily do everything else I use a pc for. Take it to work, surf
    (doing it now while watching the cricket), done some
    powerpoint/wordprocessing work, checking digial photo's while on holiday.
    Its about 6 months old now yet I still get 6hrs+ from the battery. (cords
    stay at home) Got to the stage that I find my girlfriends 15" toshiba too
    big.


    D.



    --
    Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/mail/
    Damos, Jan 10, 2009
    #14
  15. Gib Bogle

    Gib Bogle Guest

    Damos wrote:
    >
    >> All true, but I don't doubt that it has ample power for my purposes
    >> while on the road: email, web browsing, Powerpoint editing/displaying.
    >> The one thing I might need to check is playing a video.
    >>
    >> Gib

    >
    > I'll echo what several others have said.
    > I have an E901 with the second sdd replaced with a 64G I bought from the
    > US.
    > Regarding its video handling ability I use it to stream movie avi's
    > wirelesly so I can watch them in bed.
    >
    > Haven't tried playing any games with it as I have a desktop with 24"
    > Dell, but it can easily do everything else I use a pc for. Take it to
    > work, surf (doing it now while watching the cricket), done some
    > powerpoint/wordprocessing work, checking digial photo's while on
    > holiday. Its about 6 months old now yet I still get 6hrs+ from the
    > battery. (cords stay at home) Got to the stage that I find my
    > girlfriends 15" toshiba too big.


    The version I'm leaning towards is the 1000H, which is a bit bigger -
    better screen and keyboard, 80 GB disk, but the drawback is of course
    the extra weight. My main concern has been allayed, since it is
    apparently easy to drive an external monitor/projector at a reasonable
    resolution, e.g. 1024x768, even on the 901.
    Gib Bogle, Jan 11, 2009
    #15
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. SoundBytes

    Asus Eee PC 4G 701 Help

    SoundBytes, Dec 30, 2007, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    970
    SoundBytes
    Dec 30, 2007
  2. Lawrence D'Oliveiro

    Asus launches Eee PC

    Lawrence D'Oliveiro, Oct 18, 2007, in forum: NZ Computing
    Replies:
    49
    Views:
    1,244
    Lawrence D'Oliveiro
    Nov 5, 2007
  3. Lawrence D'Oliveiro

    Asus Eee 701 PC

    Lawrence D'Oliveiro, Nov 15, 2007, in forum: NZ Computing
    Replies:
    58
    Views:
    1,620
    Matty F
    Dec 13, 2007
  4. Matty F

    ASUS EEE unloading USB device

    Matty F, Dec 15, 2007, in forum: NZ Computing
    Replies:
    26
    Views:
    819
    Dave Taylor
    Dec 17, 2007
  5. impossible

    Asus: Windows EEE will outsell Linux EEE

    impossible, Mar 22, 2008, in forum: NZ Computing
    Replies:
    42
    Views:
    1,366
    impossible
    Mar 31, 2008
Loading...

Share This Page