First, here's a subjective evaluation of performance. I used the 1000HE for an extended period for web browsing, email, word processing and spreadsheet work. Applications opened quickly. Data entry was quick and very easy with the large keyboard. Paging and Internet access were fast. My work was always saved to the 160GB hard disk drive in a flash. I have no qualms about using either the 1000HA or 1000HE for office work. And, I was very satisfied with battery life, which in my real world experience ran about 5 hours.
I used PerfTest from PassMark Software to test the 1000HE. PerfTest is a very good, comprehensive testing suite that, unlike FutureMark’s PCMark Vantage products, can run on both Windows Vista and XP computers.
The PerfTest measured performance of the ASUS Eee PC 1000HE’s Atom N280 processor compared quite closely with that of an old Intel Celeron 1.33MHz processor, data for which is in PassMark’s database library. I’ll spare you the details of those numbers. Instead, I want to compare some PerfTest numbers for the 1000HE with those from my daily workhorse Toshiba M200-ST2002 standard notebook.
My purpose here is not to compare apples and oranges. Rather I want you to see how the 1000HE at $375 compares with the Toshiba that cost me almost $1300 back in late 2007; upgrades to the Toshiba’s memory cost another $100 and a Vista Ultimate upgrade added $200. So, call it $1600. I’ll talk more about non-netbook alternatives in the next section.
Test Computer Configuration and PerfTest Results (Higher Scores Are Better)
|Computer Configuration||ASUS Eee PC 1000HE||Toshiba M200-ST2002|
|Processor||Intel Atom N280 1.66Ghz||Intel Mobile Core 2 Duo T7100 1.80GHz|
|Memory||1GB DDR2-667MHz at 333MHz||3GB DDR2-667MHz at 333MHz|
|Main HDD||Seagate ST9160310AS 160GB, 5400 RPM, SATA-II||Toshiba MK-2035GSS, 200GB, 5400 RPM, SATA-I|
|Chipset||Intel 945GSE, Intel GMA 950 Graphics Processor||Intel GM965, Intel GMA 3100 Graphics Processor|
|Operating System||Windows XP Home SP 3||Windows Vista Ultimate SP 1|
|Row 5 - Cell 0||Row 5 - Cell 1||Row 5 - Cell 2|
|PerfTest Results||ASUS Eee PC 1000HE||Toshiba M200-ST2002|
|2D Graphics Mark||115.2||200.4|
|3D Graphics Mark||59.2||94.3|
PerfTest does a number of CPU, graphics, memory and disk tests. It then summarizes these into basic categories. These are the “Mark” numbers above. The benchmark also computes a single value that summarizes all the tests, the PassMark Rating.
The 1000HE is clearly no match for the M200-ST2002, except in the disk drive category, where the 1000HE’s SATA II interface and drive give it a marked advantage. Do note, however, that the 1000HE’s graphics performance is still pretty good compared to the M200-ST2002. Watching the displays on the two computers during the tests, it was difficult to see a significant difference in performance. Note again, however, that the 1000HE ran at a display resolution of 1024x600, while the Toshiba’s display ran at 1280x800.
I can't be the only who feels this way after using a netbook with a 1024 x 600 screen.
Even the older 800x480 screens were passable to get the job done, although sometimes you'd have to scroll the screen. But with 1024x600, this is much less of a problem.
My problem with the eee 1000H was the looks more than anything. the 1000HE is a slight improvement but the 1002 would be better. However the N280 without the better chipset isn't worth the extra money so we wait for the new chipset. The battery life does make it a very nice deal for the price though.
The product isn't really a laptop and even though you can buy a nice 13 inch laptop for 600 bucks which I would recomend if needed more speed. The xp, atom, gma 950 does more than what need for the basics. It should be noted that most of the people who would read this would want more than the basics so take that into consideration before judging the product. I am hoping for some better designs and upgraded tech for the 12 inch ish market at about 400-500 but intels atom and windows xp restictions are causing some major problems with that.
Thanks for the review
There are a few reasons. I think mostly they want to keep the cost down, since that's one of the main concepts. Cheap, basic, portable, simple. The parts and engineering for an ultra slim like the mac air require more money to produce.