Asus EEEPC, Acer Aspire One or MSI Wind?

Jacek Poplawski · 2008-11-26 12:59:29

Which is the best choice for Arch Linux?

lucke · 2008-11-26 13:08:43

Both should work similarly.

I'm in love with my MSI Wind, seems to be the best choice I could have made. YMMV.

schuay · 2008-11-26 13:46:44

I've owned the Aspire One 110, Aspire One 150 and EEEPC 1000H.

My personal favorite by far is the Aspire One 150. The SSD in AAO110 is far too slow and EEEPC 1000H is too big/heavy, and has a less than ideal keyboard layout. Plus I prefer the glossy AAO display to the EEEPCs.

The only disadvantage on the AAO is the 3cell battery with around 2h battery life. 6 and 9 cells are available separately.

I haven't tried the MSI Wind yet,,

Last edited by schuay (2008-11-26 13:48:53)

elmer_42 · 2008-11-26 16:57:47

I figure that they are all about the same. The only thing different between them is that the Wind has a better keyboard than the rest of them. This is the reason I want an MSI Wind.

greyarea · 2008-11-30 23:23:31

Using an eee 1000H here and its perfect as far as I'm concerned, I actually like the keyboard layout that everyone complains so much about and can type faster than on my normal keyboard! That being said, it does flex a little when in use, but tbh I don't really notice any more.

Haven't tried the others so can't comment comparatively.

keenerd · 2008-12-01 03:43:57

Arch does a good job keeping up with the latest releases, so all your hardware should work. Arch almost certainly will run faster than the bundled OS. Regarding SSDs, I've been running Arch on various forms of flash for the past few years without a hitch.

Not mentioned by the OP, but the HP Mininote is pretty awesome. Keyboard rocks (almost as good as my thinkpad) and the screen is something else. 1280x800! Loudest speakers of any laptop I've owned, too. Louder than Macbooks, for what its worth. (Quality at those volumes is not so good, but at least the sound chip does not pick up cell phone signals like the black macbooks do.)

Also, it looks/feels better than any other little laptop. Solid aluminum exterior, no bending anywhere.

More expensive than most of the competition, but worth it if you plan to use it as your primary machine.

Last edited by keenerd (2008-12-01 03:50:35)

kaola_linux · 2008-12-01 08:04:07

I myself is considering Acer Aspire One 8gb...:D
It has an SSD and thats bothering me...

@keenerd - could you provide some more info's on the performance difference between the SSD and HDD using arch on netbook machines?

Thanks alot

keenerd · 2008-12-01 10:33:04

@kaola - Sure thing. Be forewarned that most of this is going to sound extremely anecdotal. I've yet to have the piles of money required for a traditional SSD, instead going for bare minimum of hardware. I've also never done benchmarking, other than some informal file copying tests.

First machine didn't really count - my main desktop blew a drive, so for a month I lived off of bootable flash drive set up with Puppy Linux.

First real SSD machine was a P3, with 1Gb compact flash card in a CF-IDE adapter. Ran pretty good. A headless server will easily fit in 1Gb. Tried a bunch of different configurations on this hardware, eventually settled with a single partition (no swap) formatted ext2 and mounted with noatime. I still use this configuration on all my flash systems. Linux buffered file access, so the disk felt a lot faster than it was. First time I ran pacman it chewed away for a while, finished, and kept on spooling out data for another five minutes.

Second machine was a P2 thinkpad, first with a 1Gb CF card in CD-IDE adapter. For a single user, 1Gb is tight. Limit yourself to console apps, and 1Gb is plenty. (Assuming you only use one large language: You can't have erlang and haskell and python and java on top of the required perl/gcc.) Oh, minor gripe about that: perl takes up 30-40Mb, and only exists to enocde man pages. 1Gb was barely enough for CLI apps and X, Opera, and mplayer.

Upgraded that thinkpad to a 2Gb CF card and used it for a long time. (E17 runs surprising well on a P2.) The CF card held binaries. Most of my data was on a flash drive or various network drives. Big lesson learned here: If you are on wireless, flash is faster than your network connection. If you have USB1.1, flash is faster than the attatched drive. For anything that is non-disk intensive a user never notices the speed. Even for disk intensive copying, something else will be the bottleneck.

Third machine was a little Celeron based laptop. It used an 8Gb usb flash drive, mounted inside the case. Worked fine, when the BIOS felt like booting.

Fourth machine was the HP Mininote I am typing on now. HP made a big mistake putting Suse on the hard drive. Way too slow to boot. Using a hard drive was a mistake, too. Within 30 minutes of getting the laptop, the hard drive was removed and it was replaced with a 2Gb SD card in the SD card reader. Much better (30% ish) battery life without a hard drive. That was back in April. Since then, it has been upgraded to an 8Gb card. Does not sound like much, but 8Gb fits all my commonly used apps (except OO/java, but abiword+gnumeric+catdoc is enough) with room left for a few hours of mp3s and a movie. No complaints, except for the lack of a good graphic chip. (Glxgears runs at 190 fps. The only Kenta Cho bullet hell game playable is Noiz2sa.)

I am currenly putting together a fifth machine, a mini itx network device. It uses a 4Gb IDE flash module. Stil waiting for most of the parts, but the flash module is here and is pretty nice. Tiny little thing that just plugs into the motherboard.

File systems have come a long way since I first started fooling around with flash, so I'll do some experimentation on the new flash module. But ext2, noatime, no swap has served me very well.

Expect to see this rant recycled into a blog post :-)

Last edited by keenerd (2008-12-01 10:38:52)

kaola_linux · 2008-12-01 11:04:02

Wow, thats a long experience you had. I did have experienced installing arch on my dad's eee-pc 701 with 4gb SSD and 4gb SD and I had some issues making the 4gb SD as my home. I just can't format it using arch's cfdisk don't know why...:) I'm hoping this won't happen to the Acer Aspire One.Hehe...

Thanks for the infor keenerd, it did clarified things for me...I'll post a new topic as soon as I get my hands on that acer aspire one this xmas...:P

Inkaine · 2008-12-01 15:43:54

keenerd wrote:

Arch almost certainly will run faster than the bundled OS.

I have to disagree fullheartedly here. This is a completely Arch-biased opinion without any substantial proof.

Nothing will be as fast as the default OS, at least on the AA1. The Linpus Linux is fully optimized for AA1, boots in no time and consumes half the energy Arch does (battery lasts 3h, whereas on Arch 2-2.5h). It's just specifically tweaked for the machine, which Arch is not (yet). We need to find out all these settings they have first. So if you want most of the battery and fastest boot time, stay with the default. That's the general opinion, just look on the AA1 thread in this sub forum.

I can't judge for Xandros on the Eee, but I guess it will be pretty similar.

keenerd · 2008-12-01 18:04:41

My apologies for over generalizing. I had a very bad experience with the Suse installation on the Mininote. There was nothing done to make it work on the hardware, other than some code for the sound chip that had not yet made it into the ALSA mainline.

But since most of the linux netbooks use KDE or Gnome, you could probably get a more snappy UI (all that most users notice or care about) using openbox/e17/awesome/dwm. (All window managers I've used quite sucessfully on my P2, and all much easier to install under Arch).

True, Arch does not do much for power or boot time optimizations. But Arch booted about three times faster than Suse did. Battery life was about the same, before removing the hard drive. In the case of the Mininote, Arch was a big improvement.

phrakture · 2008-12-01 23:44:22

I'm asking myself this question right now too. I'm leaning a little more towards the Eee simply because Dan (toofishes) maintains a customized Eee repo, which would make everything smoother.

kaola_linux · 2008-12-02 05:45:32

Inkaine wrote:

keenerd wrote:
Arch almost certainly will run faster than the bundled OS.
I have to disagree fullheartedly here. This is a completely Arch-biased opinion without any substantial proof.
Nothing will be as fast as the default OS, at least on the AA1. The Linpus Linux is fully optimized for AA1, boots in no time and consumes half the energy Arch does (battery lasts 3h, whereas on Arch 2-2.5h). It's just specifically tweaked for the machine, which Arch is not (yet). We need to find out all these settings they have first. So if you want most of the battery and fastest boot time, stay with the default. That's the general opinion, just look on the AA1 thread in this sub forum.
I can't judge for Xandros on the Eee, but I guess it will be pretty similar.

I guess you had a point. Maybe sooner or later Arch will be optimized for AA1 also just like on the eee-pc... Linux is very flexible anyway...:D

As an Arch user I don't wanna go distro-hopping anymore. I might as well just expand my knowledge on Arch.

schuay · 2008-12-02 08:45:13

phrakture wrote:

I'm asking myself this question right now too. I'm leaning a little more towards the Eee simply because Dan (toofishes) maintains a customized Eee repo, which would make everything smoother.

gothicknight also maintains a custom kernel for the AA1 which works very well, it's in the AUR under kernel26-one.

lucke · 2008-12-02 10:56:11

And Wind doesn't really need a custom kernel.

drojid · 2008-12-05 14:36:44

Nor does AAO...

I wanted a Wind at first but after some googling I found that they are almost identical, but
- AAO has 2 card readers
- AAO is told to be more quiet
(- their keyboards seemed to be exactly the same in the shop)

I don't like it's shinyness, but that's the only con, so I bought the AAO.

vader · 2008-12-14 05:35:35

I haven't used the other two, however I have an eeepc 701 with 2G ram, and it works flawlessly. I am logged in under 20 seconds, and the system is very responsive.

I will admit to having to tinker a bit - I recompiled toofishes kernel with my own options, and I am using madwifi instead of ath5k for wireless (flawlessly btw). I use xfce4 with compositing. I have compiled the eee module to overclock as well. The little beastie flies! In Oz, you can now buy them for about $350, so adding 2G ram means about $400. Awesome value

As to the question about the default OS, arch is quicker, in booting, shutting down, and to launch apps. The latter may be due to Xfce4, rather than a cut down KDE. I also have 2G rather than 512M - however I don't know how much caching there is at boot time.

Ironically, my work machine (dual core running ubuntu) seems less responsive - but obviously much faster when crunching.....

Basically, arch + eeepc = awesome!

Onyros · 2008-12-16 02:18:57

I have an EEEPC 701, and briefly had an Asus N10JC. The HDD on the N10 got corrupted within a couple of weeks, and instead of asking for a replacement I got a refund, and bought an Advent 4211c (rebadged MSI Wind) for 260 euros (that's 350 US dollars / 230 pounds), which is half of what the N10JC cost me, originally.

The N10JC is a great laptop, though, but for my usage the Advent is perfect. They both have the usual stuff, plus a 10 inch screen @ 1024x600, but the N10JC has an integrated + dedicated graphics chip, you change it by toggling a button and rebooting; it also came with two batteries - a 3 cell and a 6 cell battery - and an external slim dvd recorder... which makes it a great bundle.

The N10JC's screen is glossy vs the Advent/MSI's matte. It's a matter of taste, really. Glossy shines in the eyes of the beholder at first impression, but I actually believe matte LCD's are better for all-around usage (no reflection, for instance).

Even so, I'm more than satisfied with the Advent. As it is just a rebadged MSI Wind, it shares everything with it, apart from the default battery, which is a 3 cell one on the Advent, and a 6 cell (I believe) on the Wind.

It's a good time to buy a netbook, really. Dual core Intel Atom's in a mobile version aren't expected until the second half of 2009, so specs won't differ much until then. It's a matter of getting the best bargain, best screen and battery life.

BTW, the Acer Aspire One has a very good screen, but other than that, from what I tested, it gets much, much hotter than the Advent and the N10JC. Also, it's a nightmare to upgrade, due to a very crooked layout inside. At their price, they may be an unbeatable bargain, though. One just has to pray nothing goes wrong, 'cos you know what they say about Acer's customer support.

Finally, comparing the EEEPC 1000 and the Advent/Wind... Overall, I much prefer the Advent (much better keyboard, for instance), but the EEEPC's battery life is incredible. For the difference in price, I'll probably be getting a 6 cell battery to complement mine.

I still want to take the NC10 for a test drive, though, but I'm pretty sold on the Advent - which, BTW, is not only cheaper than the Wind, but in my opinion also looks much nicer. That goes for the 4211 (I have the c model, with the 120GB HDD), as the new model - 4213 - has a different chassis.

I'm using Arch with DWM, so life's good there.

Last edited by Onyros (2008-12-16 02:21:48)

z0phi3l · 2008-12-16 04:55:33

@keenerd

I'm in the process of getting a "used" HP 2133

Did it take much tinkering to get Arch on it? I feel the SUSE gnome install is a bit slow for this one 1.0, 512mb RAM, and was thinking Openbox with a few other lightweights would do the trick, as it stands now, I can't even watch a high quality YouTube vid without stuttering.

vader · 2008-12-16 14:31:41

Openbox is good, but have a look at Xfce4. Nice and quick, with enough features. As far as video, you shouldn't have a problem. I can record DVB, and watch the stream with mplayer on my eeepc (630MHz celeron) - no stuttering.

Youtube plays fine in high quality, although for some other online video, I need to bump the processor to 900MHz.

keenerd · 2008-12-17 21:31:09

@z0phi3l

My install went pretty flawlessly. Loaded the USB net installer to an SHDC card and partitiond the remaining space. Booted the installer and put Arch on the sd card's second partition. I imagine installing to the hard drive would be no more difficult. Wireless is easiest through ndiswrapper. Video used to be fantastic with the xf86-video-via module, but that was dropped in the recent Xorg update.

z0phi3l · 2008-12-18 16:58:48

Looks like I hsve something new to do once I get settled in here at Mom's place

Arch Linux

#1 2008-11-26 12:59:29

Asus EEEPC, Acer Aspire One or MSI Wind?

#2 2008-11-26 13:08:43

Re: Asus EEEPC, Acer Aspire One or MSI Wind?

#3 2008-11-26 13:46:44

Re: Asus EEEPC, Acer Aspire One or MSI Wind?

#4 2008-11-26 16:57:47

Re: Asus EEEPC, Acer Aspire One or MSI Wind?

#5 2008-11-30 23:23:31

Re: Asus EEEPC, Acer Aspire One or MSI Wind?

#6 2008-12-01 03:43:57

Re: Asus EEEPC, Acer Aspire One or MSI Wind?

#7 2008-12-01 08:04:07

Re: Asus EEEPC, Acer Aspire One or MSI Wind?

#8 2008-12-01 10:33:04

Re: Asus EEEPC, Acer Aspire One or MSI Wind?

#9 2008-12-01 11:04:02

Re: Asus EEEPC, Acer Aspire One or MSI Wind?

#10 2008-12-01 15:43:54

Re: Asus EEEPC, Acer Aspire One or MSI Wind?

#11 2008-12-01 18:04:41

Re: Asus EEEPC, Acer Aspire One or MSI Wind?

#12 2008-12-01 23:44:22

Re: Asus EEEPC, Acer Aspire One or MSI Wind?

#13 2008-12-02 05:45:32

Re: Asus EEEPC, Acer Aspire One or MSI Wind?

#14 2008-12-02 08:45:13

Re: Asus EEEPC, Acer Aspire One or MSI Wind?

#15 2008-12-02 10:56:11

Re: Asus EEEPC, Acer Aspire One or MSI Wind?

#16 2008-12-05 14:36:44

Re: Asus EEEPC, Acer Aspire One or MSI Wind?

#17 2008-12-14 05:35:35

Re: Asus EEEPC, Acer Aspire One or MSI Wind?

#18 2008-12-16 02:18:57

Re: Asus EEEPC, Acer Aspire One or MSI Wind?

#19 2008-12-16 04:55:33

Re: Asus EEEPC, Acer Aspire One or MSI Wind?

#20 2008-12-16 14:31:41

Re: Asus EEEPC, Acer Aspire One or MSI Wind?

#21 2008-12-17 21:31:09

Re: Asus EEEPC, Acer Aspire One or MSI Wind?

#22 2008-12-18 16:58:48

Re: Asus EEEPC, Acer Aspire One or MSI Wind?

Board footer