 |
 |
 |
|
 |
You are not logged in.
Hi all,
anyone seen anything to rival the eeePC's?
I got my 701 last year and loved it.....
I got my 901 last week and liked it..........
But really the 901 is too heavy compared to the 701, but the screen and general build quality is better on the 901....
And then comes the 903/904.... And forget the 1000's as even bigger.
So what to do?
I see from threads here even some senior members have gone over to Acer, Wind or others.....
Offline
Take a look at the Acer Aspire One. I saw it in the flash for the first time last weekend and came away mightily impressed. £199 at Currys (UK retailer) - it's just like the 701 price-wise (kind of impulse buy territory), but it's a proper Atom netbook so in what I perceive as the "second generation".
I have a Wind myself... well, it's an Advent 4211 - but I kept the trusty 701 (and to be honest, I prefer using it over the XP loaded Advent).
Offline
Lenovo and Dell will have competition.
Offline
The Apsire one, hands down. Its running a victory lap on the "spec to price" front @ $250.
Dual Sd card slots is one of its defining factors. 
Offline
Aspire One's price and looks is winning over some ppl...
the Dell netbook is getting some attention as well... but i think the Lenovo S10 is putting some pressure one
if sony comes out with a model and puts it in an aggressive price point *good luck with that* theres yet another competitor...
Offline
Hmmmm...Thanks all,
Acer looks ahead but although light it is a bit too big, the 701 was 225× 165×21~35 and the One is 249x170x29. The new Dell is supposed to be 232x175x21~32 and lighter than the 901....supposedly...so think I'm going to wait for it.
Asus hooked me with the amazing 701 but now I think the've lost the plot, their focus, and me!
S
Offline
Something with a 9" screen slightly bigger than the 901 but smaller than the 1000 with HDD would win me over.
Offline
samalama wrote:
Hmmmm...Thanks all,
Acer looks ahead but although light it is a bit too big, the 701 was 225× 165×21~35 and the One is 249x170x29. The new Dell is supposed to be 232x175x21~32 and lighter than the 901....supposedly...so think I'm going to wait for it.
Asus hooked me with the amazing 701 but now I think the've lost the plot, their focus, and me!
S
The Dell suffers some notable flaws you may want to look over too, primarily the kybd alignment and the FN keys.
Offline
htwingnut wrote:
Something with a 9" screen slightly bigger than the 901 but smaller than the 1000 with HDD
this is the definition of aspire one 
http://www.sizeasy.com/page/size_compar … one-vs-901
Last edited by painkill (2008-09-03 4:09:07 pm)
Offline
I dumped my 700 for the Acer Aspire One (White) and I am very happy. The AA1 price is unbelievable for such a quality product. Gives the MAC book a run for its money style wise.
Offline
^ yea thats true but i think thats all the AA1 has got going for it
it should put more pressure on Acer and bump up its specs to be on par
with the 901/1000h model in some way
Offline
216363 wrote:
^ yea thats true but i think thats all the AA1 has got going for it
No, it has dual SD card slots too.
Offline
Have you people recommending the Aspire One actually used one in comparison to the eee?
I was seduced by the price and specs and bought a girlie-white Linux-based AA1 for my girlfriend and after chasing down the drivers (not included with the AA1 or on Acer's website), installed WinXPpro (full install) just like on my 701 and 900.
Performance was attrocious. The MLC-flash-based internal SSD is so dog-slow it seems to take forever to boot up Windows or open an app. Once it is up and running the Atom performs fine, but the wait to get to that point can be excruciating.
We started calling it the "little computer that could" (I think I can, I think I can...) because it took so long to start anything up, but managed to somehow get the job done eventually. Single-digit reads and writes may be okay for flashkeys but for a system SSD they suck.
Now I'm worried she thinks I'm being cheap and dissing her by giving her this piece of krap when she can see how much better my eees perform.
Not only is the AA1 much slower than the eee, it's ridiculously oversized without any increase in the size or resolution of the LCD. It's got the same sized panel as the 900 and 901 in a case big enough to hold a 10" LCD. That's just poor engineering.
In all honesty, I can't recommend the Acer Aspire One to anyone, at least until they start using SLC-flash-based SSDs.
Last edited by JimboToronto (2008-09-04 3:59:18 am)
Offline
If I wanted to upgrade from my 901, I'd choose a Toughbook U1:
http://www.panasonic.com/business/tough … puters.asp
Unfortunately, I'm not made out of money. 
Offline
Final decision!
I just ordered the Dell Mini 9!!!!
16Gb SSD, WLAN, Bluetooth, 1.3 camera, 1Gb RAM, Atom processor, light and small :-)
Offline
The 901 is quite possibly one of the best purchases made in the history of Western civilization. Its just as powerful as my old Latitude X300 which I loved with a fiery passion.
The Aspire 1. doesn't look good at all and 2. has sub-par performance.
I actually had my old Latitude on my lap the other day (sold it a month ago) and I couldn't believe how "big" it was compared to the 901. I guess I've gotten used to the eeepc's size.
Offline
JimboToronto,
So you've had a less-than-amazing experience AA1 running Linpus with a SSD drive - yet I wonder if the whole experience changes with XP and a HDD, for very few bucks more?
Certainly there were lots of people who manually swapped out ASUS' Linux offering in place of XP when the Eee came out - so one wonders if the bigger problem is the OS and its universal functionality for consumers, not the devices.
And while I grant you there is something inherently sexy about SSDs, their much-heralded operation, stability and lifespan has yet to be proved by years of use, while their comparative size for price is a deja vu to RAM in the early 90s. 4G SSDs might have been fine in the Eee nearly a year ago, but the continued use (and marginal incremental increases with significant price bumps) is hardly warranted now.
While I've been very happy with my early 701, from a physical side by side and price comparison point-of-view, the AA1's I have seen seem to wipe the floor with ASUS' similar offerings with a 8.9" screen, XP and HDD.
Pity ASUS has so lost its way in a field they created.
Offline
>>>The 901 is quite possibly one of the best purchases made in the history of Western civilization<<<
Amen.
I don't have many complaints about my 901 that aren't merely cosmetic:
- I don't like the glossy case. It makes it look low-quality and chintzy like something made by an iPod company. The Galaxy Black of my 701 and 900 has a much more refined, elegant look. At least it isn't white. More importantly, at least it doesn't have a tacky-looking glossy screen.
- I'd prefer the case to be marked Asus instead of Eee. The Asus brand says, "performance and stability", while the Eee brand says, "easy easy easy".
- It's almost half an inch deeper than the 701. Smaller is better.
- It's several ounces heavier than the 701. Lighter is better.
- My spare 701/900 battery packs are not compatible.
- No HDMI or eSATA ports.
- It still has a fan. Replacing it with heatpipes and a heat-dispersing titanium case would get rid of the last moving part and add further battery life.
Other than that, it represents the pinnacle of technological achievement. So far.
Offline
>>>So you've had a less-than-amazing experience AA1 running Linpus with a SSD drive<<<
Actually, the first thing I did after unpacking and starting it up was repartition the SSDs, format them into NTFS and install WinXPpro. This was a b-day gift for the GF and she hasn't got a clue about Linux.
>>>And while I grant you there is something inherently sexy about SSDs<<<
Sexiness isn't the issue for me. Mechanical durability is. The SSD was my reason for purchasing my first eee. I'd never want a HDD in an UMPC.
>>>their much-heralded operation, stability and lifespan has yet to be proved by years of use<<<
The military has been using SSDs for over a decade, so their reliability is well documented.
>>> a HDD, for very few bucks more?<<<
I'd rather spend the extra bucks on a faster SSD.
Offline
It's funny, it's been reported that the issues with the Acer Aspire One's "slow" SSD only seem to crop up with Windows...
Offline
JimboToronto wrote:
Have you people recommending the Aspire One actually used one in comparison to the eee?
I was seduced by the price and specs and bought a girlie-white Linux-based AA1 for my girlfriend and after chasing down the drivers (not included with the AA1 or on Acer's website), installed WinXPpro (full install) just like on my 701 and 900.
Performance was attrocious. The MLC-flash-based internal SSD is so dog-slow it seems to take forever to boot up Windows or open an app. Once it is up and running the Atom performs fine, but the wait to get to that point can be excruciating.
We started calling it the "little computer that could" (I think I can, I think I can...) because it took so long to start anything up, but managed to somehow get the job done eventually. Single-digit reads and writes may be okay for flashkeys but for a system SSD they suck.
Now I'm worried she thinks I'm being cheap and dissing her by giving her this piece of krap when she can see how much better my eees perform.
Not only is the AA1 much slower than the eee, it's ridiculously oversized without any increase in the size or resolution of the LCD. It's got the same sized panel as the 900 and 901 in a case big enough to hold a 10" LCD. That's just poor engineering.
In all honesty, I can't recommend the Acer Aspire One to anyone, at least until they start using SLC-flash-based SSDs.
I know it will cost more (but also taking apart the Acer Aspire One can be a bit tedious) but have you considered purchasing a replacement PCI-E SSD card for it? Just putting the idea out there as I know from the Acer Aspire Forum that's on the go, there are apparently two types of SSD used for this series and if I remember correctly the Intel SSD was the slowest performing one of the lot...
Offline
