eee901 Plus New gForce Graphics?

.... Or whatever it takes to render 1080 without overloading the
CPU.

Are we there yet?
--
PeteCresswell

Per (PeteCresswell):
>Are we there yet?

FWIW, I tried to answer my own question by going to
http://usa.asus.com/

Had forgotten how bad Asus's web site was the last time I visited
it and this time it seems to have gotten even worse.

I write computer applications for a living and make the majority
of my purchases from web sites - so I'm not exactly a virgin.

Without ranting on and on... I just can't find out what I want to
know from their site.
--
PeteCresswell

Per (PeteCresswell):
>
>Are we there yet?

After a little trial-and-error, it looks like this is the one for
watching HD movies:

http://promos.asus.com/US/EeePC_1005PR/ASUS_1005PR.html

True?
--
PeteCresswell

(PeteCresswell) wrote:
> Per (PeteCresswell):
>> Are we there yet?
>
> FWIW, I tried to answer my own question by going to
> http://usa.asus.com/
>
> Had forgotten how bad Asus's web site was the last time I visited
> it and this time it seems to have gotten even worse.
>
> I write computer applications for a living and make the majority
> of my purchases from web sites - so I'm not exactly a virgin.
>
> Without ranting on and on... I just can't find out what I want to
> know from their site.

The problem I have, with your whole concept, is how do you
know that a manufacturer's claim is real ? Say I were to point
you to an Asus web page that says "plays 1080p while being
easy on batteries". What are the odds that the claim is
truthful ? An acid test, for example, is to do PIP on 1080p,
and perhaps that is what you as a consumer have in mind,
while the manufacturer knows the hardware barely does 1080p
for a single stream. Or perhaps the manufacturer tested with
some variant that is "easy" to do, while your content has a
higher bitrate or whatever. Even if we find such a claim,
it could be bogus.

VIA recently introduced a new chipset, with the ability to
accelerate video, but they're VIA after all. There is no way
to know, based on their fluff claims, whether it works or not.

I concur on your opinion of the Asus site. Asus, are you listening ?

"Asus, your site is simply dreadful!

There, that's two votes.

*******

1201N Atom 330 Dual Core (1.6GHz?), Nvidia ION (first generation)

http://www.asus.com/product.aspx?P_ID=sZ0sI6WqjnCHGFta

1201PN Atom N450 Nvidia ION (second generation) ???

(I think that is a single core 1.66GHz processor, so maybe not the best choice.)

http://www.slashgear.com/asus-eee-pc...icial-0276292/

http://translate.google.co.uk/transl...n&hl=&ie=UTF-8

1201T AMD MV-40 CPU (dual core 1.6GHz) , ATI RS780MN

(I cannot get the product page to appear! I can't verify this is the link.
I was able to see a page for this yesterday, but not today.)

http://www.asus.com/product.aspx?P_ID=ls15lhnDPup9y6Uh

Another article - apparently they've reviewed a few different models, so
you could use the links on this page, to compare them.

http://www.notebookcheck.net/Nvidia-...w.29021.0.html

Paul

Per Paul:
>The problem I have, with your whole concept, is how do you
>know that a manufacturer's claim is real ?

That is part of the reason I am asking the question here.
--
PeteCresswell

Per Paul:
>An acid test, for example, is to do PIP on 1080p,
>and perhaps that is what you as a consumer have in mind,

It's not what I had in mind - being sufficiently clueless to not
have much of *anything* in mind... but it sounds like a good idea
for an acid test.

I copied a segment of an HD broadcast to my key fob/thumb drive
and next time I get to the local Micro Center, I'll try doing the
PIP thing and see how it renders.

Notably absent from Asus' attempt at specs is any mention of
"nVidia" or "GeForce"....
--
PeteCresswell

On Fri, 23 Apr 2010 19:21:29 -0400, "(PeteCresswell)" <> wrote:

>... Or whatever it takes to render 1080 without overloading the
>CPU.
>
>Are we there yet?

Nope. To the best of my knowledge, no Eee PC has the screen real estate
to do 1080, much less the horsepower.

TBH, your query sounds a bit odd anyway. It's like asking if the smart
car ( http://www.smartusa.com/ ) can do 0-60 in under 6 seconds. It
wasn't a design principle for the car and 1080 wasn't a design principle
for the Eee PC. It may well do 1080 some day, but by then it will just be
another down-sized laptop.

Per Foke:
>TBH, your query sounds a bit odd anyway. It's like asking if the smart
>car ( http://www.smartusa.com/ ) can do 0-60 in under 6 seconds. It
>wasn't a design principle for the car and 1080 wasn't a design principle
>for the Eee PC. It may well do 1080 some day, but by then it will just be
>another down-sized laptop.

Not weird in the context of my own use.

I really do use my 901 as a web book, but it has another use: as
a node for my TV system.

Mostly I watch TV on regular television sets that are fed by the
system, but at night I'll often watch a movie or the rest of some
show I didn't finish earlier in the day while laying in bed. No
hard drive, plenty battery life....

Works great except for HD shows. I can still watch them, but I
have to tell the system to down-level the rez on-the-fly.

No real loss for talking heads like Charlie Rose or Jay Leno...
but it falls short for movies where a certain level of detail and
ability to render lots of motion is needed.

It's still acting as a more-or-less-dumb terminal - just being
asked to render stuff that's beyond the capabilities of a
graphics engine that relies on the CPU.

Offloading that rendering to a dedicated chip would be an
improvement.

Dunno what it would do the power requirements though - and
economy of power use seems tb a key part of what makes something
a "web book" instead of a regular laptop.
--
PeteCresswell