Andy Random wrote:
>
> On Sun, 25 Nov 2007, Jack Knight wrote:
>
>> The CPU is underpowered for Vista, and again, light for XP. Linux
>> however because of its modular rather than monolithic (should I say
>> megalithic) design plays well with the original design because the
>> un-needed stuff can be left out. Those who want a windows based
>> machine will expect it to do all the things they can do on a more
>> powerful notebook or desktop machine. The worst that will happen is
>> that the EEE pc's name will be tarnished as a result because "it has
>> crap performance under Vista/XP" or "there's not enough memory" etc.
>> Leave it along with the cut down Xandros it has, and it stands a chance.
>
> While I don't disagree with the sentiment here my practical experience
> doesn't quite match.
>
> I find the Eee (which has a 900MHz CPU and 512MB RAM) actually feels a
> little sluggish, the GUI isn't always as responsive as I'd expect and
> I sometimes find I'm opening two windows because the response is slow
> enough I'm not sure it worked the first time so click again when I
> should have just waited a bit longer.
>
> Compare this to my JVC laptop which admittedly was much more
> expensive, but is still only a 933MHz processor with 320MB RAM, it
> runs XP very well and I never have the same problems there.
Are you serious? What 320MB RAM? XP runs really slow on my AMD64 laptops
with 1GB RAM and 2GHZ processors! I suppose if I spent 3 hours every
month to re-installed it it would be quicker but I don't need XP, even
on a monthly basis.
>
> I don't know whether this is an issue with the version of Xandros the
> Eee runs or whether Asus have cut some hardware corners in an effort
> to keep costs down and the machine actually has some bottlenecks
> somewhere, but I'd be interested to play with an Eee running XP just
> to see how it performed... though not interested enough to actually go
> to the trouble of installing it on my machine :)
Surely it is obvious XP wouldn't be anywhere near the speed. But I
suggest you try it and let us know.
>
> I do wonder if the article was actually written by someone who had
> played with a machine or simply read about them though as personally I
> find the battery life less than stellar and the "instant" on to be
> anything but instant, taking about twice as long as the quoted 15
> seconds to power up from cold.
30 seconds is slow then? Seems fine to me. The battery life isn't as
good as the spec says but neither is any laptop I've had.
>
> I agree though that the Eee isn't a full sized machine and shouldn't
> be compared to one, the 7" screen is more limiting than I expected
> (bearing in mind that I'm used to a 9" screen on the MiniNote) and
> there are some other niggles that definitely mean it's not a
> replacement for a real laptop, but on the whole it's a nice little
> machine for traveling with and certainly good value for money IMO.
Yes, the screen quality isn't brilliant but at this price I wouldn't
expect the quality of a £600 laptop. So it is no surprise it isn't a
laptop replacement, but it is a brilliant portable device and far better
than a normal laptop.
As with everything, you have to compare like with like and at this price
is it at handheld level and it is a powerful machine for its size.
John.
--
--------------------------------------------------------------
Discover Linux - Open Source Solutions to Business and Schools
http://discoverlinux.co.uk
--------------------------------------------------------------
