Talk:ASUS Eee PC

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the ASUS Eee PC article.
Article policies
Archives: 1, 2
Archive
Archives
Archive 1 Archive 2
About archives

Contents

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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.

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] Eee PC 900 resources

Videos:

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

[edit] Keyboard Info

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

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] Table of available asus models

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

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)