How much would it cost to put Windows XP/Vista onto a EEPC?
- Thread starter NjL2012
- Start date
wolfeking
banned
some of them run on a modified linux distro that Asus customized. If this is what is on there, chances are that you are better off with leaving it alone.
And I suggest linux far above windows on netbooks. Windows 7 starter especially should never be put on one. With 2GB of RAM and a Dual core Atom, it is laggy as hell. Vista is heaver than 7, so don't even think of that.
XP, may go on it. It will be not as secure as Linux, and may give troubles with drivers. But that is what you get with XP.
As for what it cost, depends on where you take it. I know star city charged $25 + the cost of windows to install. I personally charge $10 to install an OS, that is + cost of OS of coarse. Add $5 for partitioning beyond what is required for OS to operate.
And I suggest linux far above windows on netbooks. Windows 7 starter especially should never be put on one. With 2GB of RAM and a Dual core Atom, it is laggy as hell. Vista is heaver than 7, so don't even think of that.
XP, may go on it. It will be not as secure as Linux, and may give troubles with drivers. But that is what you get with XP.
As for what it cost, depends on where you take it. I know star city charged $25 + the cost of windows to install. I personally charge $10 to install an OS, that is + cost of OS of coarse. Add $5 for partitioning beyond what is required for OS to operate.
wolfeking
banned
quite simply, it is too weak and lacking in RAM to run any windows. 900MHz and 512MB, with 8GB storage.
Either leave the linux alone, or try to grab a flashkey/USB disk drive and stick puppy/crunchbang on it, or any other minimalist distro on it and you should be fine. You can try Ubuntu 10.04.4 also, it ran about as well as 2k on my Thinkpads with 256MB and P3 500/800 MHz in them.
Either leave the linux alone, or try to grab a flashkey/USB disk drive and stick puppy/crunchbang on it, or any other minimalist distro on it and you should be fine. You can try Ubuntu 10.04.4 also, it ran about as well as 2k on my Thinkpads with 256MB and P3 500/800 MHz in them.
strollin
Well-Known Member
I know you love Linux and hate Windows but come on.
We have several netbooks in our family with 1.5G of RAM and Dual Core Atom running Win 7 Pro and they aren't a bit laggy. The only time they would possible be laggy is if you tried to run cpu/gpu intensive games on them. They work perfectly fine for the things they were intended for such as browsing the web, checking email, doing word processing, etc...
My wife has a eeePC with 2G of RAM running Win 7 Starter and it works fine. She mostly uses it to watch videos without any lag.
To the OP: According to the eeePC website, that model eeePC came with Win XP Home on it. See here: http://usa.asus.com/Eee/Eee_PC/Eee_PC_701SD/#specifications
Last edited:
wolfeking
banned
Personal experience speaks otherwise. Acer netbook with dual core atom @ 1.6GHz and 2GB of DDR3 1600 barely ran the internet without lagging. One tab took forever to do anything, running Opera, not chrome.
Ubuntu 12.04, not even a lightweight one on the same harddrive does not lag at all.
Ubuntu 12.04, not even a lightweight one on the same harddrive does not lag at all.
I wouldn't put windows on that net book. It would run slower than a turtle.
strollin
Well-Known Member
You had something setup wrong with your netbook as your results are NOT typical. I regularly run multiple tabs in FireFox on Win 7 on a netbook.
strollin
Well-Known Member
If you see my post above with the link to the Asus website, you'll see that netbook shipped with Win XP.
wolfeking
banned
Setup was not done. Simply put, ordered it. Opened box. Assembled it (battery and charger). Powered on. Entered name, password, and network credentials when asked for them. Downloaded opera. Used computer. Throughly unimpressed with it, and certainly not worth the $300 that it cost.
The purpose of it was supposed to be better battery life and more usability for web and basic stuff, so I did not have to carry my D630 on trips and such. Full charge it last 5 hours. My 9 cell beats it by 7 hours at full charge.
and web runs better on the D630. So I loaded linux and gave it to sis.
The purpose of it was supposed to be better battery life and more usability for web and basic stuff, so I did not have to carry my D630 on trips and such. Full charge it last 5 hours. My 9 cell beats it by 7 hours at full charge.
and web runs better on the D630. So I loaded linux and gave it to sis.
strollin
Well-Known Member
I'm typing this post from a netbook right now, no problems whatsoever. You may not have been impressed but I doubt the performance was as bad as you are portraying.
Netbooks certainly have their shortcomings but their performance is more than adequate for most computing tasks. If you're going to fault them, fault them for their smaller, cramped keyboard, lousy touchpad and lower resolution screen. Netbooks have better performance than the first few laptops I owned but I never felt those laptops were unusable.
Netbooks certainly have their shortcomings but their performance is more than adequate for most computing tasks. If you're going to fault them, fault them for their smaller, cramped keyboard, lousy touchpad and lower resolution screen. Netbooks have better performance than the first few laptops I owned but I never felt those laptops were unusable.
Last edited:
An optimized version of Windows maybe. His came with Linux. You try installing XP on it and it will just crawl. Believe me, I've tried.
strollin
Well-Known Member
You two do realize that the netbooks we are talking about easily beat the minimum requirements for XP and are more powerful than the computers that were available when XP first shipped, don't you?
You believe what you want.
Let's think about this for a minute....
1. Netbooks were made for email/websurfing and that's about it.
2. I would agree that this netbook would be slow at 900mhz celeron cpu with only 512mb ram, especially if you install a antivirus program. However, refer to #1.
No sense in arguing over this at all.
To OP,
You won't be breaking any speed records with this but if you want XP, I say give it a try. You should be able to find a legit copy somewhere online.
1. Netbooks were made for email/websurfing and that's about it.
2. I would agree that this netbook would be slow at 900mhz celeron cpu with only 512mb ram, especially if you install a antivirus program. However, refer to #1.
No sense in arguing over this at all.
To OP,
You won't be breaking any speed records with this but if you want XP, I say give it a try. You should be able to find a legit copy somewhere online.
strollin
Well-Known Member
Don't want to argue but can't stand by while misinformation is being bandied about.
That Celeron processor is plenty powerful enough. Here are the requirements for XP:
The minimum hardware requirements for Windows XP Home Edition are:
Pentium 233-megahertz (MHz) processor or faster (300 MHz is recommended)
At least 64 megabytes (MB) of RAM (128 MB is recommended)
At least 1.5 gigabytes (GB) of available space on the hard disk
CD-ROM or DVD-ROM drive
Keyboard and a Microsoft Mouse or some other compatible pointing device
Video adapter and monitor with Super VGA (800 x 600)or higher resolution
Sound card
Speakers or headphones
Netbooks easily exceed these requirements.
That Celeron processor is plenty powerful enough. Here are the requirements for XP:
The minimum hardware requirements for Windows XP Home Edition are:
Pentium 233-megahertz (MHz) processor or faster (300 MHz is recommended)
At least 64 megabytes (MB) of RAM (128 MB is recommended)
At least 1.5 gigabytes (GB) of available space on the hard disk
CD-ROM or DVD-ROM drive
Keyboard and a Microsoft Mouse or some other compatible pointing device
Video adapter and monitor with Super VGA (800 x 600)or higher resolution
Sound card
Speakers or headphones
Netbooks easily exceed these requirements.
Last edited:
Just because it exceeds the requirements doesn't mean it will actually run well. That little crappy 8GB SSD is the main culprit.