ASUS' Ion-packing Eee PC 1201N gets official, gets handled (video)
By Tim Stevens 
posted November 19th 2009 6:51AM
posted November 19th 2009 6:51AM
[Thanks, John B]
posted November 19th 2009 6:51AM
A look back on popular stories from today in a specific year.
Now that we've thrown 'em off the trail, use the form below to get in touch with the people at Engadget. Please fill in all of the required fields because they're required.
I'm sorry, what? My eyes are still tired from the Times New Roman font. I can't seem to focus on what is actually written in the articles....
@JakeMG Shouldn't you be commenting that in the post about the New Engadget rather than this post? Looks like a nice netbook, but I prefer a real laptop with POWAAAARRRR.
@JakeMG Doesnt really fit with the new look does it..
@Oli D No, it doesn't fit at all.
@chasethebase: I left my comment there, too. It bothers me that much. I promise this is the last place I will mention it, but from a design aesthetic, it is a horrible decision. Most modern web design classes teach you, as rule #4 or so, do not use Times New Roman or other similarly spaced and serifed fonts as they cause eye fatigue when viewed on a screen. I won't mention it again...
@JakeMG I can see where you're coming from to be honest, it is kind of annoying, yet I do kind of like it. We'll see in a couple of days what I think of it...
@JakeMG Of what I've heard serif fonts are easier on the eye.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serif#Usage
+1. The only problem with the new design is this font.
@JakeMG Completely agree - this font is driving me crazy, terrible readability.. Where's Trebuchet MS at?
@kopmis For printed materials, yes. It's rather different when you're reading from a screen.
@kopmis: I think you meant to say, "From what I've skimmed while reading Wikipedia." Serif fonts are easy on the eyes in print, but not so much in a digital format. From the Wikipedia entry you referenced: "While in print serifed fonts are considered more readable, sans-serif is considered more legible on computer screens." Thank you for helping me to prove my point. Next time, when you introduce a piece of evidence, make sure it's not going to help the person you're arguing against. ;)
@JakeMG Agreed completely! Absolutely terrible to read! Bring back Arial or something without so many corners and tails on it!
Also, Engadget now crashes Mobile Safari out on my iPhone Edge 3.1.2 after taking a long time to load.
@kopmis Serif fonts are for printed material, Sans-Serif for material that will be read on a screen.
@James Sonne: Same here. Crashes mobile safari for me every single time on an iPod touch over freaking WiFi on FW 3.1.2. I know Mr. Topolsky is a big iPhone guy, so hopefully he will have it crash on him and work to get it fixed. I think there are just too many page elements for a mobile browser to handle, which is a shame because many of use view this through our phones.
Hasn't crashed through my Android browser, though. But I prefer to web browse with my iPod. Better experience.
@JakeMG and others, we're aware of a number of issues with the site browsed through mobile devices. We're working on it.
Your patience is of course appreciated.
@TimStevens: Tim, I love how your comment was from an unverified account. Classic!
Also, thanks for listening to our concerns! You rule. Now can you just smack someone in the sack about the decision to use serif fonts?
@JakeMG Haha, working on the unverified account as well, and I believe the font debate will rage on for some time to come :)
@TimStevens: Hopefully that debate is raging throughout the halls of Engadget, and not just here in the peanut gallery. Seriously, I don't think it's time to "Take Back Times New Roman." It is extremely fatiguing to the eyes. Then again, I'm just another geek with an opinion.
And I'm not even mentioning the other font sizes, etc. I think the entire font palette needs to be reworked, and then this site would rule. IMO, design is supposed to sit there quietly and just make the site easier to navigate and read. It shouldn't distract the reader. I love the use of white space, but this font stuff has me distracted...
Thanks again for responding. 8/
@JakeMG
Just wanted to say, it works fine on my 5800 with Opera Mini 5, and shakily on the stock browser. And it changes the ugly font.
@JakeMG
imo bigger problem than the times new is this tiny-ass comment font. i'm 19 and have pretty decent eyes but it's very tiring to read. actually fonts are smaller in other places too... not to mention too much italics.
@maveric101: Yes, small fonts are tough, and adding those italics to times new roman font is like heating up a knife before it's stuck into your eyes.
@JakeMG I feel your pain...
@TimStevens
Would you fix the times new roman font?
That is a good deal...
I'm really starting to feel nausious of the almost endless eeepc's ... every month a new one pops up (except on the store shelfs...
"Dool core Atom Processor"
Dewel Core Dammit!
Well, the hdmi-port does it for me! :-) Still wish it was a small 10" though...
@Kashve I too wish it were a 10" it seems like something I want though 3gb should've been min.
@Kashve
I wish it was non-glare.... still don't understand why they build glary displays since those "machines" are meant to be used outside! Have fun in Cali with that thing...
@Kashve
You think 10" is small? I envy you.
Glossy palm rest and trackpad... what is asus thinking? Do they honestly believe that consumers like something that looks and feels disgusting after just a few minutes of use?
@failsafe Yeah, that's really the only thing I don't like about the ASUS laptop I have right now. When I first got it I'd take a microfiber to it several times a day...I have stopped caring since...
I like the 12" screen, and the resolution is definitely more usable than my wife's samsung NC10. Hopefully the keyboard is full size which is critical to me (10" netbooks are a little too small for touch typing)
is the ION supported by the latest flash update for HD youtube content?
@mrklaw ION is supported. You can view the full list of supported GPUs in the Flash 10.1 release notes. By the way the hardware acceleration works also on other HD flash sites.
@mrklaw
I've used the NC10 myself and I think the keyboard is good (samsung says it's 92% the size of an original keyboard). But again I have to point out the biggest advantage of the NC10: MATTE DISPLAY! sorry for trolling...
@mrklaw Yup
oh my god, that is AWESOME.
I think asus has me sold on my next net/notebook.
and only $499? *uhghgughguh*
@FAP FAP FAP
I am currently in the market for a netbook and I second this.
Looks promising...I assume 2 core Atom will handle things quite nicely, not a speed demon, but worth the cost. I am interested how it compared to ULV chips(like Core 2s and AMD Neo)
It would be great, if it didn't have a damn glossy screen. What's the point of having a ultraportable if you can't use it on an environment that has any kind of light source?
The question is, which do I buy? The Asus 1201N with dual core atom and Ion, or the Asus UL30Vt with a ULV Core 2 Duo and 210m. Sure the UL30Vt is a bit more expensive and is slightly larger, but the processing power makes up for it, it would seem.
Opinions?
@Conceyted i'm not sure of the battery life of the UL30Vt, but common sense says its worse what with the better processor and stuff. I guess its whichever one you lust more?
yes i said lust
@paul Well, while I am unaware if the 1201N has any of these features, the UL30Vt allows you to switch between integrated and discrete graphics (perhaps the 1201n does not need this as the Ion is already power efficient), also the UL30Vt has a larger battery, and it has the ability to overclock itself when power is needed, or turn all of the premium settings off to get about 12 full hours of battery life. I would venture to say the 1201N will probably have a lower batter life than that.
@Conceyted Also, as far as I can see, the UL30Vt is thinner than the 1201N and a lot sexier. Thinking of getting one myself.
@Conceyted If you've ever seen how awesomely thin a Macbook Air is, then consider that the UL30Vt is nearly as thin.
@Conceyted i guess then the biggest deciding factor is the MSRP
@kopmis I don't think the UL30Vt is THAT thin, it seems to be on par with the current Macbook Pro's.
@paul Definitely. Though, I am leaning toward the more expensive UL30Vt due to all of the additional features and options, and because the overall styling does appear to 1-up the 1201N.
@paul actually, the UL30 probably has more battery life (10h+ in real life tests). It's almost the perfect device if you're looking for an ultraportable...only the glossy screen is a bit of a letdown.
http://www.laptopmag.com/review/laptops/asus-ul30a.aspx
@L While that is the UL30, that is not the UL30Vt. I would not consider the UL30 over the 1201N simply due to its lack of dedicated graphics.
Besides, the UL30Vt seems to boast a better battery life than the UL30, does it not?
@Conceyted
Disregard whatever Paul C just said. My logic (which supersedes Paul C's (sry dude)) says the 13.3 in. UL30Vt should have a battery life of around 10+ hours. It's bigger cousin the 14in. UL80Vt, which has the same CULV SU7300 processor and switchable graphics setup (between G210M and GMA 4500MHD), clocked in at around 12 hours of battery life (as reviewed by Engadget).
The review:
http://www.engadget.com/2009/11/11/asus-ul80vt-review/
The CPU in the UL80Vt was overclocked to 1.73GHz, while the UL30Vt is at 1.4GHz, so the UL30Vt will still hit 10+ hours even if it is 1 in. smaller.
So, if you can afford the extra $250-$350 over the ASUS 1201N, get the UL30Vt. Besides, brushed aluminum is better than stupid glossy plastic anyday.