I'm about to update my old Fujitsu lifebook and was after a new laptop which I will use mainly for astronomy. I stumbled onto an eeePC the other day and liked the size of the 10 inch screen version.
I would love to hear some input from those using a eeePC, how it works in the field and what you all are controlling with it.
I know a couple of other members are using eeePC (701's) successfully.
i bought an eeePC 901 because i wanted the larger screen and disk space (4 GB + 8 GB SSD).
- I have connected to my Meade DSI and EQ6Pro with PHD Guiding but not tested in the field. As I said, others have used their eeePC.
- with the Solid State Disks my uptime is fantastic, although the battery meter in Windows seems to be inaccurate.
- I wiped the XP Home install and installed XP Pro successfully.
- I find the lack of a hard disk a bit limiting, especially as I have loaded Office 2007 Ultimate (will use for uni and work stuff, as well).
- i have surfed the web and worked on documents successfully
- the 8.9" screen is very useable
- overall, i love the unit and cannot wait to travel with it.
The eeePC 10" looks like a good choice. does the model you are looking at come with a hard disk?
Yep - the U100 is a nice device, but it doesn't run a solid state disk - which is the sole thing that attracted me to the eeePC. SSD's are tough-as nails and consume less power - important for operation in the field.
Yep - the U100 is a nice device, but it doesn't run a solid state disk - which is the sole thing that attracted me to the eeePC. SSD's are tough-as nails and consume less power - important for operation in the field.
Well, the U100 is reviewed to have almost the same battery life from what I see. Toughness doesn't fit in to my criteria so much
Thanks for the input everyone. I've had a look online and have found about 4 other computers with the same price and specs as the eeepc from Samsung, acer etc. All look good.
Chris not sure about ssd's consuming less power. There seems to be some debate about that since a "normal" drive can spool down and "sleep" whereas the ssd's dont. Guess only real way is to get both types together and see what the difference is but as stated by Roger there isnt much in it. Would certainly be tougher tho.
Chris not sure about ssd's consuming less power. There seems to be some debate about that since a "normal" drive can spool down and "sleep" whereas the ssd's dont. Guess only real way is to get both types together and see what the difference is but as stated by Roger there isnt much in it. Would certainly be tougher tho.
Mike, there are two basic flavours of SSD: RAM-based and flash. I believe that flash disks are more power conscious whereas RAM-based you have to supply power to constantly - even when off. Both take more power to run per GB than a hard disk, I'm sirprised to see one source say. I've heard different, but here's the list form Wikipedia. If I read it correctly, although SSD's consume more power per GB, their inherently small capacity might mean that a 8GB SSD might still consume less power than an 80GB HDD.
Quote:
Advantages
Faster start-up, as no spin-up is required (RAM & Flash).
Typically, fast random access for reading, as there is no read/write head to move (RAM & Flash).
Extremely low read latency times, as SSD seek-times are orders of magnitude lower than the best current hard disk drives.[9] (RAM) In applications where hard disk seeks are the limiting factor, this results in faster boot and application launch times (see Amdahl's law)[10] (RAM & Flash).
Extremely fast write (RAM, nearly the same for best modern flash).
No noise: a lack of moving parts makes SSDs completely silent, unless, as in the case of some high-end and high-capacity models, they have cooling fans attached (RAM & Flash).
For low-capacity flash SSDs, low power consumption and heat production when in active use, although high-end SSDs and DRAM-based SSDs may have significantly higher power requirements (Flash).
High mechanical reliability, as the lack of moving parts almost eliminates the risk of mechanical failure (RAM & Flash).
Ability to endure extreme shock, high altitude, vibration and extremes of temperature: once again because there are no moving parts.[11] This makes SSDs useful for laptops, mobile computers, and devices that operate in extreme conditions (Flash).[10]
Larger range of operating temperatures. Typical hard drives have an operating range of 5-55 degrees C. Most flash drives can operate at 70 degrees, and some industrial grade drives can operate over an even wider temperature range.[12]
Relatively deterministic read performance:[13] unlike hard disk drives, performance of SSDs is almost constant and deterministic across the entire storage. This is because the seek time is almost constant and does not depend on the physical location of the data, and so, file fragmentation has almost no impact on read performance.
For low-capacity SSDs, lower weight and size: although size and weight per unit storage are still better for traditional hard drives, and microdrives allow up to 20 GB storage in a CompactFlash 42.8×36.4×5 mm (1.7×1.4×.2 in) form-factor. Up to 256 GB, SSDs are currently lighter than hard drives of the same capacity.[11]
When failures occur, they tend to occur either 'on write', or 'on erase', rather than 'on read'. With traditional HDDs, failure tends to occur 'on read'. If the drive detects failure on write, data can be written to a new cell without data loss occuring. If a drive fails on read, then data is usually lost permanently. [14]
Disadvantages
Cost – as of mid-2008, SSD prices are still considerably higher per gigabyte than are comparable conventional hard drives: consumer grade drives are typically US$2.00 to US$3.45 per GB[5][15] for flash drives and over US$80.00 per GB for RAM-based compared to about US$0.38 per gigabyte for hard drives[5].
Capacity – currently far lower than that of conventional hard drives (Flash SSD capacity is predicted to increase rapidly, with experimental drives of 1 TB,[16][17], hard drive capacity also continues to expand, and hard drives are likely to maintain their capacity edge for some time.)[18]
DRAM based SSDs have a higher vulnerability to abrupt power loss.
Limited write (erase) cycles – flash-memory cells will often wear out after 1,000 to 10,000 write cycles for MLC, and up to 100,000 write cycles for SLC[5], while high endurance cells may have an endurance of 1–5 million write cycles (many log files, file allocation tables, and other commonly used parts of the file system exceed this over the lifetime of a computer).[19] Special file systems or firmware designs can mitigate this problem by spreading writes over the entire device (so-called wear levelling), rather than rewriting files in place.[20] In 2008 wear levelling was just beginning to be incorporated into consumer level devices.[5] An example for the lifetime of SSD is explained in detail in this wiki.[dubious – discuss] SSDs based on DRAM, however, do not suffer from this problem.
Slower write speeds – as erase blocks on flash-based SSDs generally are quite large (e.g. 0.5 - 1 megabyte)[5], they are far slower than conventional disks for random writes and therefore vulnerable to write fragmentation,[21] and in some cases for sequential writes.[10] SSDs based on DRAM do not suffer from this problem.
Lower storage density – hard disks can store more data per unit volume than DRAM or flash SSDs, except for very low capacity/small devices.
Higher power consumption – at idle or under low workloads laptop battery runtimes decrease when using an SSD over a 7200 RPM 2.5" laptop hard drive,[22] flash drives also take more power per gigabyte.
RAM based SSD require more power than hard disks, when operating; and they still use power when the computer is turned off, while hard disks do not.[23]
I use a 701 as my astro-laptop. I've had it running The Sky v6 pro, PHD guiding, Nebulosity 2 capturing images with the QHY8, and EQMOD controlling the mount.. Its a great little machine, it does the job beautifully, and is a very fast system.. I have a 250g USB disk to make up for the small storage space on the 701..
All in all im very happy with the purchase... I would recommend them to anyone looking to downsize their astro footprint!
The only place you will find RAM based SSD is attached to a server. It has to be powered constantly. All of the SSD's you will find in the portable/home marketspace will be flash based SSD.
My choice between the two would depend on how much data I would expect to write to the drive. For low data write, where you just read the drive most of the time (as in booting, loading apps) I would go the SSD version, but if I expected to write alot, capturing data from cameras, I would ge the HDD version. Flash memory wears out, you can only write to it a certain amount of times before it fails. Countermeasures include balancing writes over all parts of the drive, but if you are capturing a large amount of temporary data then you will wear out the small SSD drive pretty quick.
Edit: or you could do what Alex does, use the built in SSD drive for fast loading, and capture onto an external USB HDD
I agree with you Kal. I've also heard that flash memory has a finite (longish, but finite) life expectancy. I don't do enough images in a night to exceed my camera's flash card capacity, so I don't write to HDD - I just leave it on the camera and take it home to upload to my desktop for processing. If I come close to running out of in-camera capacity I bung in another flash card. This way, there is very little that ever changes in SSD on the machine - it's all done in RAM.
I've put the 160Gb eeePC on my Christmas wish list, I like the idea of all that extra storage and I'm not at all rough on my equipment so shock proofing won't be an issue. On the subject of flash memory wearing out, there are different types of flash memory, the flash memory used in devices like the eeePC should have a comparable life to Hdd's. I've seen cards with lifetime warranties and expected lifecycles of over 1 million read write cycles.
I must admit, until reading this thread I didn't know about the two different types of flash SSD's - MLC and SLC, but now that I do I find it difficult to locate which type comes standard in the eee pc devices. For an aftermarket drive it would be easy to tell, but for the base SSD I can't find an asus website which states which type is used. SLC is the definate way to go however - it performs better and it is more reliable by being less prone to write wear.
I agree with you Kal. I've also heard that flash memory has a finite (longish, but finite) life expectancy.
Lifetime depends on the type, but typically about 10,000 writes to each individual bit, they use wear levelling to spread the writes about - you won't be writing to the same bit each time - so assuming you write to the full capacity of the drive every day (unlikely) they'll last about 30 years. Ever hard a hard disk for that long?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kal
I must admit, until reading this thread I didn't know about the two different types of flash SSD's - MLC and SLC, but now that I do I find it difficult to locate which type comes standard in the eee pc devices.
Depends on the eee model, they all use SLC for the primary drive. The models with two drives (e.g. the 901) have a 4GB SLC drive and an MLC drive making up the rest of the capacity. However, the newest version of the 901 (and possibly others) come with a single SLC drive. Also, there are now very fast MLC drives - have a look for Runcore - which are faster than typical SLC drives. Finally, the read speed of SLC and MLC is similar it's the write speeds that differ.
The eee pc is the original and in my opinion usually the best netbook. They also have many more models than anyone else. Here is a list of all the models and their differences:
So I would go through that list, find your ideal model and then do a comparison with equivalent models from other manufacturers. For instance, I have a 901, and no other manufacturer has yet done a precise equivalent. Toshiba is the closest, but it is more expensive.
Ask yourself what battery life do you want? What size screen? What version of Wi-fi (b/g/n)? Hard disk or SSD? Bluetooth? Keyboard size? etc.
It may be that a cheaper netbook such as the Acer Aspire will surfice, in which case save your money and one of those!
As an aside, the only downside of the 901 and it's SSD brethren to me is that they have two disks, with Linux/Windows installed on the fast small 4GB disk. That means you tend to run out of space on that drive unless you can install software on a non-boot disk. Fairly straightforward with Linux, but more hassle with windows. However, I have heard that the latest versions have done away with the two disks, so if you wait until current stock has shifted it might not be a problem.
Last edited by Solanum; 13-12-2008 at 03:06 PM.
Reason: Typos
I notice the 701 SD has an SD slot. MSY is selling a 16gb SD card for 50 bucks. Would it be possible to always leave a card in the pc as a sort of 'removeable' drive; and install software on it?
