Asus Eee Box hands on (mini desktop with Intel Atom CPU)
PeeCee
Overview:
http://event.asus.com/eeepc/microsites/eeebox/en/specifications.html
What was in this particular box:
Eee Box itself (black), Laptop style power supply, screw on stand, Vesa
mounting plate (for back of LCD screen) SPDIF adaptor, WiFi antenna, Manual,
Warranty card, OS restore DVD, drivers CD.
This one had 1GB RAM, Windows XP Home and 80GB HD in two 40GB partitions
(Atom 1.6GHZ CPU).
There are other colours and RAM/HD configurations available apparently.
This site lists some of the variations
http://www.ehomeupgrade.com/2008/06/02/sneak-peek-asus-eee-b202-desktop-pc/
Observations:
(Random and not necessarily deep and meaningfull)
Manual basically show's the I/O and controls, how to restore the OS, all in
several languages and that's it.
OS restore DVD and driver CD requires external USB DVD drive (now I know why
I bought that 5.25" USB drive case)
Bios
Entered through the 'Del' key
Fairly plain, options for Express Gate screen delay (default 10 sec)
No obvious overclocking options.
No power restore options (ie Off/ previous state/ on)
Can power up on LAN and has a RTC Alarm start up.
Starting Up:
The Express Gate (Linux?) "FUN" OS shows up for 10 seconds before booting
through to XP Home.
From Switch on to the Express Gate Web Browser home page fully loaded took
roughly 45 seconds (includes moving the pointer and clicking on the Web
Icon)
(This is with a WiFi LAN connection)
Flash seems to play ok as does YouTube video's
Express Gate also has a Photo Uploader to Flickr, IM client and Skype none
of which I've tried yet.
First run of XP was pretty standard, Region, time zone, Keyboard and
Language, though as usual fine tinkering was required afterwards in the
Control Panel / Region tool.
In my case I ran it up without a wired LAN connection but with the WiFi
antenna connected.
Searching for Wireless points from the Wireless app in the System Tray
bottom right found my Wireless LAN & it's configuration (WPA2 PSK) & all I
had to do was type in the pass phrase ... connected (G, haven't got N yet)
XP Service Pack2 out of the box.
No preinstalled Anti Virus
Acrobat Reader 8 installed.
Windows updates started downloading straight away as you would expect with
any standard XP install.
The Windows Install is bog standard apart from Asus update app's,
Instructions for reinstalling the "FUN" apps (aka Express Gate) should they
get corrupted and an entry for the Realtek chipset.
Performance:
I've no numbers for you to pick over here, but it seemed to go OK
Though the task my client was looking at was not particularly onerus I was
curious to see how it handled HD video.
i.e. would it make a HTPC?
Well if you want 1080i & up no it won't do, sound goes OK but Video is just
a series of stills.
However bring it back to 720p and it runs just fine.
Now I find usefull as my TV is 720p and with it's small form factor it's
gonna be easy to hide in the other VCR's / Amps, and STB's
Compared to my MediaGate the Eee box is going to be easier to use (more
familialr interface)
I used the Fighter Pilot video here
http://www.microsoft.com/windows/windowsmedia/musicandvideo/hdvideo/contentshowcase.aspx
for HD content.
For 'work' I loaded Open Office 2.4.1 (no problems) and created a sample
Impress (power point) slide show.
Again it just ran fine.
As did Internet Explorer, Spider Solitaire, Free Cell etc.
OK it's not a Gamers PC but going on the average office PC I get to 'fix' I
can see these becominig a popular office PC, especially with it mounted on
the back of an LCD screen.
All neat and tidy, no worries with short USB Keyboard & Mouse leads.
I must congratulate ASUS for putting 1 GB of RAM in, it makes all the
difference to an XP PC.
It shows the other major manufacturers up for the cheapskates they are.
(put 256MB in & charge them double for another 256MB of 'official' RAM type
cheapness)
Case feels soldid enough, though the little flappy door on the front is
going to go in short order I would think.
And did it do what the client wanted?
Yes, but that's another story, but I did measure the power usage at 23 watts
max.
Best
Paul.
-- Posted on news://freenews.netfront.net - Complaints to ne...@netfront.net --
~misfit~
Thanks Paul, I've seen those on the net and wondered how they'd go. Really
they should be plenty powerful enough for most light office use and consume
very little electricity. I hope they catch on.
Cheers,
--
Shaun.
DISCLAIMER: If you find a posting or message from me
offensive, inappropriate, or disruptive, please ignore it.
If you don't know how to ignore a posting, complain to
me and I will be only too happy to demonstrate... ;-)
thingy
What external resolution did you get?
regards
Thing
PeeCee
news:48b7755c$1...@clear.net.nz...
Thing
This is the Eee "Box" not one of the Eee Netbooks, as such it has one
regular DVI output at the back nothing else.
(works ok into a DVI to VGA adaptor)
I'm just trying it out on my 1366 x 768 LCD telly (PC Input) at the moment
and seem to have got it into a mode the TV won't display (unsupported signal
on screen)
But before I screwed it up I ran through the available resolutions and
specifically noticed 1920 x 1080 and I'm sure it went higher than that.
If your thinking about using it for an HTPC note my comment above re playing
a 1080 wmv file.
PeeCee
news:48b7755c$1...@clear.net.nz...
Further notes
The 'glitch' I had appears to be the Intel Mobile Graphics Acelorator
keeping a high resolution even when reset in safe mode.
For some reason Windows (or the intel graphics driver) does not
automatically go back to the previous resolution if you don't confirm it.
The aim was to see what the TV did if I feed it 1080 to the PC input ie
would it show a scaled down image.... no such luck.
Booting into 'VGA' mode seems to clear it.
Connected to the PC input of my LCD TV or a LCD monitor I get the following
resolutions
640x480
800x600
1024x768
1152x864
1280x600/720/768/960/1024
1400x1050
1600x1200
1856x1392
1920x1080/1200/1440
2048x1536
all in 8/16 or 32 bit colour, 60/75/85 refresh (except 2048x1536 no 85hz)
Plus 640x480 and 800x600 in 16 colour
Pluging into my LCD TV via HDMI (used a DVI > HDMI cable from Jaycar)
The Eee box came straight up at the TV's native 1360x768 (actuall TV spec
is 1366x768)
Other resolutions available were
720x576 (standard DVD)
1600x900
1920x1080
~misfit~
Hi Paul.
Any chance you can run CPU Mark 1.0 on that EEE box? It's hard to find now
but I've just uploaded it at:
<http://www.yousendit.com/download/Q01FZUNxa0RENlJFQlE9PQ>
You'll just have to change the suffix from .lol to .exe and run it. It
doesn't install, it just runs. I still use that old version as I have data
for CPUs going back 10 years+ using that benchmark. I'd be really interested
to know what the Atom 1.6GHz gets. (I guessed 120 marks, I could be
over-estimating....)
As a reference, a Pentium 200MMX gets 11.4, a PII 350 22.0, a Coppermine
Celly 900MHz 57.6, a Tualatin celly 1.3GHz 107, an Athlon XP3200+ 208 and my
current system (E7300 @ 3.6GHz) 506. It only tests one core.
Cheers, and TIA if you can do it.
PeeCee
news:48ba9911$1...@news2.actrix.gen.nz...
Shaun
Have go it, will run ron (later ron!)
~misfit~
> "~misfit~" <misfi...@hooya.com.au> wrote in message
> news:48ba9911$1...@news2.actrix.gen.nz...
>>
>> Any chance you can run CPU Mark 1.0 on that EEE box? It's hard to
>> find now but I've just uploaded it at:
>>
>> <http://www.yousendit.com/download/Q01FZUNxa0RENlJFQlE9PQ>
>>
>> You'll just have to change the suffix from .lol to .exe and run it.
>> It doesn't install, it just runs. I still use that old version as I
>> have data for CPUs going back 10 years+ using that benchmark. I'd be
>> really interested to know what the Atom 1.6GHz gets. (I guessed 120
>> marks, I could be over-estimating....)
>>
>> As a reference, a Pentium 200MMX gets 11.4, a PII 350 22.0, a
>> Coppermine Celly 900MHz 57.6, a Tualatin celly 1.3GHz 107, an Athlon
>> XP3200+ 208 and my current system (E7300 @ 3.6GHz) 506. It only
>> tests one core. Cheers, and TIA if you can do it.
>
>
> Have go it, will run ron (later ron!)
Awesome, thanks Paul.
PeeCee
> Somewhere on teh intarweb "PeeCee" typed:
>> "~misfit~" <misfi...@hooya.com.au> wrote in message
>> news:48ba9911$1...@news2.actrix.gen.nz...
>>> Hi Paul.
>>>
>>> Any chance you can run CPU Mark 1.0 on that EEE box? It's hard to
>>> find now but I've just uploaded it at:
>>>
>>> <http://www.yousendit.com/download/Q01FZUNxa0RENlJFQlE9PQ>
>>>
>>> You'll just have to change the suffix from .lol to .exe and run it.
>>> It doesn't install, it just runs. I still use that old version as I
>>> have data for CPUs going back 10 years+ using that benchmark. I'd be
>>> really interested to know what the Atom 1.6GHz gets. (I guessed 120
>>> marks, I could be over-estimating....)
>>>
>>> As a reference, a Pentium 200MMX gets 11.4, a PII 350 22.0, a
>>> Coppermine Celly 900MHz 57.6, a Tualatin celly 1.3GHz 107, an Athlon
>>> XP3200+ 208 and my current system (E7300 @ 3.6GHz) 506. It only
>>> tests one core. Cheers, and TIA if you can do it.
>>
>> Shaun
>>
>> Have go it, will run ron (later ron!)
>
> Awesome, thanks Paul.
> --
> Shaun.
Shaun
Well you're not to wide of the mark....111
Watched with Task Manager Performance page open, 1 CPU at about 75% the
other at about 25% = 50% showing on the Process tab.
~misfit~
> "~misfit~" <misfi...@hooya.com.au> wrote in message
> news:48bb52d9$1...@news2.actrix.gen.nz...
>> Somewhere on teh intarweb "PeeCee" typed:
>>> "~misfit~" <misfi...@hooya.com.au> wrote in message
>>> news:48ba9911$1...@news2.actrix.gen.nz...
>>>> Hi Paul.
>>>>
>>>> Any chance you can run CPU Mark 1.0 on that EEE box? It's hard to
>>>> find now but I've just uploaded it at:
>>>>
>>>> <http://www.yousendit.com/download/Q01FZUNxa0RENlJFQlE9PQ>
>>>>
>>>> You'll just have to change the suffix from .lol to .exe and run it.
>>>> It doesn't install, it just runs. I still use that old version as I
>>>> have data for CPUs going back 10 years+ using that benchmark. I'd
>>>> be really interested to know what the Atom 1.6GHz gets. (I guessed
>>>> 120 marks, I could be over-estimating....)
>>>>
>>>> As a reference, a Pentium 200MMX gets 11.4, a PII 350 22.0, a
>>>> Coppermine Celly 900MHz 57.6, a Tualatin celly 1.3GHz 107, an
>>>> Athlon XP3200+ 208 and my current system (E7300 @ 3.6GHz) 506. It
>>>> only tests one core. Cheers, and TIA if you can do it.
>>>
>>
>> Awesome, thanks Paul.
>
>
> Watched with Task Manager Performance page open, 1 CPU at about 75%
> the other at about 25% = 50% showing on the Process tab.
Cool, I thought that's about where it would be.
(It doesn't actually have two cores, it uses "Hyper-threading Technology",
same as the older single core P4s.)
So, at 111 CPU Marks (ver 1.0) it's a bit faster than a Tualatin Celeron 1.3
running on a 440BX chipset (107) and a bit slower than an AMD Applebred
Duron 1.6GHz running on an AMD 760 chipset (118).
Now consider that it's TDP [Thermal Design Power] is 4 Watts and it's
obvious what a wonderful CPU this really is! (Typically the northbridge has
a higher TDP than the CPU in Atom systems.) That Celeron's TDP was 35W and
the Duron was 45W. The Atom is doing a bit less than 40W of work going by
those CPUs for 4W. Amazing!
Now consider that the RAM and NB (and probably HDD I/O) for the Atom is much
faster than the old systems I've just compared it with and it's bloody
brilliant.
If I weren't a hardware junkie and mad overclocker I'd be getting me one of
those. Makes me wonder why I still hang on to older hardware. (I still have
those systems I benched a few years back. <g>)
Cheers Paul, and thanks for running the benchmark.
PeeCee
snip
> If I weren't a hardware junkie and mad overclocker I'd be getting me one
> of those. Makes me wonder why I still hang on to older hardware. (I still
> have those systems I benched a few years back. <g>)
Sigh
I did manage to sell my first XT clone to my Boss but oh the angst when I
dismantled my PC Direct 386.