Comments on: ASUS Eee PC 901 vs HP 2133 Mini-Note : Clash of the (mini) Titans

By: Mr.Gadget

Mr.Gadget — Mon, 11 Aug 2008 23:29:51 +0000

@Rich harsh…

By: Rich

Rich — Sun, 10 Aug 2008 20:39:45 +0000

I can’t believe that HP haven’t upgraded the 2133 already. If I was the boss of the company I would have had an Atom Chip in the 2133 along with a 40G SDD ages ago. It serves them right that they are lagging well behind the competition. A big company like HP should have acted right away to the competition. The 2133 is the best looking UMPC but the worst machine. HP, you’re a bunch of stupid idiots!

By: Joe Green

Joe Green — Fri, 27 Jun 2008 07:19:34 +0000

(Correction: *more* than 50% more expensive!)

By: Joe Green

Joe Green — Fri, 27 Jun 2008 07:18:32 +0000

This whole comparison is flawed. These are two very different beasts with two very different purposes. What’s more, the HP is nearly 50% more expensive than the Asus. Yer pays yer money and yer takes yer choice. (Windows vs Linux? No contest.)

I reckon I’ll wait for the 901 to arrive and then buy a 900. The arrival of the 900 pushed the 700’s price right down so I’m hoping for a repeat effect!

By: stephenG

stephenG — Tue, 24 Jun 2008 23:07:36 +0000

Not sure what you mean by “Gigabit Eâ€™net (10/100 NIC)”. Is it Gig or not?

By: Rex Alfie Lee

Rex Alfie Lee — Tue, 17 Jun 2008 13:47:26 +0000

Just a little note on what I know from running the 900 with the 900MHz processor, that I have Eclipse IDE running on it under XP. That is amazing in itself. I would have preferred the Linux version but Myer won’t be providing it & it was wanted now for my wife who can’t carry heavy stuff & the Eee is under a kilo.
I’ll be getting the 901 Linux version when it comes here to Oz.

By: Rex Alfie Lee

Rex Alfie Lee — Tue, 17 Jun 2008 13:42:11 +0000

The hard drive may give you more space but will slow access to data by incremental factors. Watching XP load up on the Eee on both the hard drive & SSD versions on YouTube showed a slow down that took twice as long for the hard drive. Access to the hard drive would also mean battery consumption that is far higher than the SSD version.
As far as the VIA graphics processor I can’t really say but from what I’ve heard the VIA’s processor doesn’t compare with the Atom which is just a miniaturised version of the Intel Core Duo. It also runs Intel’s weird version of threading. The reason I say that is more than likely the graphics chip uses a modified version or the processor.

By: Mr.Gadget

Mr.Gadget — Thu, 12 Jun 2008 11:12:09 +0000

Rain, at the time of writing those were the details available. We posted again with the official details more than a week ago. See here

By: rain

rain — Thu, 12 Jun 2008 10:23:48 +0000

Sorry but this is all wrong. The 901’s specs have recently surfaced;

-Intel Atom 1.6 GHZ with Super Hybrid Engine enabling it the be overclocked to 1.8GHZ or underclocked to 1.4GHZ

-1GB of RAM, one extra slot for an additional 1GB

-8.9″ screen - same as the 900

-6 Cell battery lasting from 4.2 hours to 7.8

-20GB SSD (16+4) for Linux, and 12GB (8+4) SSD for XP

-Bluetooth and Wireless as standard

These are the official specs, a WiMax Eee is in talks right now.

By: Mr.Gadget

Mr.Gadget — Mon, 09 Jun 2008 09:07:35 +0000

Mike I have had around 7 laptops in the last 4 years and none have had “delicate hard drives”. These ranged from Apple, Alienware, Toshiba, Acer and now Dell. I have travelled nationally and overseas many times with each. If sensitive harddrives was a major issue I would have included that as a factor but I don’t believe it is.

Give me 160GB HDD over 20GB SSD anyday.