ASUS Eeee PC 1000HD Win7 Install


A

Allen Drake

In Ken Blake typed:

I have one EeePC 701 and two 702s (all with 2GB of RAM). And I put
Windows 7 on one 702. It was huge mistake. As Windows 7 ate up 50% of
the processor at idle. Running anything required lots of patience and
takes forever.

XP does run very well on such machines though. And Windows 2000 even
runs faster. Windows 2000 is even faster than any Linux distro I have
ever ran. Plus Windows 2000 is Windows compatible while Linux is not.
I have seen many Youtube videos about the various Eee PC machines and
some about installing Win7. I haven't seen any about how these
upgrades run so I am glad I posted here and thank you for your reply.
I am also surprised just how many versions there are out there now.
some of the newer ones I see come with Win7 starter of which I am
totally unfamiliar with. I haven't used 2000 in several years and
didn't know it was still being used. I could possibly drag out an
install and see how it runs if it would be worth the effort of getting
familiar with that OS again. So far I am happy to see my 1000HD
operating fast again. I am unable to restore it to factory settings as
F9 does not bring up that option. I see nothing in BIOS ver. 1401 that
references that either. I am wondering if by cloning the original
drive to the SSD if somehow that changed anything.
 
Ad

Advertisements

B

BillW50

In Stefan Patric typed:
FWIW, just as a comparison since someone recommended Linux. A little
over a year ago, I set up a EeePC 900--900MHz Celeron M and 1GB
RAM--with Eeebuntu 3.0, a customize version of Ubuntu Linux for the
EeePC. It installed without a hitch and everything worked. It took
1.7GB of the SSD to install, including the apps. For e-mail, web,
word processing, playing and streaming video, etc. it worked great.
Much smoother and more responsive than the version of XP (Home, I
think) that was originally on it. Although, XP didn't run all that
badly. Still very usable. You just had to be careful not to open
too many browser tab windows, or run too many apps at once.
Xandros and Ubuntu for netbooks both were awful for multimedia for me.
Very choppy and very low frame rates. Running XP all of these problems
disappear.
To give you an idea of RAM usage after booting to the desktop, no apps
running: Eeebuntu 262MB; XP 476MB.
Windows 2000 uses 224MB at boot here. My Linux memory is about the same
as yours, my XP on many of machines use around 800MB. Although my
machines has 2GB and XP runs fine for me. The big difference between
Windows 2000 and XP on these EeePC machines is that I haven't seen
Windows 2000 ever get bogged down yet. As I can open up as many webpages
for example that I want and it keeps blazing through it all.
 
B

BillW50

In John Williamson typed:
W7 uses more processing power and memory than XP. The aero interface
in particular is a resource hog, even with an application maximised.

This machine has a 1.6GHz, hyperthreading CPU, and even with 2Gig of
RAM, isn't fast enough to stream decent quality video, which it does
under XP with no problems. The battery life is shorter under W7 as
well.

As a marginal case, the EEEPC 701 will just about run XP, bt has no
chance of even coming close to running W7. It runs the lighter Linux
distributions with ease, of course...
I agree with everything except the Linux part. As the Celeron 900MHz
underclocked down to 633MHz just doesn't have enough power for Linux to
run multimedia very well. Windows 2000/XP OTOH doesn't miss a beat.
 
B

BillW50

In Allen Drake typed:
I have seen many Youtube videos about the various Eee PC machines and
some about installing Win7. I haven't seen any about how these
upgrades run so I am glad I posted here and thank you for your reply.
I am also surprised just how many versions there are out there now.
some of the newer ones I see come with Win7 starter of which I am
totally unfamiliar with. I haven't used 2000 in several years and
didn't know it was still being used. I could possibly drag out an
install and see how it runs if it would be worth the effort of getting
familiar with that OS again. So far I am happy to see my 1000HD
operating fast again. I am unable to restore it to factory settings as
F9 does not bring up that option. I see nothing in BIOS ver. 1401 that
references that either. I am wondering if by cloning the original
drive to the SSD if somehow that changed anything.
Yes cloning could have broken the recovery partition,

And to install Windows 2000 from an USB device, you need Windows 2000
SP4 install disc or it will not work. You can slipstream an old install
disc with SP4 and that works. Also I like to turn off the swapfile on
SSD. Although Windows 2000 complains when you do this. So the workaround
is to use a RAMDisk and move the swapfile there. Windows 2000 is now
happy and it doesn't write to the SSD.

And if you are familiar with XP, Windows 2000 is easy. It is very much
like a lighter version of XP. One troubling thing for me about Windows
2000 is you can't hide tray icons. So I use Aston(1) Shell (not free)
that gives you a desktop that you can. I am actually using a Vista like
theme right now. A lot of people think I am running Vista or Windows 7,
but I am running Windows 2000 instead. ;-)

On my XP and Windows 7 machines I rather use Aston2 Shell (Aston2 won't
run on Windows 2000, but Aston1 will).
 
J

John Williamson

BillW50 said:
In John Williamson typed:


I agree with everything except the Linux part. As the Celeron 900MHz
underclocked down to 633MHz just doesn't have enough power for Linux to
run multimedia very well. Windows 2000/XP OTOH doesn't miss a beat.
Also, for XP, there's a clock speed control application available for
the 701 which is free and sits in the system tray with control of clock
speed, screen brightness and fan speed. Very useful...
 
W

Wolf K

Looks good to me. That's where I'll start.

Thanks.

Al.
+1.

It's a great way to extend the life of older hardware. I installed
LinuxMint on my wife's ancient laptop when I bought her a new one. It's
a lovely OS, well tuned to the average user. Yesterday I connected it to
the TV, it and the TV communicated automagically, it even resized the
display on the laptop so that it would be an exact match for what the TV
could display. Occasionally, I have to press the wi-fi switch on the
laptop to start the connection, that's the only glitch. BTW, I use the
Gnome desktop, no problems.

HTH
Wolf K.
 
Ad

Advertisements

B

BillW50

In John Williamson typed:
Also, for XP, there's a clock speed control application available for
the 701 which is free and sits in the system tray with control of
clock speed, screen brightness and fan speed. Very useful...
Yes I use it on my 2000/XP EeePC machines (eeectl). Although whether you
run the processor at 900MHz or 633MHz, there isn't much of a performance
difference. The same author later wrote a version for Linux too.
Although it seems to require packages that no longer exists. So I never
got the Linux one to work.
 
A

Allen Drake

+1.

It's a great way to extend the life of older hardware. I installed
LinuxMint on my wife's ancient laptop when I bought her a new one. It's
a lovely OS, well tuned to the average user. Yesterday I connected it to
the TV, it and the TV communicated automagically, it even resized the
display on the laptop so that it would be an exact match for what the TV
could display. Occasionally, I have to press the wi-fi switch on the
laptop to start the connection, that's the only glitch. BTW, I use the
Gnome desktop, no problems.

HTH
Wolf K.
How did you connect your PC to the TV? I have a USB TV device but I
have not tried it on my netbook.
 
R

ray

In news:[email protected], ray typed:

I would be very careful about recommending Linux. As Linux is only good
at running Linux applications. And quite frankly, I find Linux
applications to be very substandard. And every time I fire up one of my
Linux machines, it feels like I am using one of my PDA applications.
Really? My experiences have been quite different. I find up to date Linux
applications to be of generally high quality - and execution very good
even on a 1.6ghz system.
And for many of us use multimedia a lot. And Linux on an EeePC and
multimedia doesn't mix. Even just playing audio is choppy. And forget
about video. As full screen video results in 1fps. And all of these
problems disappear when you run Windows 2000/XP on the same machines.
OP did not mention multimedia. But I've found, again, that things
generally work quite nicely.
 
A

Allen Drake

Yes cloning could have broken the recovery partition,
Exactly how could that happen? I thought cloning created and exact
copy of a HDD.
And to install Windows 2000 from an USB device, you need Windows 2000
SP4 install disc or it will not work. You can slipstream an old install
disc with SP4 and that works. Also I like to turn off the swapfile on
SSD. Although Windows 2000 complains when you do this. So the workaround
is to use a RAMDisk and move the swapfile there. Windows 2000 is now
happy and it doesn't write to the SSD.
How did you use a RAMdisk? Do you mean an SD card in the slot?
And if you are familiar with XP, Windows 2000 is easy. It is very much
like a lighter version of XP. One troubling thing for me about Windows
2000 is you can't hide tray icons. So I use Aston(1) Shell (not free)
that gives you a desktop that you can. I am actually using a Vista like
theme right now. A lot of people think I am running Vista or Windows 7,
but I am running Windows 2000 instead. ;-)

On my XP and Windows 7 machines I rather use Aston2 Shell (Aston2 won't
run on Windows 2000, but Aston1 will).

I guess I might have to dig through my disk collection. I still have
Windows 95 that I ran across recently and a system that still has it
installed. I wonder is Win2K disks are for sale on Ebay for cheap.
 
G

Gordon

Really? My experiences have been quite different. I find up to date Linux
applications to be of generally high quality - and execution very good
even on a 1.6ghz system.
I quite agree. My only beef is that Linux still has no PIM that is up to
the functionality and quality of Outlook - TBird with Lightning extension
is getting close, but isn't /quite/ there yet....
 
Ad

Advertisements

B

BillW50

In Wolf K typed:
+1.

It's a great way to extend the life of older hardware. I installed
LinuxMint on my wife's ancient laptop when I bought her a new one.
It's a lovely OS, well tuned to the average user. Yesterday I
connected it to the TV, it and the TV communicated automagically, it
even resized the display on the laptop so that it would be an exact
match for what the TV could display. Occasionally, I have to press
the wi-fi switch on the laptop to start the connection, that's the
only glitch. BTW, I use the Gnome desktop, no problems.

HTH
Wolf K.
I never thought about connecting my three TV tuners to any of my Linux
machines. And I would say you lucked out and your machine doesn't sound
that old. As an EeePC 900MHz (2007 era) running Linux can't even run
youtube videos smoothly. Although Windows 2000/XP can without any
problems on the same machines.

Nor would I expect Linux using a TV tuner to have many features. I am
sure it is no match to AverTV for example. I actually prefer AverTV to
Windows Media Center because AverTV does far more. And AverTV only runs
under Windows.

It has been true in my experience that Linux uses less RAM than XP or
Windows 7. But that is were the nice part of Linux stops. As it isn't
smaller than Windows 2000. Also Linux needs far more processor power for
multimedia than 2000/XP ever did. Nor does Linux has the better class of
applications and drivers that Windows enjoys.
 
G

Gordon

If you are REALLY using Windows 2000 to access the internet then I think
you are being very head in the sand - you do realise that you have not
had ANY security updates for Windows 2000 for TWO YEARS?
 
B

BillW50

In Allen Drake typed:
Exactly how could that happen? I thought cloning created and exact
copy of a HDD.
They can clone exactly, but they don't have too. I don't know what
application you used for cloning, as they are all different. But some of
them might only clone one partition and not the others on the drive by
default.
How did you use a RAMdisk? Do you mean an SD card in the slot?
No it sets up part of the RAM as a fixed drive. It's the fastest drive
that you can have. It just looses everything once the machine is powered
down. But that is ok with the swapfile. Using a RAMDisk only makes sense
if you have more RAM than what your OS needs. I use the free Gavotte
Ramdisk.
I guess I might have to dig through my disk collection. I still have
Windows 95 that I ran across recently and a system that still has it
installed. I wonder is Win2K disks are for sale on Ebay for cheap.
Yes last time I checked Windows 2000 disc were reasonable on eBay.
 
B

BillW50

In Gordon typed:
If you are REALLY using Windows 2000 to access the internet then I
think you are being very head in the sand - you do realise that you
have not had ANY security updates for Windows 2000 for TWO YEARS?
Do you realize that I have many other machines? Like Windows XP, Windows
7, and Linux machines? And do you realize that security updates is a
poor way of keeping a system secured? A far better way is to have a
real-time AV. That way any malware that ever gets on the machine through
a security hole, dumb user click, or whatever gets stopped in its tracks
anyway when it tries to execute and can't do anything to your system.
 
B

BillW50

In ray typed:
Really? My experiences have been quite different. I find up to date
Linux applications to be of generally high quality - and execution
very good even on a 1.6ghz system.
Well if you call such things as OpenOffice, Thunderbird, and Firefox as
high quality, I suppose. But those are the last applications I would
use. And GUI drivers are generally featureless. Like if I want to use a
larger desktop than 800x480 of this screen, it can't be done through the
GUI. Instead I have to use terminal to make that happen. Touchpad
drivers don't have all of the features of say of Synaptics Windows
drivers do. Etc.
OP did not mention multimedia. But I've found, again, that things
generally work quite nicely.
I can claim the same of Windows 7 too. But I run Windows 7 on my fastest
machines. Now try to run Linux or Windows 7 on a much slower machine and
they both fall apart. And I have played WMA audio files (I have GBs
worth) under Linux on these EeePC machines and the audio is always
choppy. And youtube videos have low frame rates, etc. Yet all of this
clears up under Windows 2000/XP on these same machines.
 
Ad

Advertisements

K

Ken Blake

In Ken Blake typed:

I have one EeePC 701 and two 702s (all with 2GB of RAM). And I put
Windows 7 on one 702. It was huge mistake. As Windows 7 ate up 50% of
the processor at idle. Running anything required lots of patience and
takes forever.

It may have been a huge mistake for you, but it wasn't for me. Yes,
it's very slow doing most things, but it's just fine for e-mail, which
is all I use it for. And mine has only 1GB of RAM.
 
B

BillW50

In Ken Blake typed:
It may have been a huge mistake for you, but it wasn't for me. Yes,
it's very slow doing most things, but it's just fine for e-mail, which
is all I use it for. And mine has only 1GB of RAM.
I couldn't live with reducing any of my machines to such a small task.
Don't you ever want to view webpages, watch youtube videos, play music,
etc.
 
K

Ken Blake

In Ken Blake typed:

I couldn't live with reducing any of my machines to such a small task.
Don't you ever want to view webpages, watch youtube videos, play music,
etc.

Yes, but not when I'm traveling. The only reason I have an EEE is
because it's small and light, and therefore easy to travel with on
vacation. And when I'm traveling, I have no time to do anything else
on the computer but e-mail
 
Ad

Advertisements

A

Allen Drake

In Gordon typed:

Do you realize that I have many other machines? Like Windows XP, Windows
7, and Linux machines? And do you realize that security updates is a
poor way of keeping a system secured? A far better way is to have a
real-time AV. That way any malware that ever gets on the machine through
a security hole, dumb user click, or whatever gets stopped in its tracks
anyway when it tries to execute and can't do anything to your system.
I have had my suspicions about windows updates for some time. I have
yet to see someone point to an example of a system being compromised
in any way do to a lack of a specific update. I have, however, had
windows update trash my system and needed to install a clone to get up
and running again. I have for the most part disabled WU and never
suffered any ill effects. The last issue I had was identical to the
one that killed a system, Net Frame something or other. It hung for
hours not allowing even allowing a cancel. Luckily I tried an install
of an application that recognized a partial update and offered to
remove it which it did. I found no way of doing that myself. Now I
wait until an application says it actually needs an update before I
like MS have it's way with me.
 

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments. After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.

Ask a Question

Top