AnandTech has a review of a prototype Eee Box which is pretty much a Mac Mini running XP or Linux but uses and Atom processor and has a much lower price point than the Mac Mini.
It's not out, pricing is not out and it doesn't have the capabilities of the Mini. I have an EEE PC notebook. Neat, but you surely can't compare the Mini with the rumoured EEE Box.
I do wish people would stop comparing their wishful pricing to pricing that is here now. The EEE PC was also rumoured to have a low price and that didn't happen.
I'm not saying that the concept of the EEE Box is terrible. It will be interesting to see what its final form is. What OS, Bluetooth, dvi out, network capabilities, hard drive, optical drive, etc...? All up in the air. Moreover use of the Atom processor isn't sure.
It's not out, pricing is not out and it doesn't have the capabilities of the Mini. I have an EEE PC notebook. Neat, but you surely can't compare the Mini with the rumoured EEE Box.
I do wish people would stop comparing their wishful pricing to pricing that is here now. The EEE PC was also rumoured to have a low price and that didn't happen.
I'm not saying that the concept of the EEE Box is terrible. It will be interesting to see what its final form is. What OS, Bluetooth, dvi out, network capabilities, hard drive, optical drive, etc...? All up in the air. Moreover use of the Atom processor isn't sure.
"When the Eee Box B202 launches in the U.S. this July, it will be priced at $269 (Linux, 1GB, 80GB HDD), $299 (Linux, 2GB, 160GB), and $299 (Windows XP Home, 1GB, 80GB) respectively."
"When the Eee Box B202 launches in the U.S. this July, it will be priced at $269 (Linux, 1GB, 80GB HDD), $299 (Linux, 2GB, 160GB), and $299 (Windows XP Home, 1GB, 80GB) respectively."
The EEE Box sounds cool, and for the price, it's pretty good, it's just that the Atom is a bit underpowered to be a HTPC. It actually seems a lot like the ATV, sans the GPU.
Seems like it would be a great PC for schools and basic computer labs, or internet cafes.
Anyone know of Mac software that can help this poor fellow string words together correctly?
I know of hardware that might stop him posting ONLY about graphics cards in Apple hardware, but then that might permanently stop him posting.. I guess though a win win?
I know, but it doesn't matter. We're looking at a $30 price increase for hardware, not Windows, that's the last SKU, which is also a $30 upgrade.
I've been looking at memory and HDD prices. 1GB RAM is at least $20, and the difference, even in the cheapest 80 to 160 HDD upgrades is about $25. And that's the cheapest, retail. That comes to $45. Since they are selling their product at, naturally, a retail price, they must charge customers their OEM price plus profit. I don't see how they can do that for $30.
You notice though, that they want to keep that price to $299, so that the Win upgrade is only listed for the cheaper version. That makes little sense, as Win whatever, is more memory and HDD intensive than most any other OS.
The EEE Box sounds cool, and for the price, it's pretty good, it's just that the Atom is a bit underpowered to be a HTPC. It actually seems a lot like the ATV, sans the GPU.
Actually, it's the GPU that's the weak link as a HTPC. I'd expect a slightly more expensive version for a HTPC.
I think it'll be more popular than the mini due to cost. A lot of apps that use the Mini now can use this thing instead. The mini will still be a better HTPC box.
That makes little sense, as Win whatever, is more memory and HDD intensive than most any other OS.
That's a limitation imposed by MS, to continue selling XP Home for use in these netbooks and derivatives, past 6/30/2008.
1GB/80 GB is more than fine with XP, and for what this can do, the Atom and GMA 950 are the limitations, not the HD or RAM.
The Atom is really too underpowered for anything more demanding however, it's like a 1.2 GHz Celeron. Good for web browsing, simple Office docs, and as a NAS.
"When the Eee Box B202 launches in the U.S. this July, it will be priced at $269 (Linux, 1GB, 80GB HDD), $299 (Linux, 2GB, 160GB), and $299 (Windows XP Home, 1GB, 80GB) respectively."
Thank's for the links. I like the idea that there is no DVD (seriously). The graphics remain the same as the Mac Mini which is ok for me. No remote/Bluetooth though. It uses 2.5" drives which is great. Those who want 3.5" are living in he past. It's very tempting, but I would still rather the Mac Mini. I assume Apple will have to lower the price, especially on a 2 gig version.
I really like my Asus EEE PC. Got to admit that this EEE Box, if in fact that is the price, is very tempting. Shuttle has a similar one but it's nowhere near as nice.
That's a limitation imposed by MS, to continue selling XP Home for use in these netbooks and derivatives, past 6/30/2008.
It isn't an imposed limitation. It a natural result of what the OS is. MS didn't say—"Hey, let's make it impossible for 90% of all PC's out there to upgrade to Vista!"
Quote:
1GB/80 GB is more than fine with XP, and for what this can do, the Atom and GMA 950 are the limitations, not the HD or RAM.
Actually, it's barely fine.
Quote:
The Atom is really too underpowered for anything more demanding however, it's like a 1.2 GHz Celeron. Good for web browsing, simple Office docs, and as a NAS.
That's true.
The question is whether Intel ever intended it for this use at all.
It isn't an imposed limitation. It a natural result of what the OS is. MS didn't say?"Hey, let's make it impossible for 90% of all PC's out there to upgrade to Vista!"
Actually, it's barely fine.
Well, no.
MS is only allowing XP Home to be sold on these netbooks after June, and pretty much nothing else.
The companies may be able to play around with the 1 GB/80 GB line, but that is fine for running XP, and doing web browsing and Office apps, it really is. Computers don't need more CPU/RAM/HHD space for those types of applications, not even from MS. If you don't believe that, you haven't used really used Windows much.
Vista is perfectly fine for new PC's (2 GB+), but overkill/top-heavy on these things from ASUS, MSI, Acer, mainly because the graphics and CPU are too slow.
The companies may be able to play around with the 1 GB/80 GB line, but that is fine for running XP, and doing web browsing and Office apps, it really is. Computers don't need more CPU/RAM/HHD space for those types of applications, not even from MS. If you don't believe that, you haven't used really used Windows much.
Vista is perfectly fine for new PC's (2 GB+), but overkill/top-heavy on these things from ASUS, MSI, Acer, mainly because the graphics and CPU are too slow.
I realize what MS is doing. They are relegating XP for this use because they have no choice. Even Vista Home is too heavy to work on these machines. MS simply doesn't want to have more bad publicity from Vista.
If you're using Word for small documents is ok, but don't keep several programs open for any length of time, or too many windows.
And, yes, I've used DOS, Win 3.1, and the rest of their OS's for more hours than I like to remember.
But for the life of me I don't 'get' Atom in a desktop machine.
I don't see these "Nettops" going anywhere, either, but the mini-laptops have proven to be popular beyond all expectation. Clearly there is a market for them. They'll be even better once Intel finishes Paulsbo, Atom's companion chipset that can decode HD video.
The Atom is fine for playback of video using XBMC for example. Same with the 950. Most computers are way overpowered for what people need. The gamers don't understand that they are really a small segment of the population. The professional video types can afford to pay for a Mac Pro or whatever. Integrated graphics and lower powered cpu's are just fine for the majority of video playback. The 1080p craze is just that. Almost noone can tell the difference between it and 720p or even 1080i. Asus is smart to go with these specs. The only thing I would have liked would have been some sort of built in IR or Bluetooth but then that's no deal breaker. Also, having hdmi or component out would have been nice.
The Atom is fine for playback of video using XBMC for example. Same with the 950. Most computers are way overpowered for what people need. The gamers don't understand that they are really a small segment of the population. The professional video types can afford to pay for a Mac Pro or whatever. Integrated graphics and lower powered cpu's are just fine for the majority of video playback. The 1080p craze is just that. Almost noone can tell the difference between it and 720p or even 1080i. Asus is smart to go with these specs. The only thing I would have liked would have been some sort of built in IR or Bluetooth but then that's no deal breaker. Also, having hdmi or component out would have been nice.
philip
I agree with everything you've said here, EXCEPT for the 1080p craze bit.
It's very easy to tell the difference between 720p and either of the other 1080 standards. 1080p does look better than 1080i.
If you can't see it, then something is wrong somewhere.
I don't see these "Nettops" going anywhere, either, but the mini-laptops have proven to be popular beyond all expectation. Clearly there is a market for them. They'll be even better once Intel finishes Paulsbo, Atom's companion chipset that can decode HD video.
I agree, the netbooks do make sense and are quite the rage.
"If you can't see it, then something is wrong somewhere."
Perhaps. It's not as though there are many sources for 1080p video. I have seen a PS3 game and movie which were supposed to be 1080p. The movie didn't look all that much better than movies on our HDTV TV stations (which are in 1080i). Maybe it depends on the video, TV, size of TV, distance from TV, etc... Heck, ordinary DVD's are "just" 480p and they look fine to me. I guess I am just not as discerning as some. Same with audio for that matter. I do think that the vast majority of people don't care about 1080p and all the higher end audio for that matter. The Mac has always had good but not great audio/video and it's been fine for most users. I think the same applies to audio/video which is why it is more important to have a smooth streaming of video at lower resolutions that choppy and/or long downloads of 8 gig files.
Comments
AnandTech has a review of a prototype Eee Box which is pretty much a Mac Mini running XP or Linux but uses and Atom processor and has a much lower price point than the Mac Mini.
It's not out, pricing is not out and it doesn't have the capabilities of the Mini. I have an EEE PC notebook. Neat, but you surely can't compare the Mini with the rumoured EEE Box.
I do wish people would stop comparing their wishful pricing to pricing that is here now. The EEE PC was also rumoured to have a low price and that didn't happen.
I'm not saying that the concept of the EEE Box is terrible. It will be interesting to see what its final form is. What OS, Bluetooth, dvi out, network capabilities, hard drive, optical drive, etc...? All up in the air. Moreover use of the Atom processor isn't sure.
philip
It's not out, pricing is not out and it doesn't have the capabilities of the Mini. I have an EEE PC notebook. Neat, but you surely can't compare the Mini with the rumoured EEE Box.
I do wish people would stop comparing their wishful pricing to pricing that is here now. The EEE PC was also rumoured to have a low price and that didn't happen.
I'm not saying that the concept of the EEE Box is terrible. It will be interesting to see what its final form is. What OS, Bluetooth, dvi out, network capabilities, hard drive, optical drive, etc...? All up in the air. Moreover use of the Atom processor isn't sure.
philip
it's almost out and the pricing is out too:
"When the Eee Box B202 launches in the U.S. this July, it will be priced at $269 (Linux, 1GB, 80GB HDD), $299 (Linux, 2GB, 160GB), and $299 (Windows XP Home, 1GB, 80GB) respectively."
more details
it's almost out and the pricing is out too:
"When the Eee Box B202 launches in the U.S. this July, it will be priced at $269 (Linux, 1GB, 80GB HDD), $299 (Linux, 2GB, 160GB), and $299 (Windows XP Home, 1GB, 80GB) respectively."
more details
I don't see how they can make money only charging $30 more for another GB of RAM and the 160 GB drive.
I don't see how they can make money only charging $30 more for another GB of RAM and the 160 GB drive.
I'm pretty sure they didn't bother to think about that. :P
Those are definitely some low prices.
I don't see how they can make money only charging $30 more for another GB of RAM and the 160 GB drive.
they are not paying for windows.
Seems like it would be a great PC for schools and basic computer labs, or internet cafes.
Anyone know of Mac software that can help this poor fellow string words together correctly?
I know of hardware that might stop him posting ONLY about graphics cards in Apple hardware, but then that might permanently stop him posting.. I guess though a win win?
they are not paying for windows.
I know, but it doesn't matter. We're looking at a $30 price increase for hardware, not Windows, that's the last SKU, which is also a $30 upgrade.
I've been looking at memory and HDD prices. 1GB RAM is at least $20, and the difference, even in the cheapest 80 to 160 HDD upgrades is about $25. And that's the cheapest, retail. That comes to $45. Since they are selling their product at, naturally, a retail price, they must charge customers their OEM price plus profit. I don't see how they can do that for $30.
You notice though, that they want to keep that price to $299, so that the Win upgrade is only listed for the cheaper version. That makes little sense, as Win whatever, is more memory and HDD intensive than most any other OS.
The EEE Box sounds cool, and for the price, it's pretty good, it's just that the Atom is a bit underpowered to be a HTPC. It actually seems a lot like the ATV, sans the GPU.
Actually, it's the GPU that's the weak link as a HTPC. I'd expect a slightly more expensive version for a HTPC.
I think it'll be more popular than the mini due to cost. A lot of apps that use the Mini now can use this thing instead. The mini will still be a better HTPC box.
That makes little sense, as Win whatever, is more memory and HDD intensive than most any other OS.
That's a limitation imposed by MS, to continue selling XP Home for use in these netbooks and derivatives, past 6/30/2008.
1GB/80 GB is more than fine with XP, and for what this can do, the Atom and GMA 950 are the limitations, not the HD or RAM.
The Atom is really too underpowered for anything more demanding however, it's like a 1.2 GHz Celeron. Good for web browsing, simple Office docs, and as a NAS.
it's almost out and the pricing is out too:
"When the Eee Box B202 launches in the U.S. this July, it will be priced at $269 (Linux, 1GB, 80GB HDD), $299 (Linux, 2GB, 160GB), and $299 (Windows XP Home, 1GB, 80GB) respectively."
more details
Thank's for the links. I like the idea that there is no DVD (seriously). The graphics remain the same as the Mac Mini which is ok for me. No remote/Bluetooth though. It uses 2.5" drives which is great. Those who want 3.5" are living in he past. It's very tempting, but I would still rather the Mac Mini. I assume Apple will have to lower the price, especially on a 2 gig version.
I really like my Asus EEE PC. Got to admit that this EEE Box, if in fact that is the price, is very tempting. Shuttle has a similar one but it's nowhere near as nice.
philip
That's a limitation imposed by MS, to continue selling XP Home for use in these netbooks and derivatives, past 6/30/2008.
It isn't an imposed limitation. It a natural result of what the OS is. MS didn't say—"Hey, let's make it impossible for 90% of all PC's out there to upgrade to Vista!"
1GB/80 GB is more than fine with XP, and for what this can do, the Atom and GMA 950 are the limitations, not the HD or RAM.
Actually, it's barely fine.
The Atom is really too underpowered for anything more demanding however, it's like a 1.2 GHz Celeron. Good for web browsing, simple Office docs, and as a NAS.
That's true.
The question is whether Intel ever intended it for this use at all.
The question is whether Intel ever intended it for this use at all.
Yes.
But for the life of me I don't 'get' Atom in a desktop machine.
I hope JTD doesn't see this link. He'll blow a gasket for sure.
It isn't an imposed limitation. It a natural result of what the OS is. MS didn't say?"Hey, let's make it impossible for 90% of all PC's out there to upgrade to Vista!"
Actually, it's barely fine.
Well, no.
MS is only allowing XP Home to be sold on these netbooks after June, and pretty much nothing else.
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/htm...crosoft04.html
The companies may be able to play around with the 1 GB/80 GB line, but that is fine for running XP, and doing web browsing and Office apps, it really is. Computers don't need more CPU/RAM/HHD space for those types of applications, not even from MS. If you don't believe that, you haven't used really used Windows much.
Vista is perfectly fine for new PC's (2 GB+), but overkill/top-heavy on these things from ASUS, MSI, Acer, mainly because the graphics and CPU are too slow.
Well, no.
MS is only allowing XP Home to be sold on these netbooks after June, and pretty much nothing else.
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/htm...crosoft04.html
The companies may be able to play around with the 1 GB/80 GB line, but that is fine for running XP, and doing web browsing and Office apps, it really is. Computers don't need more CPU/RAM/HHD space for those types of applications, not even from MS. If you don't believe that, you haven't used really used Windows much.
Vista is perfectly fine for new PC's (2 GB+), but overkill/top-heavy on these things from ASUS, MSI, Acer, mainly because the graphics and CPU are too slow.
I realize what MS is doing. They are relegating XP for this use because they have no choice. Even Vista Home is too heavy to work on these machines. MS simply doesn't want to have more bad publicity from Vista.
If you're using Word for small documents is ok, but don't keep several programs open for any length of time, or too many windows.
And, yes, I've used DOS, Win 3.1, and the rest of their OS's for more hours than I like to remember.
Yes.
But for the life of me I don't 'get' Atom in a desktop machine.
I don't see these "Nettops" going anywhere, either, but the mini-laptops have proven to be popular beyond all expectation. Clearly there is a market for them. They'll be even better once Intel finishes Paulsbo, Atom's companion chipset that can decode HD video.
philip
The Atom is fine for playback of video using XBMC for example. Same with the 950. Most computers are way overpowered for what people need. The gamers don't understand that they are really a small segment of the population. The professional video types can afford to pay for a Mac Pro or whatever. Integrated graphics and lower powered cpu's are just fine for the majority of video playback. The 1080p craze is just that. Almost noone can tell the difference between it and 720p or even 1080i. Asus is smart to go with these specs. The only thing I would have liked would have been some sort of built in IR or Bluetooth but then that's no deal breaker. Also, having hdmi or component out would have been nice.
philip
I agree with everything you've said here, EXCEPT for the 1080p craze bit.
It's very easy to tell the difference between 720p and either of the other 1080 standards. 1080p does look better than 1080i.
If you can't see it, then something is wrong somewhere.
I don't see these "Nettops" going anywhere, either, but the mini-laptops have proven to be popular beyond all expectation. Clearly there is a market for them. They'll be even better once Intel finishes Paulsbo, Atom's companion chipset that can decode HD video.
I agree, the netbooks do make sense and are quite the rage.
Perhaps. It's not as though there are many sources for 1080p video. I have seen a PS3 game and movie which were supposed to be 1080p. The movie didn't look all that much better than movies on our HDTV TV stations (which are in 1080i). Maybe it depends on the video, TV, size of TV, distance from TV, etc... Heck, ordinary DVD's are "just" 480p and they look fine to me. I guess I am just not as discerning as some. Same with audio for that matter. I do think that the vast majority of people don't care about 1080p and all the higher end audio for that matter. The Mac has always had good but not great audio/video and it's been fine for most users. I think the same applies to audio/video which is why it is more important to have a smooth streaming of video at lower resolutions that choppy and/or long downloads of 8 gig files.
philip