ASUS Eeee PC 1000HD Win7 Install

On 24 Feb 2012 23:07:06 GMT, ray wrote:

On Fri, 24 Feb 2012 16:10:00 -0500, Allen Drake wrote:

On 24 Feb 2012 21:01:36 GMT, ray wrote:

On Fri, 24 Feb 2012 12:25:45 -0500, Allen Drake wrote:

In my attempts to max out this netbook I have replaced the HDD with a
Crucial SSD and upgraded to 2 Gigs of RAM and am now wondering if it
would be better to keep Windows XP Pro or install Win7. I will be
doing so on a system that is only running a 900 MHZ CPU and Windows 7
Advisor reports it will be running slow so I have to ask if it will
even be worth it. Cost doesn't matter as by adding the SSD, RAM and
Win7 will be more then the original price and I simply want a small
device I can mount in the front of my car as a GPS with a 10" screen
and can access email and Google with no need for any other intensive
apps. I like being able to carry around this tiny thing on the go and
on the job.
I have also considered purchasing a totally new portable. I already
have an ASUS G73SW but that is just to big and expensive to take on
the road.

Any of you people have automobile mounted portable Win7 machines and
have any suggestions?

Thanks.

Al.

IMHO - you'd be a lot better off installing Debian Stable. It's a
trivial thing to do and would probably give you significantly better
performance than either of the MS alternatives. Have it installed on my
wife's eeepc - I've just upgraded it to 2GB and a recent 32GB SSD - runs
very nicely.


I just have to find out if it will run DeLorme applications first.

I've not dabbled with that but: I can pretty well guarantee that it won't
run any software made by delorme - it's almost certainly MS only.
However, have a look at gpsbabel.org - that may help.

I'll have to check it out. The last I knew DeLorme was the only app
that has the capabilities of cutting maps. I have two of their hand
held units and will be getting their newest that has a satellite
communicator.

http://envelope.delorme.com/emailmar...34&L=430&N=368

On Sat, 25 Feb 2012 04:25:39 -0500, Allen Drake wrote:

On Sat, 25 Feb 2012 05:05:03 +0000 (UTC), Stefan Patric
wrote:

On Fri, 24 Feb 2012 13:43:17 -0500, Allen Drake wrote:

On Fri, 24 Feb 2012 17:55:56 +0000 (UTC), Stefan Patric
wrote:

On Fri, 24 Feb 2012 12:25:45 -0500, Allen Drake wrote:

[big snip]

Stick with XP.

FWIW, just as a comparison since someone recommended Linux. A little
over a year ago, I set up a EeePC 900--900MHz Celeron M and 1GB
RAM--with Eeebuntu 3.0, a customize version of Ubuntu Linux for the
EeePC. It installed without a hitch and everything worked. It took
1.7GB of the SSD to install, including the apps. For e-mail, web, word
processing, playing and streaming video, etc. it worked great. Much
smoother and more responsive than the version of XP (Home, I think) that
was originally on it. Although, XP didn't run all that badly. Still
very usable. You just had to be careful not to open too many browser
tab windows, or run too many apps at once.

To give you an idea of RAM usage after booting to the desktop, no apps
running: Eeebuntu 262MB; XP 476MB.


Thanks Stef this is very good info. I am thinking of trying Linux
keeping a fresh install of XP and swap drives if things don't go well. I
wonder if I can install to an SD card and run a dual boot system. Either
that or partition a 256G SSD. Just a thought.

All those options are possible. You can even use two SSDs: XP on one;
Linux on the other. Linux doesn't care which drive or partition it is
on. It will boot from where ever. Even off another computer, if the two
are networked properly. However, XP is still your best choice, since you
are familiar with it, and all the software you use runs on it. Plus,
Linux has a high and frustrating learning curve.

Stef

On Sat, 25 Feb 2012 17:42:33 +0000 (UTC), Stefan Patric
wrote:

On Sat, 25 Feb 2012 04:25:39 -0500, Allen Drake wrote:

On Sat, 25 Feb 2012 05:05:03 +0000 (UTC), Stefan Patric
wrote:

On Fri, 24 Feb 2012 13:43:17 -0500, Allen Drake wrote:

On Fri, 24 Feb 2012 17:55:56 +0000 (UTC), Stefan Patric
wrote:

On Fri, 24 Feb 2012 12:25:45 -0500, Allen Drake wrote:

[big snip]

Stick with XP.

FWIW, just as a comparison since someone recommended Linux. A little
over a year ago, I set up a EeePC 900--900MHz Celeron M and 1GB
RAM--with Eeebuntu 3.0, a customize version of Ubuntu Linux for the
EeePC. It installed without a hitch and everything worked. It took
1.7GB of the SSD to install, including the apps. For e-mail, web, word
processing, playing and streaming video, etc. it worked great. Much
smoother and more responsive than the version of XP (Home, I think) that
was originally on it. Although, XP didn't run all that badly. Still
very usable. You just had to be careful not to open too many browser
tab windows, or run too many apps at once.

To give you an idea of RAM usage after booting to the desktop, no apps
running: Eeebuntu 262MB; XP 476MB.


Thanks Stef this is very good info. I am thinking of trying Linux
keeping a fresh install of XP and swap drives if things don't go well. I
wonder if I can install to an SD card and run a dual boot system. Either
that or partition a 256G SSD. Just a thought.

All those options are possible. You can even use two SSDs: XP on one;
Linux on the other. Linux doesn't care which drive or partition it is
on. It will boot from where ever. Even off another computer, if the two
are networked properly. However, XP is still your best choice, since you
are familiar with it, and all the software you use runs on it. Plus,
Linux has a high and frustrating learning curve.

Stef

I will consider all the options and will in the end most likely stick
with XP even though I am just as familiar with Win7 having used it for
a few years now. XP even longer of course. I have been spending some
time speeding up this little beast so it boots in just about one
minute compared to about 5 minutes over loaded with unneeded SW. I
also read that DeLorme is not planning on keeping up with Win7 drivers
so that just about says I am better off leaving things just the way
they are now.

I will do some more reading on Linux before I go down that road
though. There are so may versions I am not sure which would be better
then another. I am having second considerations with the learning
circle involved.

On 02/26/2012 12:15 AM, Allen Drake wrote:
I will do some more reading on Linux before I go down that road
though. There are so may versions I am not sure which would be better
then another. I am having second considerations with the learning
circle involved.

Linux Mint KDE is pretty easy to adapt to after Windows. Check it out at
http://www.linuxmint.com/ It doesn't have much of a learning curve and
the Mint forums are pretty helpful and good.

--
Alias

On Sun, 26 Feb 2012 02:42:25 +0100, Alias
wrote:

On 02/26/2012 12:15 AM, Allen Drake wrote:
I will do some more reading on Linux before I go down that road
though. There are so may versions I am not sure which would be better
then another. I am having second considerations with the learning
circle involved.

Linux Mint KDE is pretty easy to adapt to after Windows. Check it out at
http://www.linuxmint.com/ It doesn't have much of a learning curve and
the Mint forums are pretty helpful and good.

Looks good to me. That's where I'll start.

Thanks.

Al.

In ,
Ken Blake typed:
On Fri, 24 Feb 2012 12:25:45 -0500, Allen Drake
wrote:

In my attempts to max out this netbook I have replaced the HDD with
a Crucial SSD and upgraded to 2 Gigs of RAM and am now wondering if
it would be better to keep Windows XP Pro or install Win7. I will be
doing so on a system that is only running a 900 MHZ CPU and Windows 7
Advisor reports it will be running slow so I have to ask if it will
even be worth it. Cost doesn't matter as by adding the SSD, RAM and
Win7 will be more then the original price and I simply want a small
device I can mount in the front of my car as a GPS with a 10" screen
and can access email and Google with no need for any other intensive
apps. I like being able to carry around this tiny thing on the go and
on the job.

I have a 1GB EEE which I upgraded from Windows XP to Windows 7
Ultimate (a two-step upgrade--first to Vista, then to Windows 7; it's
not possible to upgrade directly). As I expected, it runs Windows 7
very slowly. I did it because it made my life somewhat easier if my
desktops and my laptop were all consistent in what operating system
they ran, and because I use the EEE for almost nothing but e-mail when
traveling (and its slowness hardly matters for that use).

Unless you're like me, you'd probably be better off sticking with XP.
I didn't spend anything to do mine, but it's unlikely to be worth it
for you to spend the money to upgrade your hardware.

I have one EeePC 701 and two 702s (all with 2GB of RAM). And I put
Windows 7 on one 702. It was huge mistake. As Windows 7 ate up 50% of
the processor at idle. Running anything required lots of patience and
takes forever.

XP does run very well on such machines though. And Windows 2000 even
runs faster. Windows 2000 is even faster than any Linux distro I have
ever ran. Plus Windows 2000 is Windows compatible while Linux is not.

--
Bill
Asus EeePC 701 ~ 2GB RAM ~ 16GB-SDHC
Windows 2000 SP4 - OE5.5 - OE-QuoteFix v1.19.2

In ,
ray typed:
IMHO - you'd be a lot better off installing Debian Stable. It's a
trivial thing to do and would probably give you significantly better
performance than either of the MS alternatives. Have it installed on
my wife's eeepc - I've just upgraded it to 2GB and a recent 32GB SSD
- runs very nicely.

I would be very careful about recommending Linux. As Linux is only good
at running Linux applications. And quite frankly, I find Linux
applications to be very substandard. And every time I fire up one of my
Linux machines, it feels like I am using one of my PDA applications.

And for many of us use multimedia a lot. And Linux on an EeePC and
multimedia doesn't mix. Even just playing audio is choppy. And forget
about video. As full screen video results in 1fps. And all of these
problems disappear when you run Windows 2000/XP on the same machines.

--
Bill
Asus EeePC 701 ~ 2GB RAM ~ 16GB-SDHC
Windows 2000 SP4 - OE5.5 - OE-QuoteFix v1.19.2

On Sun, 26 Feb 2012 06:07:27 -0600, "BillW50" wrote:

In ,
Ken Blake typed:
On Fri, 24 Feb 2012 12:25:45 -0500, Allen Drake
wrote:

In my attempts to max out this netbook I have replaced the HDD with
a Crucial SSD and upgraded to 2 Gigs of RAM and am now wondering if
it would be better to keep Windows XP Pro or install Win7. I will be
doing so on a system that is only running a 900 MHZ CPU and Windows 7
Advisor reports it will be running slow so I have to ask if it will
even be worth it. Cost doesn't matter as by adding the SSD, RAM and
Win7 will be more then the original price and I simply want a small
device I can mount in the front of my car as a GPS with a 10" screen
and can access email and Google with no need for any other intensive
apps. I like being able to carry around this tiny thing on the go and
on the job.

I have a 1GB EEE which I upgraded from Windows XP to Windows 7
Ultimate (a two-step upgrade--first to Vista, then to Windows 7; it's
not possible to upgrade directly). As I expected, it runs Windows 7
very slowly. I did it because it made my life somewhat easier if my
desktops and my laptop were all consistent in what operating system
they ran, and because I use the EEE for almost nothing but e-mail when
traveling (and its slowness hardly matters for that use).

Unless you're like me, you'd probably be better off sticking with XP.
I didn't spend anything to do mine, but it's unlikely to be worth it
for you to spend the money to upgrade your hardware.

I have one EeePC 701 and two 702s (all with 2GB of RAM). And I put
Windows 7 on one 702. It was huge mistake. As Windows 7 ate up 50% of
the processor at idle. Running anything required lots of patience and
takes forever.

XP does run very well on such machines though. And Windows 2000 even
runs faster. Windows 2000 is even faster than any Linux distro I have
ever ran. Plus Windows 2000 is Windows compatible while Linux is not.

I have seen many Youtube videos about the various Eee PC machines and
some about installing Win7. I haven't seen any about how these
upgrades run so I am glad I posted here and thank you for your reply.
I am also surprised just how many versions there are out there now.
some of the newer ones I see come with Win7 starter of which I am
totally unfamiliar with. I haven't used 2000 in several years and
didn't know it was still being used. I could possibly drag out an
install and see how it runs if it would be worth the effort of getting
familiar with that OS again. So far I am happy to see my 1000HD
operating fast again. I am unable to restore it to factory settings as
F9 does not bring up that option. I see nothing in BIOS ver. 1401 that
references that either. I am wondering if by cloning the original
drive to the SSD if somehow that changed anything.

In ,
Stefan Patric typed:
FWIW, just as a comparison since someone recommended Linux. A little
over a year ago, I set up a EeePC 900--900MHz Celeron M and 1GB
RAM--with Eeebuntu 3.0, a customize version of Ubuntu Linux for the
EeePC. It installed without a hitch and everything worked. It took
1.7GB of the SSD to install, including the apps. For e-mail, web,
word processing, playing and streaming video, etc. it worked great.
Much smoother and more responsive than the version of XP (Home, I
think) that was originally on it. Although, XP didn't run all that
badly. Still very usable. You just had to be careful not to open
too many browser tab windows, or run too many apps at once.

Xandros and Ubuntu for netbooks both were awful for multimedia for me.
Very choppy and very low frame rates. Running XP all of these problems
disappear.

To give you an idea of RAM usage after booting to the desktop, no apps
running: Eeebuntu 262MB; XP 476MB.

Windows 2000 uses 224MB at boot here. My Linux memory is about the same
as yours, my XP on many of machines use around 800MB. Although my
machines has 2GB and XP runs fine for me. The big difference between
Windows 2000 and XP on these EeePC machines is that I haven't seen
Windows 2000 ever get bogged down yet. As I can open up as many webpages
for example that I want and it keeps blazing through it all.

--
Bill
Asus EeePC 701 ~ 2GB RAM ~ 16GB-SDHC
Windows 2000 SP4 - OE5.5 - OE-QuoteFix v1.19.2

In ,
John Williamson typed:

W7 uses more processing power and memory than XP. The aero interface
in particular is a resource hog, even with an application maximised.

This machine has a 1.6GHz, hyperthreading CPU, and even with 2Gig of
RAM, isn't fast enough to stream decent quality video, which it does
under XP with no problems. The battery life is shorter under W7 as
well.

As a marginal case, the EEEPC 701 will just about run XP, bt has no
chance of even coming close to running W7. It runs the lighter Linux
distributions with ease, of course...

I agree with everything except the Linux part. As the Celeron 900MHz
underclocked down to 633MHz just doesn't have enough power for Linux to
run multimedia very well. Windows 2000/XP OTOH doesn't miss a beat.

--
Bill
Asus EeePC 701 ~ 2GB RAM ~ 16GB-SDHC
Windows 2000 SP4 - OE5.5 - OE-QuoteFix v1.19.2

In ,
Allen Drake typed:
On Sun, 26 Feb 2012 06:07:27 -0600, "BillW50" wrote:

In ,
Ken Blake typed:
On Fri, 24 Feb 2012 12:25:45 -0500, Allen Drake
wrote:

In my attempts to max out this netbook I have replaced the HDD
with a Crucial SSD and upgraded to 2 Gigs of RAM and am now
wondering if it would be better to keep Windows XP Pro or install
Win7. I will be doing so on a system that is only running a 900
MHZ CPU and Windows 7 Advisor reports it will be running slow so I
have to ask if it will even be worth it. Cost doesn't matter as by
adding the SSD, RAM and Win7 will be more then the original price
and I simply want a small device I can mount in the front of my
car as a GPS with a 10" screen and can access email and Google
with no need for any other intensive apps. I like being able to
carry around this tiny thing on the go and on the job.

I have a 1GB EEE which I upgraded from Windows XP to Windows 7
Ultimate (a two-step upgrade--first to Vista, then to Windows 7;
it's not possible to upgrade directly). As I expected, it runs
Windows 7 very slowly. I did it because it made my life somewhat
easier if my desktops and my laptop were all consistent in what
operating system they ran, and because I use the EEE for almost
nothing but e-mail when traveling (and its slowness hardly matters
for that use).

Unless you're like me, you'd probably be better off sticking with
XP. I didn't spend anything to do mine, but it's unlikely to be
worth it for you to spend the money to upgrade your hardware.

I have one EeePC 701 and two 702s (all with 2GB of RAM). And I put
Windows 7 on one 702. It was huge mistake. As Windows 7 ate up 50% of
the processor at idle. Running anything required lots of patience and
takes forever.

XP does run very well on such machines though. And Windows 2000 even
runs faster. Windows 2000 is even faster than any Linux distro I have
ever ran. Plus Windows 2000 is Windows compatible while Linux is not.

I have seen many Youtube videos about the various Eee PC machines and
some about installing Win7. I haven't seen any about how these
upgrades run so I am glad I posted here and thank you for your reply.
I am also surprised just how many versions there are out there now.
some of the newer ones I see come with Win7 starter of which I am
totally unfamiliar with. I haven't used 2000 in several years and
didn't know it was still being used. I could possibly drag out an
install and see how it runs if it would be worth the effort of getting
familiar with that OS again. So far I am happy to see my 1000HD
operating fast again. I am unable to restore it to factory settings as
F9 does not bring up that option. I see nothing in BIOS ver. 1401 that
references that either. I am wondering if by cloning the original
drive to the SSD if somehow that changed anything.

Yes cloning could have broken the recovery partition,

And to install Windows 2000 from an USB device, you need Windows 2000
SP4 install disc or it will not work. You can slipstream an old install
disc with SP4 and that works. Also I like to turn off the swapfile on
SSD. Although Windows 2000 complains when you do this. So the workaround
is to use a RAMDisk and move the swapfile there. Windows 2000 is now
happy and it doesn't write to the SSD.

And if you are familiar with XP, Windows 2000 is easy. It is very much
like a lighter version of XP. One troubling thing for me about Windows
2000 is you can't hide tray icons. So I use Aston(1) Shell (not free)
that gives you a desktop that you can. I am actually using a Vista like
theme right now. A lot of people think I am running Vista or Windows 7,
but I am running Windows 2000 instead. ;-)

On my XP and Windows 7 machines I rather use Aston2 Shell (Aston2 won't
run on Windows 2000, but Aston1 will).

--
Bill
Asus EeePC 701 ~ 2GB RAM ~ 16GB-SDHC
Windows 2000 SP4 - OE5.5 - OE-QuoteFix v1.19.2

BillW50 wrote:
In ,
John Williamson typed:

W7 uses more processing power and memory than XP. The aero interface
in particular is a resource hog, even with an application maximised.

This machine has a 1.6GHz, hyperthreading CPU, and even with 2Gig of
RAM, isn't fast enough to stream decent quality video, which it does
under XP with no problems. The battery life is shorter under W7 as
well.

As a marginal case, the EEEPC 701 will just about run XP, bt has no
chance of even coming close to running W7. It runs the lighter Linux
distributions with ease, of course...

I agree with everything except the Linux part. As the Celeron 900MHz
underclocked down to 633MHz just doesn't have enough power for Linux to
run multimedia very well. Windows 2000/XP OTOH doesn't miss a beat.

Also, for XP, there's a clock speed control application available for
the 701 which is free and sits in the system tray with control of clock
speed, screen brightness and fan speed. Very useful...


--
Tciao for Now!

John.

On 26/02/2012 4:01 AM, Allen Drake wrote:
On Sun, 26 Feb 2012 02:42:25 +0100, Alias
wrote:

On 02/26/2012 12:15 AM, Allen Drake wrote:
I will do some more reading on Linux before I go down that road
though. There are so may versions I am not sure which would be better
then another. I am having second considerations with the learning
circle involved.

Linux Mint KDE is pretty easy to adapt to after Windows. Check it out at
http://www.linuxmint.com/ It doesn't have much of a learning curve and
the Mint forums are pretty helpful and good.

Looks good to me. That's where I'll start.

Thanks.

Al.

+1.

It's a great way to extend the life of older hardware. I installed
LinuxMint on my wife's ancient laptop when I bought her a new one. It's
a lovely OS, well tuned to the average user. Yesterday I connected it to
the TV, it and the TV communicated automagically, it even resized the
display on the laptop so that it would be an exact match for what the TV
could display. Occasionally, I have to press the wi-fi switch on the
laptop to start the connection, that's the only glitch. BTW, I use the
Gnome desktop, no problems.

HTH
Wolf K.

In ,
John Williamson typed:
BillW50 wrote:
In ,
John Williamson typed:

W7 uses more processing power and memory than XP. The aero interface
in particular is a resource hog, even with an application maximised.

This machine has a 1.6GHz, hyperthreading CPU, and even with 2Gig of
RAM, isn't fast enough to stream decent quality video, which it does
under XP with no problems. The battery life is shorter under W7 as
well.

As a marginal case, the EEEPC 701 will just about run XP, bt has no
chance of even coming close to running W7. It runs the lighter Linux
distributions with ease, of course...

I agree with everything except the Linux part. As the Celeron 900MHz
underclocked down to 633MHz just doesn't have enough power for Linux
to run multimedia very well. Windows 2000/XP OTOH doesn't miss a
beat.

Also, for XP, there's a clock speed control application available for
the 701 which is free and sits in the system tray with control of
clock speed, screen brightness and fan speed. Very useful...

Yes I use it on my 2000/XP EeePC machines (eeectl). Although whether you
run the processor at 900MHz or 633MHz, there isn't much of a performance
difference. The same author later wrote a version for Linux too.
Although it seems to require packages that no longer exists. So I never
got the Linux one to work.

--
Bill
Asus EeePC 701 ~ 2GB RAM ~ 16GB-SDHC
Windows 2000 SP4 - OE5.5 - OE-QuoteFix v1.19.2

On Sun, 26 Feb 2012 09:28:00 -0500, Wolf K
wrote:

On 26/02/2012 4:01 AM, Allen Drake wrote:
On Sun, 26 Feb 2012 02:42:25 +0100, Alias
wrote:

On 02/26/2012 12:15 AM, Allen Drake wrote:
I will do some more reading on Linux before I go down that road
though. There are so may versions I am not sure which would be better
then another. I am having second considerations with the learning
circle involved.

Linux Mint KDE is pretty easy to adapt to after Windows. Check it out at
http://www.linuxmint.com/ It doesn't have much of a learning curve and
the Mint forums are pretty helpful and good.

Looks good to me. That's where I'll start.

Thanks.

Al.

+1.

It's a great way to extend the life of older hardware. I installed
LinuxMint on my wife's ancient laptop when I bought her a new one. It's
a lovely OS, well tuned to the average user. Yesterday I connected it to
the TV, it and the TV communicated automagically, it even resized the
display on the laptop so that it would be an exact match for what the TV
could display. Occasionally, I have to press the wi-fi switch on the
laptop to start the connection, that's the only glitch. BTW, I use the
Gnome desktop, no problems.

HTH
Wolf K.
How did you connect your PC to the TV? I have a USB TV device but I
have not tried it on my netbook.