Asus adds HDD to Atom-based old-style Eee
Ha! It's the Eee 900HA
Asus' mix'n'match approach to Eee PC specifications and model numbers continues. A version of the Celeron M-based 900 - with an Atom processor and a hard drive - has popped up on Amazon.com.
Asus' Eee PC 900HA: now with Atom... now with an HDD
Yes, it's the 900HA - Ha! - a 160GB HDD-equipped alternative to the SSD-bearing 900A, an Atom-based alternative to the Celeron-fitted 900, an 8.9in alternative to the Celeron-sporting 701, a... well, you get the picture.
Amazon.com has the 900HA down for a mere $350 (£199/€252), though the retailer admits the Small, Cheap Computer's not actually out yet. There's no word yet on its official European pricing.
Different (slightly) insides, same outside
There's no Linux option, just Windows XP, which is a disappointing statement we're hearing all too often these days. Other specs are just as you'd expect: 1.6GHz Atom N270, 1GB of memory, 8.9in 1024 x 600 display, and a four-cell battery.
Netbooks and Mini-laptops Buyer's Guide
Re: The spec you didn't mention
"The original 900 suffers and as it's supposed to be something to do with the Celeron CPU I bet these suffer just the same."
Long discussion of this here: http://forum.eeeuser.com/viewtopic.php?id=34479.
Atom-based EEE's aren't affected. It has to do with how the Celeron-based systems work.
The spec you didn't mention
These discharge their batteries to nothing in about a week, when switched off. The original 900 suffers and as it's supposed to be something to do with the Celeron CPU I bet these suffer just the same. Asus will "repair" it if you complain, by pointlessly replacing the motherboard. They did this twice with me, before I returned it to the supplier as unfit for purpose.
Whoops- previous comment
Sorry - didn't notice it had the Atom processor. I'd have assumed it would be called 90x, where x>0, if it did.
I was going to write a different comment, but what I see is an audience unfit.
Up yours at all the 'Lintard' and 'geeky shite that is linux' and like-minded comments above.
When was the last time you actually learned to use an operating system? yes learning! or are you taking your 'skills' for granted, gramps? go buy some new geraniums and get out of the way already before we have a road sign made especially for you lot. Oh wait, we did.
If you want to actually have something to say, I suggest you first update your knowledge and skills, then we shall talk.
Guess what I'm using? What? no, I haven't touched a compiler in 12 years, why should I?. What? oh you mean using it? do 15 years of Microsoft products and 12 years of Linux products count then?.
Do I support both? Quite happily!
Holy crap, people. You disappoint me.
Some folks seem to be forgetting the Reg's own advice when these things first came out - they make the most sense when thought of as appliances, not full-fledged laptops. That is, they're not really meant for the user to mess around with but simply to use.
Now, OK, I've tweaked my original 7" 2G Eee quite a lot. And, despite all the assertions above, I've had very few problems. There is (again, despite the assertions above) a very active Eee community. I had no trouble at all installing OOo3 and Opera on my Eee, and they work very nicely, thank you.
The newer machines may have the grunt to make make Windows work (although all the benchmarks show that in the real-world examples it runs about 25% slower) but the Linux versions are still faster. And most users really wouldn't know which OS they're running, which is pretty much the idea.