Talk:Asus Eee PC

News models and specs to be added?

I've see a 900HA advertised but can't find any official specs? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.208.36.118 (talk) 20:39, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

See the specs for all the models here: http://event.asus.com/eeepc/comparison/eeepc_comparison.htm

I've made a small change to the 701-SD spec. It isn't always sold with the 30GB external drive. Personal experience, here in the UK. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.71.223.204 (talk) 22:21, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

SSD interface

The article claims the larger SSD in the 900 series is a "PCI Express Mini SSD", windows claims both SSDs are on one of the chipset IDE ports. Can anyone further explain what is going on

Memory

Interestingly, my new Eee 901 linux had 1GB of PC2-3200 (400mhz)

Not 533/667 listed

Did upgrade mine to a 2GB stick of PC-5300 (667mhz) and its loads faster on the stock OS

Whats anyone elses been? As we really should change the table, as it would be the same for other people i suspect... (Presumably for all models, they just can support PC-667)

—Reedy 20:10, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

[1] - Someone else stating it is PC2-3200. —Reedy 20:17, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I am in Hong Kong and bought an EEEPC 901. It was bundled with one 1GHz DDR2 400MHz RAM. (The machine can run on 533MHz clock rate, so I replaced this slow RAM as soon as I bought. The machine can support installing a 667MHz RAM but can only run 533 MHz — being limited by the FSB of Atom N270) --✉ Hello World! 16:55, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Battery

In Malaysia the 1000H is sold with the mentioned 6 cell 6600 mAh in the 80G version only. The 160G version is using a battery of a different technology (did not catch the name), offers only 5700 mAh AND has a bulk about 1 - 1 1/2 cm on the back of the machine. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.50.118.31 (talk) 02:05, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

External links

The "admin approved links" that apparently contain no ads (false) and are non commercial (probably false) that seem to me to be a violation of WP:EL have been re-added. Would someone care to link me to this instance of an admin for some reason allowing guideline violations? Rehevkor ✉ 13:23, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

See Links... and I think we should add back eeeuser.com. -- Raysonho (talk) 01:57, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Reading through WP:EL I can see little reason to include it. It basically seems like little more than a blog, and not a very comprehensive and outdated one (looking for information on my Eee PC gives me few results.) Unless you're prepared to dig in this rather badly designed site I don't feel it ads anything to the article. Rehevkor ✉ 02:23, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Actually, not eeeuser.com, but forum.eeeuser.com -- Raysonho (talk) 02:45, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Well that's even worse WP:EL wise. It explicitly states forums are to be avoided. Rehevkor ✉ 03:08, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, I find it to be really useful. But if WP:EL explicitly states that forums are to be avoided, then I am OK with not including it. -- Raysonho (talk) 03:48, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

I placed the comment "admin approved links" as the two links in question were considered to offer value for the reader as information (I don't know how updated it is now) from the eeeuser page provided and since overclocking is of interest to many of the readers the second site was approved as it is a fact based how-to and links to a free software (open source under the GPL terms) designed specifically for the eeepc. These links have been preserved and in place really since the creation of this article. Unfortunately I cannot find the name of the moderator but this article has been locked in past for external links and stripped of all but the three links which were left in place - considered admin approved. If you look back as far as June 08 (as far as I can go back) these three links are the only ones that have stayed on - until you deleted them of course. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Archerman2000 (talk • contribs) 18:09, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

So that's what you mean. It counts for zilch. Protecting a page is not to be considered an endorsement of the protected page, it is simply to prevent edit warring. Admin attention other than protection is typically only used for flagrant breaches of policy. There is no notion of an 'admin approved' external link - it is not a power they possess, over and above expressing an opinion which is the right of any user. CrispMuncher (talk) 18:31, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Just because they've always been there doesn't mean they should stay there. Rehevkor ✉ 19:48, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

pronounciation

I do not understand from the article how to read 'eee pc'. Should I say "ee-ee-ee-pee-see"? This could have been made clearer.