ASUS Eee Slate

[codemonkey]

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16834220961

Details:
Intel Core i5-470UM CPU
4GB RAM
USB/Card Reader/HDMI Out
12.1" screen @ 1280x800
64GB SSD
Bluetooth / Wireless built in
2.0MP webcam and mic built in
Comes with bluetooth keyboard
Runs Windows 7 Home Premium
3 hours battery life

$1100

[YOUTUBE]Eo4QkA2nOd0[/YOUTUBE]

I want one!

 

[sqrage]

3 hour battery life? I'd never get one.

This looks awesome though: http://www.engadget.com/2010/05/31/asus-eee-pad-official-intel-culv-processors-windows-7-and-a-1/

It's kind of funny how Asus' new products are Eee [Name]. Kind of like i[Name]. ePad?

 

[Varine]

Ee means she in Russian. So it's kinda like shee.... Whatever I hate these things. Way too big and way too expensive and it seems like they would get hot.

 

[codemonkey]

It's pretty much as powerful as a $600 or so laptop though. Plus it boots in under 20 seconds.

 

[Varine]

Which means it's probably got a half working OS.

 

[Samael88]

Hmm, so this is the next step in computing, what ever happed to screens floating in mid air with touch Anyway, all things kind of has to suck in the beginning, especially new concepts like this. It takes time for it to become developed properly. I have to say that if this is not properly managed it will lag like hell even if it has an SSD. I am really disappointed with Asus on this one

Plus it boots in under 20 seconds.

My computer does that as well, if a computer does not boot in that time it probably has a to heavy OS or it is just not properly managed.

 

[codemonkey]

Why are you disappointed? It does not lag at all. I would be extremely surprised if you're running Windows 7 and it boots in under 20 seconds assuming you're using a mechanical hard drive. Time it some time.

My PC takes around one and a half minutes to get from power button to the time the desktop is usable, 7200RPM hard drive.

 

[Samael88]

I'm disappointed because I honestly expected more of them than this.
My computer can't run windows 7, I run XP and I manage it so that it works well all the time since it is such an old one.
You can't compare an SSD to a HDD since they work in completely different ways.
It does not lag because there is nothing on it right there, but that pad will start to lag after a while, according to me SSD's are not developed enough to be that large and that small yet, it is probably the biggest villain in the high price situation.
I think that they should have gone with a smaller SSD storage-wise or they should have at least made their own OS for the damn thing, or better yet waited at least a year longer before putting it out there.
But this is just my opinion based on my experience, I am not forcing you to agree with me in any way dude.

 

[codemonkey]

>You can't compare an SSD to a HDD since they work in completely different ways.

I'm not an idiot, but you sure as hell can compare boot speeds.

>It does not lag because there is nothing on it right there, but that pad will start to lag after a while

What makes you say that? I doubt it.

>it is probably the biggest villain in the high price situation.

I'm guessing the RAM and CPU + cooling are the main problem here, that's a regular laptop CPU in a tight area. Fitting 4GB of RAM is also hard, even if it's laptop RAM.

>I think that they should have gone with a smaller SSD storage-wise or they should have at least made their own OS for the damn thing, or better yet waited at least a year longer before putting it out there.

I think the main selling point is that it runs Windows. Much more powerful than Android or iOS, and acts as a true laptop (and desktop if you're not a power user) replacement.

Also I'd still be surprised if your PC boots in under 20 seconds with XP.

 

[sqrage]

I also disagree with everything you say samael. A smaller hard drive? It's already tiny.

 

[Varine]

They should have used a smaller SSD for the OS and then added a larger HDD.

 

[Samael88]

I'm not an idiot, but you sure as hell can compare boot speeds.

I've never stated that you where, I know that you are a pretty bright person actually. I just said that you can't compare a SSD and an HDD, and SSD would beat a HDD any day of the week in speed no questions asked.

What makes you say that? I doubt it.

You take a look at these specs and tell me that again:
http://ark.intel.com/Product.aspx?id=50026
And consider that it is a dual-core that runs on 4threads.
It works with 3MB L3 cache which means that each thread gets about 1,5 MB each, and each thread is about 1,33Mhz.
It is basically a quad-core 1,33Mhz with 1,5MB L3-cache.
This is just a rough estimation, in reality the numbers are most likely lower if put into a quad instead.
Take into consideration that it is in a small area with a lot of hot components and not to forget that the display is on there as well.
Not to forget that it is the HM55 chip-set which is not to great under pressure either.

The only thing that actually is nice about that CPU is that it has an FSB speed of 2500Mhz.

I'm guessing the RAM and CPU + cooling are the main problem here, that's a regular laptop CPU in a tight area. Fitting 4GB of RAM is also hard, even if it's laptop RAM.

I hate when people does this, do you even know what prices they take for an SSD of that size? I can bet you that the SSD in that thing did cost at least one third the price of the rest of the components together.

I think the main selling point is that it runs Windows. Much more powerful than Android or iOS, and acts as a true laptop (and desktop if you're not a power user) replacement.

Well, duh:nuts: I don't give a damn about the OS, it is the SSD that is the problem, they could have put down the cost a bit if they would have gone with a smaller SSD.

Also I'd still be surprised if your PC boots in under 20 seconds with XP.

That is just plain ignorant of you to be honest, last time I cleaned it and timed the start I landed on about 18 seconds, but then again I am really careful about how I handle this old timer.

I don't assume that you are an idiot because I know that you are not, and please do not assume that I am either because I can ensure you that I am not. As an Asus user I just expected more of them.
And as I said before, it is just my opinion, I don't force you to like it nor accept it.

I also disagree with everything you say samael. A smaller hard drive? It's already tiny.

I don't mind if you disagree. As I stated it is just my opinion so no problem dude^^

They should have used a smaller SSD for the OS and then added a larger HDD.

They can't use a HDD because of the portability, it would break to often.

Edit: Damn, this was a long post^^ It has to be a personal record or something

 

[Varine]

I'm sure they could find a way around it. 64 gigs is no where near enough space.

 

[codemonkey]

You take a look at these specs and tell me that again:
http://ark.intel.com/Product.aspx?id=50026
...

Yeah, it's not that fast. The turbo up to 1.86GHz on a single core is nice though. Much better than Intel Atom though. I still don't see why it would slow down over time.

I hate when people does this, do you even know what prices they take for an SSD of that size? I can bet you that the SSD in that thing did cost at least one third the price of the rest of the components together.

Not much more than $140 or so if I had to estimate. The flash chips are probably soldered directly on the motherboard. (Like the Macbook Air)

That is just plain ignorant of you to be honest, last time I cleaned it and timed the start I landed on about 18 seconds, but then again I am really careful about how I handle this old timer.

I don't assume that you are an idiot because I know that you are not, and please do not assume that I am either because I can ensure you that I am not. As an Asus user I just expected more of them.
And as I said before, it is just my opinion, I don't force you to like it nor accept it.

Fair enough.

 

[Samael88]

Yeah, it's not that fast. The turbo up to 1.86GHz on a single core is nice though. Much better than Intel Atom though. I still don't see why it would slow down over time.

Yeah, if your lucky enough to get it to use it once. It is an Arrendale^^

The flash chips are probably soldered directly on the motherboard.

Aaah, I did not think of that one^^ Last time I saw a 64Gbit SSD it's price was at 3000SEK and considering that 1000USD is about 6000SEK, that is where I got the price from so it is probably a bit more expensive than 140USD, even though 140USD that is probably the total production cost of the whole thing.

Fair enough.

Thanks^^

 

[codemonkey]

Well you can get the Crucial 1.8" 64GB for $130 here: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820148358

I think $140 is a fairly accurate estimate.