Talk:Asus Eee PC/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Colors

I've seen pictures of the EEE pc in both black and white. Any info on other colors planned, if any? I'd personally like a bright orange ultraportable pc. CompIsMyRx 06:44, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Unofficially, no other colors will be offered as yet except for White and Charcoal (its not black); I currently am in Taiwan and asked my pals at Asus. Keep in mind, these will be mass produced for cheapness so producing many colors just adds to the expense. If you really require it, there are services online to paint your laptop. You can also take it apart and hand to any expert car painters, they can easily and professionally color your laptops like they do for the Alienware laptops (which are rebranded and car-sprayed Sagers which in turn are Compal and Clevo laptops).--ShrimpCrackers 15:49, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Some evidence of other colours: [1] Power piglet 05:35, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Pictures from the ASUS event show colors for the "surf" models. Perfectionist TN 17:39, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

CPU

As can be seen on http://ngkwongtak.blogspot.com/2007/08/eee-pc-in-hkccf-2007.html, or, more specifically on http://bp3.blogger.com/_AnB08Ffvex4/RtBCaMCx3YI/AAAAAAAAABM/4oOl4A0IGJY/s1600-h/CIMG1915.JPG . This is indeed a Dothan-512 900. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.10.204.8 (talk) 09:02, August 27, 2007 (UTC)

Merge vote

Merge - We only need one article. --Basique 19:12, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

• I was bold. I can't fathom anyone not wanting to merge. Power piglet 22:11, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Agreed! Nice job. --Basique 21:20, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

This page here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ASUS_Eee - needs merging with the current one --Mountpanorama

I merged it. There was really very little of use that wasn't in the current article. I left out "full-sized keyboard", because two of the reference links contradict this. I left out the rumours of 3G support, since it's not clear to me that what is probably the source ([2]) is actually asserting that the Eee might have it. I left out that the "Windows version costs an extra $100 more than the Linux version" since I didn't see a source. (Can somebody find one?) I'm not sure that the remainder was actually worth merging, but oh well. :-) Power piglet 09:50, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Wow Power Piglet, someone was making a lot of stuff up in that other article. At Computex the guys personally told me and others that 3G and cellphone support can be added via external cards but will not be built in. This is significant because external 3G cards are not compatible with many other devices such as Windows Mobile devices In addition none are coming with Windows, they have the Windows key because the laptops will come with XP drivers. They will not run Vista and will ship with a Xandros variant instead. From the pictures its obvious its not a full sized keyboard. --ShrimpCrackers 15:55, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Screen

Somebody added:

Video resolution of the Eee PC-701's 7 inch screen is only 800x480 pixels. [...] This relatively low video resolution is disappointing when compared to the much better 1200x900 pixel OLPC XO-1's 7.5 inch screen resolution.

Are people really criticizing the Eee for this, or is this original research? The OLPC's resolution is only 1200x900 in black and white mode. The OLPC article estimates the resolution in colour mode to be 693x520, which has a lower pixel count than the Eee's display. Power piglet 04:23, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't know about "people", but I know it is disappointing to me. My current ultraportable has an 800x600 LCD and it does have trouble with some websites. For this reason, I think I prefer the 1280 width of the 10" version. Drizek 01:54, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I rewrote the section a little to make it more neutral. I'm guessing it was someone's personal opinion that they wrote into the article, since there wasn't cite for it. Tmdean 12:01, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Somebody added:

Although it must be noted that a higher resolution on such a small display can make fixed-size text and graphics (such as on a website) appear illegible as the dot-pitch of the pixels decreases.

This is simply not true. AFAIA, it uses either Konqueror or Firefox as a web browser, and both browsers have options for a minimum font size. It might cause problems with some graphics, but I personally use a 1920x1200 17" LCD and I have never seen any graphic that was difficult to read. Drizek 02:00, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I think the point the author was trying to make was that increasing the resolution won't necessarily make websites more readable, if you have to increase the size of the fonts for the text to be legible. Tmdean 12:01, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Belgian retailer

In that pricing section, it seems that retailer's price quotes 2GB of storage. That kinda screws their credibility don't it? Anyone cares to contact them. Lixy 00:04, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Just about any price is speculation, so to me that's just as good as all the other statements. Agentbla ^(talk) 18:42, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Shipment Date??

Anyone? Release date?? 209.79.200.82 01:32, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't think there's an official date yet, just rumours. This might be the most recent information, who knows how accurate it is... Power piglet 06:49, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Seems to have been pushed back to Sept/Oct. It's semi-official as the source is a mail straight from Asus. Could someone edit the article to reflect that. Thanks. http://www.eeeuser.com/forums/viewtopic.php?id=105 Lixy 09:24, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Exact Graphics Adapter

We know that the chipset is an Intel 910 series chipset, and we know that the graphics adapter is by Intel and is UMA (like all recent Intel graphics adapters.) Is this a regular Intel GMA900 adapter like on most 910 series chipsets, or something else? I've seen forum posts saying it is a GMA900, but nothing officially. If it is a GMA900 or better, then it would probably do Linux 3d desktop effects pretty well. Mikedep333 03:30, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

A post on http://www.eeehackers.com/forums/viewtopic.php?id=16&p=2 points to http://www.xandros.or.id/out.txt that reads:

00:00.0 Host bridge: Intel Corporation Mobile 915GM/PM/GMS/910GML Express Processor to DRAM Controller (rev 04) 00:02.0 VGA compatible controller: Intel Corporation Mobile 915GM/GMS/910GML Express Graphics Controller (rev 04) 00:02.1 Display controller: Intel Corporation Mobile 915GM/GMS/910GML Express Graphics Controller (rev 04) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.10.204.8 (talk) 10:16, August 27, 2007 (UTC)

Price

Regarding the quoted "£199" price, the refereced article does not state its sources, and reads like someone misread "$199". I'm going to take the GBP price out. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Revlob (talk • contribs) 10:30, 3 August 2007

Page Change

I changed the OS compat. listing from test to wiki-links. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Myspamhere (talk • contribs) 14:07, 13 August 2007

I removed the pointlesss list of Linux distributions. If one will run (and noone knows if it actually does), than the rest will run too. Agentbla ^(talk) 18:42, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Advertising?

This Wiki reads like an advertisement. Did Asus revise this article? --M.Neko 03:45, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Please start new topics at the bottom of the page. Agentbla ^(talk) 15:29, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Please start new topics at the top of the page. That way one can hide the toc and see the latest topics straight away, without having to wait for the whole page to load (these big ones take several seconds on a 1Mbps broadband, worse when connecting via dialup). quota (talk) 19:19, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the reminder. I recently heard of this product and after some research I found that information on this wiki page is rather meager so I decided to contribute what I found elsewhere. First time posting. Will keep improving as I dig out more on this product. ---Mike520 13:21, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

You are (a) violating copyrights by copy and pasting ASUStek advertising material, (b) not doing a good service to the Wikipedia by adding long essays that sound like advertisement and provide no new information whatsoever. If you have any original information that is not covered within the current article feel free to add that but do so in your own words. Agentbla ^(talk) 15:29, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

The section under "Marketing" is highly contentious: "The Eee PC is not a competitor to the OLPC XO-1, another inexpensive laptop computer..." and so on. Clearly Negroponte and the OLPC don't see it that way, he's made numerous interviews where he mentions Intel marketers going after their target market, trying to convince governments to invest in their PC instead of the XO-1. Moreover, he cites Intel marketing material which clearly compares their offering with the OLPC offering, and arguing theirs is better. So clearly Intel marketing don't hold this view either, at least unofficially. Although they've supposedly officially made peace, the issue seems to be the use of AMD CPUs in the XO-1.

I think this section should be removed, or made into a section covering the controversy.

sounds good (move to its own section, low down in the article, as first step). quota (talk)

Basically, if OLPC can't get the guaranteed presales from the various governments due to spoiler tactics like they accuse Intel of, then the XO-1 won't go into final production at all, and the project likely dead. Msandersen (talk) 14:48, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Also true (and maybe probable outcome) .. but that's for the OLPC article, surely .. and maybe after the fact. quota (talk)

Criticism needs citations too

Please cite a credible source when including criticism of this PC. The existing section was all original research. If you can cite a credible article for evidence of "price gouging" or a "faustian bargain" [sic] then please do so. White 720 20:36, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Concerning price: ASUS originally promoted the device at a price of US$200 which was the main reason for its popularity I assume (otherwise it'd be a fairly regular laptop). Any subsequent price quotes were significantly over this threshold; price gouging seems to be a fitting term. —Agentbla ^(talk) 07:55, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

That is not price gouging -- that's just misleading information. Please read the article on price gouging to understand what the term means and why it doesn't apply to pricing of an unreleased consumer electronics device. I think bait and switch is a more applicable term for Asus's misleading info. White 720 18:31, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Bait and switch doesn't work either, because there was no "You can buy it at $price in $store" advertising that would not have been met when at stores - it wasn't available. It simply wasn't in stores at that time so there is no possible way a bait and switch could have taken place. It's simply people speculating based on previous reports that were also speculations based on inferences taken from the few official ASUS announcements. There was never a $199 4G announced by ASUS. There was a $199 system announced with 2GB of storage in a separate press release from the 4GB announcement -- which itself had no price stated. --69.242.142.89 (talk) 23:58, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Offical Pages Up

ASUS now has offical pages up for the Eee PC. Thus, I have modified the layout and sections a bit to reflect that. The 700, 701 and 801 can be found by looking in the drop down lists in the ASUS support FAQ. 69.242.142.89 20:58, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

CPU

The CPU is not running at 900Mhz it is down clocked to 630Mhz. (http://forum.eeeuser.com/viewtopic.php?id=491) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.226.129.165 (talk) 07:46, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Mine is 900MHz

> cat /proc/cpuinfo 
processor       : 0
vendor_id       : GenuineIntel
cpu family      : 6
model           : 13
model name      : Intel(R) Celeron(R) M processor          900MHz
stepping        : 8
cpu MHz         : 900.000
cache size      : 512 KB
fdiv_bug        : no
hlt_bug         : no
f00f_bug        : no
coma_bug        : no
fpu             : yes
fpu_exception   : yes
cpuid level     : 2
wp              : yes
flags           : fpu vme de pse tsc msr pae mce cx8 apic sep mtrr pge mca cmov pat clflush dts acpi mmx fxsr sse sse2 ss tm pbe nx
bogomips        : 1261.27
clflush size    : 64

Sorry, your CPU ISN'T running at 900 MHz. For P-IV and Celeron-based chips, the reported Bogomips will (approximately) equal (CPU speed * 2). Your cpuinfo table is showing a bogomips of 1261.27, which is consistent with a real speed of 630 (630 * 2 = 1260). The cpu MHZ speed figure is obtained from the chip itself. The Celeron in the EEE PC is *rated* for 900 MHz, but underclocked to 630 MHz, as shown by your bogomips score. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.65.192.1 (talk) 20:46, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Voice recognition?

I don't see anything here about the voice recognition software on the Eee. It's there, and it works. --69.141.206.123 01:25, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps you could add the info? 124.190.154.133 13:14, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Cleanup

Why is the price mentioned in every section in three currencies including shop links? This info will be outdated in a few month anyway? Many other information is also presented more than once... This article needs a clean up. -- 87.187.63.3 21:44, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

No idea on why three currencies -- one is enough. But clearly price is of interest to many readers/editors, and is part of the significance of the device. And Wikipedia should be up-to-date and relevant.

On shop links -- I agree these could be adverts -- but they are also encyclopaedic references that show a real offered price (as opposed to the rumours quoted in earlier versions of the article which were over-optimistic). So I'll put one ref back in -- feel free to replace with a better ref with the price that is not a shop link. quota 20:02, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

The prices are in 3 currencies for the following reasons:

1. price is the driving force behind this product (otherwise it would be another [very bad] (sub)notebook/UMPC
2. the whole marketing and development of this product is based on its price and not for instance on the display resolution, battery run time, CPU power etc.
3. original price was set in NT$. Since nobody knows what it is and/or how much it is in USD, the price is converted to USD
4. american and british retail prices are there to show how much more expensive these products are outside Taiwan and/or in Europe/North America (obviously the premium is anywhere between 6-15%)

24.81.130.107 12:36, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

The shop link is rubbish, it does not belong in an encylopedia. Yes, the price is maybe of some significance. But really only the introduction price is of any interest, if at all. 1) yes, announced and real price should be mentioned, once. 2) Mentioning the price once is still enough. 3 & 4) The different currencies, he premium in some countries etc. is the same for all products, one price range should be enough.

The article is horrible. I will take some useless info out -- 87.187.36.43 20:43, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Windows licence price

The article which lists the price of Windows for Eee PC reads: Just before the launch, [Microsoft] agreed to give Eee PC buyers the option of getting Windows for under $40, more than a third off the standard price.

I'm curious what version of Windows (XP) costs $60? Is it the OEM version? 24.81.130.107 10:05, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Images

I have added an Image to the article [3] if any more are needed leave a message on my talk page and I'll endeavour to take one. Г^edʃtǁcɭ 11:36, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Looks a wee bit dirty, don't you think? Can you get one which is more white? 195.137.4.228 20:42, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

I will try again later on today. Г^edʃtǁcɭ 09:16, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I have Changed it for an improved Image. Г^edʃtǁcɭ 11:24, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Could you change it to another image, where there is no flash in the picture? Maybe a lower shutter speed?--Frozenport (talk) 21:51, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

The image linked above is a white Eee PC, and is not the current image shown on the page. I prefer the white image as it looks much cleaner than the black image. If someone wants to take a similarly nice pic of a black one I wouldn't mind but the current black image looks hastily taken. I'm going to revert it back to the second white one. --69.242.142.89 (talk) 17:14, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Table

I have added a table to prevent the messy and confusing lists Г^edʃtǁcɭ 13:50, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Wi-Fi card

Now the article list Wi-Fi card as 'Atheros AR5007EG 802.11b/g wireless LAN' which is based on lspci output. A picture of the Wi-Fi mini PCIe card taken during disassembly shows something else. 24.81.130.107 08:37, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

The chip is made by Atheros, it's a ar5bxb63. The mini pcie card that houses it is made by someone else. AzureWave, apparently. I have the same wifi chip in my laptop, windows thinks it's an Atheros 5006x. My card is made by a company called AsKey, a division of Toshiba, I'd wager. It's the same as buying a Radeon graphics card that's made by Sapphire; ATI made the chip, Sapphire made the board and marketed it.

plus, lspci isn't always accurate and Atheros in particular is notorious for mislabeling or misreporting the specific names and model numbers of their chips, they seem to follow no logic in numbering their revisions and tend to make subtly different changes and revisions without telling anyone.24.68.85.188 10:08, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Article needs updating

It is obvious by now that the model pricing and model names and specs have changed, so why hasn't the table been updated? So far we only have hard specs for a single model of Eee PC the others need to be removed until we have hard specs for them as well. --Basique 17:38, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

On the updating note, this should be linked to by ASUS --Reagle 21:45, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Questionable Pricing info

Is the 700/2g/$299 version even available in the USA? The article implies it is, but I've yet to see it anywhere. Everyone is selling the 701/4g $399 version instead (and haven't seen the $349 "surf" version yet, either.)

Is there a bigger LCD?

On an unrelated note, has Asus cancelled the 1024x768 10" LCD version altogether? If so, why is there no mention of this in the article? I specifically remember that the highest-end machine was going to have this much nicer display. --Lode Runner 22:18, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

http://www.eeeuser.com/2007/11/14/rumors-about-10-eee-pc-8g-are-false/ Skuld^{‡ insult} 09:43, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

The 10" version is still mentioned in an article (in Dutch) on the Dutch ASUS website (article dated June 2007).

http://www.asus.nl/news_show.aspx?id=7947

It's mentioned in the last paragraph of the article that the 10" version will cost around $299.

Stuff

PC World now have this instock for £177+VAT (£208.73 inc vat) which is close enough to the £199 target that it seems that it was not a typo of $199 (http://www.pcwb.com/catalogue/item/ASUSNB16)

Plus, can anyone explain these pictures: http://www.micropc.se/forum/viewtopic.php?t=15 they seem to be multiple versions of the eee pc.

-- 87.127.79.189 (talk) 21:24, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

SDIO? GPS?

Will it accept SDIO cards like GPS receivers for example? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.148.150.168 (talk) 09:46, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Size & weight?

The thing I most want to know is its size & weight. Oh yeah, and the battery life. Does anyone know? Dublinblue (Simon in Dublin) (talk) 01:28, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

You could try reading the article... quota (talk)

Unrelated source files

In the article at the moment is: "however the company as of late November only released an archive of unrelated files instead of the required actual source code" ... (what is 'the actual source code', by the way?).

That seeems a bit harsh .. much of the content is surely the source for the software shipped. It looks very much as though someone was given the task of 'find all the software we used and put it in a zip'. And with ship deadlines and the like they did actually do that. There must have been more pressing things to worry about. So congratulations are in order, rather than sniping. quota (talk)

On the contrary, the GPL terms are crystal clear and should be part of the whole product release and not be a side-issue. Proper software licensing is not an option; what would happen if ASUS sold the Eee bundled with a pirated Windows copy? —Agentbla ^(talk) 22:05, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. If they're currently violating the GPL, then they're violating the GPL. It's not Wikipedia's place to "congratulate" anyone--we're simply reporting the facts. --Lode Runner (talk) 15:29, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

In response to the "They're being evil!!!1!" stories being posted ASUS has asked for help identifying what is in violation. I added that info to the page. If ASUS continues to ignore reports of violations *that are sent directly to them* then it may be time to make a report that is more harsh than informative. --69.242.142.89 (talk) 00:01, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Using Wikipedia as a means of berating a company is surely just as inappropriate as using it to congratulate a company (which I was not suggesting). It is at best 'original research', and is certainly unhelpful. Fine in blogs and Talk pages -- but it's not encyclopedic. See WP:NOT quota (talk) 11:54, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Since Asus the day after posted relevant sources and the Wifi driver is BSD licensed not GPL as stated I think the statement is very misleading and could be construed as slander. Not what I would have in an encyclopedia. Boylinux (talk) 06:00, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Warranty?

The article mentions the Warranty and then proceeds to assert that the Magnusson-Moss Warranty Act actually makes upgrading the RAM not a violation of the warranty. I've read the Act and would someone please explain how the Magnusson-Moss Warranty Act applies to this case? If there is no explanation, I suggest that the reference to the Act be deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.190.164.162 (talk) 14:57, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

The Magnusson-Moss Act explicitly negates required 'tie-ins' in warranties. For instance, it would be unenforceable to say 'Unless you get service at our dealership, your warranty is voided'. It would be legal to say 'The warranty requires preventive maintenence to be performed every six months. You can have this maintenence performed by anyone. However, any improperly performed maintenence voids this warranty.' It is in unenforceable 'tie-in' to state that a user cannot open a panel on his machine (implying that only the vendor can). Only if damage can be directly attributed to the opening of this panel (and any subsequent actions) can the warranty be voided legally, uner the M-M act.

Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act

I've removed discussion concerning the Magnunson-Moss Warranty Act. The only source support is conjecture by a non-lawyer concerning the tie-in provision (Section 102(c) of the Act, 15 U.S.C. 2302(c)). The statute only prohibits tie-ins where an "article or service (other than article or service provided without charge under the terms of the warranty) [] is identified by brand, trade, or corporate name." This is inapplicable to the Asus eee PC warranty for 2 reasons: 1) no "brand, trade, or corporate name" is used to identify a tied-in article or service and 2) the alleged prohibited tie-in only consists of "article or service provided without charge under the terms of the warranty" (i.e. warranty repair by Asus). --24.7.16.88 04:09, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

The Federal Trade Comission's website says that businesses may not have warranty terms which void the warranty if repair or upgrade work is performed by somebody other than a "factory authorized" repair center. It explicitly says that warranties may only be voided due to third-party work if the work caused the malfunction. I think the person is right but it is admittedly original research in this case, until I can find a more direct source that says that "warranty void if removed" stickers are not legally binding. --TexasDex ★ 19:26, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorry. Your deletion is incorrect. The sticker noting 'Warranty void if removed' implies that ONLY the manufacturer can remove that panel. This implicitly requires the servicing of this element by the manufacturer, which definitionally specifies a 'corporate name', since the manufacturer is a corporate entity. I believe there is case law on the topic (altho I'm not going to worry about tracking it down). I believe there as a case where a manufacturer attempted to claim that their warranty requirement that repairs be made by 'factory-trained and authorized repairmen' was not voided under MM, because they did not specify a specific individual or entity...only that the entity have certain qualifications. The court held that the clear judicial intent of the law was to prevent such explicit tie-ins, and that the warranty requirement was void, because in practice, it would limit the repar work to specific (even though unnamed) entites. You cannot get around the intent of this law by finding some clever wording (that implies a specific legal entity) while trying to avoid mentioning a specific legal entity in an explicit fashion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.65.192.1 (talk) 20:55, 11 January 2008 (UTC)