http://www.engadget.com/2008/10/31/lightweight-windows-7-pre-beta-loaded-onto-eee-pc-1000h-with-ver/ Engadget Comments for http://www.engadget.com/media/feedlogo.gif http://www.engadget.com en-us Copyright 2012 Weblogs, Inc. The contents of this feed are available for non-commercial use only. Blogsmith http://www.blogsmith.com/http://www.engadget.com/2008/10/31/lightweight-windows-7-pre-beta-loaded-onto-eee-pc-1000h-with-ver/http://www.engadget.com/2008/10/31/lightweight-windows-7-pre-beta-loaded-onto-eee-pc-1000h-with-ver/Very interesting that they're able to use XP drivers for it. Are there any changes in the drivermodel for 7?]]>Oct 31st 2008 4:12AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/10/31/lightweight-windows-7-pre-beta-loaded-onto-eee-pc-1000h-with-ver/http://www.engadget.com/2008/10/31/lightweight-windows-7-pre-beta-loaded-onto-eee-pc-1000h-with-ver/Oct 31st 2008 5:09AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/10/31/lightweight-windows-7-pre-beta-loaded-onto-eee-pc-1000h-with-ver/http://www.engadget.com/2008/10/31/lightweight-windows-7-pre-beta-loaded-onto-eee-pc-1000h-with-ver/Oct 31st 2008 4:15AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/10/31/lightweight-windows-7-pre-beta-loaded-onto-eee-pc-1000h-with-ver/http://www.engadget.com/2008/10/31/lightweight-windows-7-pre-beta-loaded-onto-eee-pc-1000h-with-ver/

http://www.flickr.com/photos/mikelewis/2287255886/]]>Oct 31st 2008 4:39AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/10/31/lightweight-windows-7-pre-beta-loaded-onto-eee-pc-1000h-with-ver/http://www.engadget.com/2008/10/31/lightweight-windows-7-pre-beta-loaded-onto-eee-pc-1000h-with-ver/
Microsoft and Apple may have their differences, but they usually churn up some wonderful desktop pics.]]>Oct 31st 2008 4:25AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/10/31/lightweight-windows-7-pre-beta-loaded-onto-eee-pc-1000h-with-ver/http://www.engadget.com/2008/10/31/lightweight-windows-7-pre-beta-loaded-onto-eee-pc-1000h-with-ver/Oct 31st 2008 6:48AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/10/31/lightweight-windows-7-pre-beta-loaded-onto-eee-pc-1000h-with-ver/http://www.engadget.com/2008/10/31/lightweight-windows-7-pre-beta-loaded-onto-eee-pc-1000h-with-ver/Nov 1st 2008 7:03AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/10/31/lightweight-windows-7-pre-beta-loaded-onto-eee-pc-1000h-with-ver/http://www.engadget.com/2008/10/31/lightweight-windows-7-pre-beta-loaded-onto-eee-pc-1000h-with-ver/
...about 20.]]>Oct 31st 2008 10:05AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/10/31/lightweight-windows-7-pre-beta-loaded-onto-eee-pc-1000h-with-ver/http://www.engadget.com/2008/10/31/lightweight-windows-7-pre-beta-loaded-onto-eee-pc-1000h-with-ver/Oct 31st 2008 10:18AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/10/31/lightweight-windows-7-pre-beta-loaded-onto-eee-pc-1000h-with-ver/http://www.engadget.com/2008/10/31/lightweight-windows-7-pre-beta-loaded-onto-eee-pc-1000h-with-ver/
Beg to differ. You could actually fit Mac OS 7-9 on RAM and boot from it ;-)

http://osxdaily.com/2007/03/23/create-a-ram-disk-in-mac-os-x/

See post and comments there.]]>Oct 31st 2008 12:11PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/10/31/lightweight-windows-7-pre-beta-loaded-onto-eee-pc-1000h-with-ver/http://www.engadget.com/2008/10/31/lightweight-windows-7-pre-beta-loaded-onto-eee-pc-1000h-with-ver/
http://geekpi.com/images/win7/wallpapers/win7/]]>Oct 31st 2008 1:14PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/10/31/lightweight-windows-7-pre-beta-loaded-onto-eee-pc-1000h-with-ver/http://www.engadget.com/2008/10/31/lightweight-windows-7-pre-beta-loaded-onto-eee-pc-1000h-with-ver/Oct 31st 2008 4:30AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/10/31/lightweight-windows-7-pre-beta-loaded-onto-eee-pc-1000h-with-ver/http://www.engadget.com/2008/10/31/lightweight-windows-7-pre-beta-loaded-onto-eee-pc-1000h-with-ver/Oct 31st 2008 4:32AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/10/31/lightweight-windows-7-pre-beta-loaded-onto-eee-pc-1000h-with-ver/http://www.engadget.com/2008/10/31/lightweight-windows-7-pre-beta-loaded-onto-eee-pc-1000h-with-ver/
There's a couple out there at 512Mb of RAM but most are 1Gb due to the XP license limit so who knows, they might come with 2Gb if the 7 license doesn't have that kind of limit.]]>Oct 31st 2008 4:40AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/10/31/lightweight-windows-7-pre-beta-loaded-onto-eee-pc-1000h-with-ver/http://www.engadget.com/2008/10/31/lightweight-windows-7-pre-beta-loaded-onto-eee-pc-1000h-with-ver/Oct 31st 2008 4:40AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/10/31/lightweight-windows-7-pre-beta-loaded-onto-eee-pc-1000h-with-ver/http://www.engadget.com/2008/10/31/lightweight-windows-7-pre-beta-loaded-onto-eee-pc-1000h-with-ver/Oct 31st 2008 4:42AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/10/31/lightweight-windows-7-pre-beta-loaded-onto-eee-pc-1000h-with-ver/http://www.engadget.com/2008/10/31/lightweight-windows-7-pre-beta-loaded-onto-eee-pc-1000h-with-ver/Oct 31st 2008 4:47AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/10/31/lightweight-windows-7-pre-beta-loaded-onto-eee-pc-1000h-with-ver/http://www.engadget.com/2008/10/31/lightweight-windows-7-pre-beta-loaded-onto-eee-pc-1000h-with-ver/
HA HA HA!

Of course not. There's nothing special about the Windows 7 RAM footprint, nothing whatsoever. Just bad reporting.]]>Oct 31st 2008 5:24AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/10/31/lightweight-windows-7-pre-beta-loaded-onto-eee-pc-1000h-with-ver/http://www.engadget.com/2008/10/31/lightweight-windows-7-pre-beta-loaded-onto-eee-pc-1000h-with-ver/Oct 31st 2008 6:35AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/10/31/lightweight-windows-7-pre-beta-loaded-onto-eee-pc-1000h-with-ver/http://www.engadget.com/2008/10/31/lightweight-windows-7-pre-beta-loaded-onto-eee-pc-1000h-with-ver/
That's not the point. The point is that 1GB of memory, despite the fact that you find it anywhere, it's a f***ing huge amount of memory. It's wasted space, filled up by sloppy to plainly dumb programming by Microsoft's "engineers" (not that Apple's are much better, mind you). The point is that we could have ridiculously cheap machines that could do everything much, much faster; instead we have super-fast machines that crawl and give "decent results" even if they have that kind of memory and can carry out more than one billion and a half operations a second: do you have a vague idea of what that means? I guess not, after all processors are so cheap these days.

Wake up, people. Those who prefer the blue pill go ahead and low-rank me.

P.S. For those who think I'm talking BS: see what a well-coded OS could do about 10 years ago, with 64MB of RAM: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6VDYdaXApNk (at about 2:10, for the impatient ones)]]>Oct 31st 2008 7:05AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/10/31/lightweight-windows-7-pre-beta-loaded-onto-eee-pc-1000h-with-ver/http://www.engadget.com/2008/10/31/lightweight-windows-7-pre-beta-loaded-onto-eee-pc-1000h-with-ver/Oct 31st 2008 8:25AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/10/31/lightweight-windows-7-pre-beta-loaded-onto-eee-pc-1000h-with-ver/http://www.engadget.com/2008/10/31/lightweight-windows-7-pre-beta-loaded-onto-eee-pc-1000h-with-ver/
Yes, that was awesome for 10 YEARS AGO. Technology advances. Try putting a modern TCP/IP stack or a modern Kernel on a 10 year old machine. The fact is that it wouldn't even run because machines back then were 16bit. Modern machines are 32 or 64 bit, which means every single pointer allocated takes over double the space, which alone takes up a ton more RAM. Machines now take up more RAM because they do more than machines 10 years ago. If you want a small footprint, go back to Windows 3.1 or the original Mac OS. RAM is cheap, 500MB of RAM usage for a modern OS is great.]]>Oct 31st 2008 11:22AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/10/31/lightweight-windows-7-pre-beta-loaded-onto-eee-pc-1000h-with-ver/http://www.engadget.com/2008/10/31/lightweight-windows-7-pre-beta-loaded-onto-eee-pc-1000h-with-ver/Oct 31st 2008 11:28AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/10/31/lightweight-windows-7-pre-beta-loaded-onto-eee-pc-1000h-with-ver/http://www.engadget.com/2008/10/31/lightweight-windows-7-pre-beta-loaded-onto-eee-pc-1000h-with-ver/Oct 31st 2008 1:10PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/10/31/lightweight-windows-7-pre-beta-loaded-onto-eee-pc-1000h-with-ver/http://www.engadget.com/2008/10/31/lightweight-windows-7-pre-beta-loaded-onto-eee-pc-1000h-with-ver/
Gah! You all suck! (except the OP)

I'm running a very feature rich Linux (with Compiz, no less) on a 5 year old computer with 256MB of RAM. Despite having much more features and bling bling, it even runs faster than XP...

Lightweight my arse, micro$ofts code is trash, like it has almost always been....]]>Oct 31st 2008 6:16PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/10/31/lightweight-windows-7-pre-beta-loaded-onto-eee-pc-1000h-with-ver/http://www.engadget.com/2008/10/31/lightweight-windows-7-pre-beta-loaded-onto-eee-pc-1000h-with-ver/
What a load of bullshit.

LOL, 16-bit machines, 10 years ago? Are you living still in 1999? See, I knew you had something to do with the Old Ass Matrix.

No, 10 years ago machines were already 32-bit. Windows 95 (in, uh, 1995) was a 32-bit operating system, as BeOS, in 1998, was too.
And no, memory and space usage doesn't inherently double in the transition; you made that up.

So, let me get your "reasoning" straight: we have machines that are, what, 10 ten times faster than 10 years ago? Yet, in your opinion, a "modern" TCP/IP stack (which, BTW, does not differ from a 10-year old stack in the least) and a "modern" kernel should run slower. So the "modern" kernel is, let's say, 12 times slower than the old one. And that's because technology is advancing. Right.

You like the Old Ass Matrix, you live in it. Cheers.]]>Nov 1st 2008 8:33AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/10/31/lightweight-windows-7-pre-beta-loaded-onto-eee-pc-1000h-with-ver/http://www.engadget.com/2008/10/31/lightweight-windows-7-pre-beta-loaded-onto-eee-pc-1000h-with-ver/Oct 31st 2008 4:44AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/10/31/lightweight-windows-7-pre-beta-loaded-onto-eee-pc-1000h-with-ver/http://www.engadget.com/2008/10/31/lightweight-windows-7-pre-beta-loaded-onto-eee-pc-1000h-with-ver/Oct 31st 2008 4:52AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/10/31/lightweight-windows-7-pre-beta-loaded-onto-eee-pc-1000h-with-ver/http://www.engadget.com/2008/10/31/lightweight-windows-7-pre-beta-loaded-onto-eee-pc-1000h-with-ver/did you even READ the Engadet article?]]>Oct 31st 2008 8:46AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/10/31/lightweight-windows-7-pre-beta-loaded-onto-eee-pc-1000h-with-ver/http://www.engadget.com/2008/10/31/lightweight-windows-7-pre-beta-loaded-onto-eee-pc-1000h-with-ver/Oct 31st 2008 9:51AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/10/31/lightweight-windows-7-pre-beta-loaded-onto-eee-pc-1000h-with-ver/http://www.engadget.com/2008/10/31/lightweight-windows-7-pre-beta-loaded-onto-eee-pc-1000h-with-ver/My four year old Tablet PC which is lower spec than this netbook runs Vista just fine. And this is my daily use and drawning laptop.]]>Oct 31st 2008 10:57AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/10/31/lightweight-windows-7-pre-beta-loaded-onto-eee-pc-1000h-with-ver/http://www.engadget.com/2008/10/31/lightweight-windows-7-pre-beta-loaded-onto-eee-pc-1000h-with-ver/
Dude, you work in slow-motion...]]>Oct 31st 2008 7:46PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/10/31/lightweight-windows-7-pre-beta-loaded-onto-eee-pc-1000h-with-ver/http://www.engadget.com/2008/10/31/lightweight-windows-7-pre-beta-loaded-onto-eee-pc-1000h-with-ver/Oct 31st 2008 4:50AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/10/31/lightweight-windows-7-pre-beta-loaded-onto-eee-pc-1000h-with-ver/http://www.engadget.com/2008/10/31/lightweight-windows-7-pre-beta-loaded-onto-eee-pc-1000h-with-ver/Oct 31st 2008 4:57AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/10/31/lightweight-windows-7-pre-beta-loaded-onto-eee-pc-1000h-with-ver/http://www.engadget.com/2008/10/31/lightweight-windows-7-pre-beta-loaded-onto-eee-pc-1000h-with-ver/
I guess it's a step in the right direction. I'd like to see all netbooks use a dual core atom though. Current gen is just too weak. Skype video is a good test, at a minimum you should be able to have 2 way video.]]>Oct 31st 2008 4:55AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/10/31/lightweight-windows-7-pre-beta-loaded-onto-eee-pc-1000h-with-ver/http://www.engadget.com/2008/10/31/lightweight-windows-7-pre-beta-loaded-onto-eee-pc-1000h-with-ver/Oct 31st 2008 5:06AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/10/31/lightweight-windows-7-pre-beta-loaded-onto-eee-pc-1000h-with-ver/http://www.engadget.com/2008/10/31/lightweight-windows-7-pre-beta-loaded-onto-eee-pc-1000h-with-ver/
2) "It *probably* didn't do crappy 720 because of the crappy XP drivers running in compat mode"
The graphics on it doesn't decode the actual video, just the CPU does that. So that's probably not the reason and considering how vista doesn't run 720P as well you're just being silly.

3) Still a valid benchmark and atom is uber lame.]]>Oct 31st 2008 5:37AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/10/31/lightweight-windows-7-pre-beta-loaded-onto-eee-pc-1000h-with-ver/http://www.engadget.com/2008/10/31/lightweight-windows-7-pre-beta-loaded-onto-eee-pc-1000h-with-ver/The graphics on it doesn't decode the actual video, just the CPU does that.

Untrue. Most graphics hardware these days will do some measure of hardware acceleration for you. ]]>Oct 31st 2008 1:05PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/10/31/lightweight-windows-7-pre-beta-loaded-onto-eee-pc-1000h-with-ver/http://www.engadget.com/2008/10/31/lightweight-windows-7-pre-beta-loaded-onto-eee-pc-1000h-with-ver/Oct 31st 2008 5:06AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/10/31/lightweight-windows-7-pre-beta-loaded-onto-eee-pc-1000h-with-ver/http://www.engadget.com/2008/10/31/lightweight-windows-7-pre-beta-loaded-onto-eee-pc-1000h-with-ver/
hopefully no useless features will end up in a netbook version, because they certainly will on a desktop version. like multi touch support. how many people need that?]]>Oct 31st 2008 11:47AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/10/31/lightweight-windows-7-pre-beta-loaded-onto-eee-pc-1000h-with-ver/http://www.engadget.com/2008/10/31/lightweight-windows-7-pre-beta-loaded-onto-eee-pc-1000h-with-ver/
But...that still sounds like far too much RAM usage and need for me. Maybe I'm spoiled by Linux and XP's relatively low RAM need...but what exactly is all that ram getting used by? and to do what?]]>Oct 31st 2008 5:11AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/10/31/lightweight-windows-7-pre-beta-loaded-onto-eee-pc-1000h-with-ver/http://www.engadget.com/2008/10/31/lightweight-windows-7-pre-beta-loaded-onto-eee-pc-1000h-with-ver/Oct 31st 2008 5:20AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/10/31/lightweight-windows-7-pre-beta-loaded-onto-eee-pc-1000h-with-ver/http://www.engadget.com/2008/10/31/lightweight-windows-7-pre-beta-loaded-onto-eee-pc-1000h-with-ver/
Which is pretty much only used nowadays to play SimTower and be nostalgic. ]]>Oct 31st 2008 5:23AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/10/31/lightweight-windows-7-pre-beta-loaded-onto-eee-pc-1000h-with-ver/http://www.engadget.com/2008/10/31/lightweight-windows-7-pre-beta-loaded-onto-eee-pc-1000h-with-ver/Oct 31st 2008 5:32AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/10/31/lightweight-windows-7-pre-beta-loaded-onto-eee-pc-1000h-with-ver/http://www.engadget.com/2008/10/31/lightweight-windows-7-pre-beta-loaded-onto-eee-pc-1000h-with-ver/
Who do you think I am, some kind of Richard Branson type character?]]>Oct 31st 2008 5:34AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/10/31/lightweight-windows-7-pre-beta-loaded-onto-eee-pc-1000h-with-ver/http://www.engadget.com/2008/10/31/lightweight-windows-7-pre-beta-loaded-onto-eee-pc-1000h-with-ver/
What exactly does Windows 7 bring new to the OS game that would convince a non-Linux user to switch from XP on a netbook ? for a Linux savvy the advantage of Linux distros is that they can be remastered to fit a specific user and netbook's needs. Imho Microsoft simply can't touch that...

and yes, 485MB RAM is *not* lightweight, no matter how cheap RAM gets ! Personally i use XP as my main OS but Linux alternatives for old workstations or new netbooks far outclass MS. Puppy Linux for example comes loaded with everything u'll ever need on a netbook, all in 90Mb ! And on an old machine startup times for the OS as well any application that has equivalent version on Windows (such as Pidgin, Opera, Firefox, Abiword) is at least half !

Netbooks won't pass the 2GB Ram barrier any time soon simply because some manufacturers are interested in keeping things cheap. Besides, as far as i know current processors employed on netbooks are x86 only, so no RAM over 3.5 or whatever the limit is...
Sure, things will change by the time Windows 7 is out, but i doubt that much...]]>Oct 31st 2008 5:26AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/10/31/lightweight-windows-7-pre-beta-loaded-onto-eee-pc-1000h-with-ver/http://www.engadget.com/2008/10/31/lightweight-windows-7-pre-beta-loaded-onto-eee-pc-1000h-with-ver/
Having become very used to and happy Vista, and still having a number of XP builds lying about, I really don't want to go back to XP. In fact I always run XP under MS VPC on Vista if I need to.

Vista on a Netbook is too slow at the moment, so I would be very happy to be able to run Windows 7 and so would many users.

The MIE shell on Ubuntu for the HP Mini 1000 looks interesting, and if done well might convert a few more people to Linux, but generally I think much of the Linux implementations have a long way to go due to the open source nature.

Linux on a netbook needs a major company like Google behind it to give it a better user experience.

]]>Oct 31st 2008 7:46AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/10/31/lightweight-windows-7-pre-beta-loaded-onto-eee-pc-1000h-with-ver/http://www.engadget.com/2008/10/31/lightweight-windows-7-pre-beta-loaded-onto-eee-pc-1000h-with-ver/Oct 31st 2008 9:46AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/10/31/lightweight-windows-7-pre-beta-loaded-onto-eee-pc-1000h-with-ver/http://www.engadget.com/2008/10/31/lightweight-windows-7-pre-beta-loaded-onto-eee-pc-1000h-with-ver/
Plus, if it runs slow at the time, it's probably because it's a debug build, with symbols activated.]]>Oct 31st 2008 5:27AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/10/31/lightweight-windows-7-pre-beta-loaded-onto-eee-pc-1000h-with-ver/http://www.engadget.com/2008/10/31/lightweight-windows-7-pre-beta-loaded-onto-eee-pc-1000h-with-ver/Oct 31st 2008 5:47AM