ASUS Eeee PC 1000HD Win7 Install

[BillW50]

In Gordon typed:

Well you must be using a VERY OLD version of whatever distro you have
used. Ubuntu works perfectly well here on 1280 x 800 and I can set
that through the GUI....

It works beautiful if that is the native resolution. Here it is 800x480.
Under Windows I can select a higher desktop resolution like 800x600
works much better. Although sometimes you want a larger one for some
windows.

And I don't call Ubuntu 8.10 as old. Although it lets me pick a higher
resolution if I use an external monitor and then disconnect it. Now the
internal 800x480 will use the higher resolution desktop. But I don't
often carry an external monitor in my pocket. And I shouldn't have to do
it that way anyway.

 

[BillW50]

In John Williamson typed:

XP will run (It's more like stroll,really) on the 4Gig 701, and it can
be kept up to date using Windows Update. The secret is to use a third
party tool to remove the backup files that Windows updates leaves on
your C: drive after each update, and remove a couple of other folders
that Windows generates during installation, and doesn't remove
afterwards. It is also necessary to upgrade the RAM to 1 or 2 Gig,
which lets you disable the swap file.

You also need to use an SD card to store all files that are not part
of Windows, for instance, on mine, the 32Gig SD card held the Program
Files and My Documents folders, as well as all the temp files.

Some applications will refuse to install on a removable drive. There are
tricks to make Windows to see the SD as a fixed drive. Yes I have done
those before. But they have much slower bandwidth using those special
drivers.

Also all of my computers run very stable without updates. Using updates
just causes me problems like:

Windows 2000: IE6 causes Add/Remove to not to run and the left pane of
Explorer is blank.

Windows XP: .NET is all screwed up and won't update or uninstall.

Windows 7: SP1 caused my Media Center to play my TV very choppy and my
Windows Experience Index dropped.

I've been using Windows since '93 and I have never had a malware
infection yet on either updated machines or not updated machines. So I
don't worry about malware, just what the next Windows update will screw
up this time.

 

[Gordon]

So I don't worry about malware

That just about says it all about your IGNORANCE and SELFISHNESS then
doesn't it?
Attitudes like that are why the world is awash with WINDOWS viruses and
malware and almost nothing on any other OS.....

I've had enough of your selfish drivel.
Plonk....

 

[BillW50]

In Gordon typed:

That just about says it all about your IGNORANCE and SELFISHNESS then
doesn't it?
Attitudes like that are why the world is awash with WINDOWS viruses
and malware and almost nothing on any other OS.....

I've had enough of your selfish drivel.
Plonk....

I NEVER HAD A MALWARE INFECTION EVER, MORON! And I have been running
Windows since '93 on many computers. And I am tired of you snot nosed
kids trying to scare the crap out of people! What the hell is wrong with
you anyway? And why did you leave that part out for, dumbass?

It is so very easy to keep malware away. What isn't easy is cleaning up
a mess that an update screwed up. And yes, I clean up other people
computers who have been infected with malware. And that is so much
easier to fix most of the time than an update that had gone bad!

 

[Char Jackson]

And I am tired of you snot nosed
kids trying to scare the crap out of people! What the hell is wrong with
you anyway? And why did you leave that part out for, dumbass?

I can picture you standing on your front step, shouting, "You kids get
off of my lawn!" Sad.

 

[John Williamson]

In John Williamson typed:

Some applications will refuse to install on a removable drive. There are
tricks to make Windows to see the SD as a fixed drive. Yes I have done
those before. But they have much slower bandwidth using those special
drivers.

The only program I found that refused to install to the D: drive (SD
card) was Kaspersky Security, which insists on being installed to the
system drive, even if D: is just a different partition on the same HD.

No doubt there are others, but I don't use them.

The other thing I forgot to mention is that the SSD needs to be
formatted to NTFS and the filesystem needs to be compressed to fit a
full XP SP3 installation onto it.

Congratulations on getting 2K to run on a 701, by they way.

 

[BillW50]

In Char Jackson typed:

I can picture you standing on your front step, shouting, "You kids get
off of my lawn!" Sad.

No I *never* do that Char! So you were wrong again. Are you trying for a
record? And so you are all for people scaring the crap out of people for
nothing, eh Char? You really think that is the smart thing to do? I
don't!

"People who say it cannot be done should not interrupt the people who
are doing it." -- Anonymous

 

[BillW50]

In John Williamson typed:

The only program I found that refused to install to the D: drive (SD
card) was Kaspersky Security, which insists on being installed to the
system drive, even if D: is just a different partition on the same HD.

No doubt there are others, but I don't use them.

Oh I found I don't know like 40% doesn't like being installed on a
removable drive.

The other thing I forgot to mention is that the SSD needs to be
formatted to NTFS and the filesystem needs to be compressed to fit a
full XP SP3 installation onto it.

Oh that probably works. The best thing I found was to mount the SD as a
folder instead of a drive letter and then everything will install there.

Congratulations on getting 2K to run on a 701, by they way.

Thanks. Windows 2000 is so much like XP, but with the look and feel of
W9x. And most XP drivers work just fine under Windows 2000. The Webcam
one doesn't, but there is a webcam driver that will work in its place
anyway. The ACPI driver doesn't work well, so without it you have sleep
and screen brightness controls under Fn+whatever. But volume and stuff
is dead.

 

[Char Jackson]

In Char Jackson typed:

No I *never* do that Char! So you were wrong again.

No, it's true, I really can picture you doing that.

 

[John Williamson]

In John Williamson typed:

Oh I found I don't know like 40% doesn't like being installed on a
removable drive.

You must be running some strange software, is all I can say. I've never
found anything apart from the security software that got stroppy.

Oh that probably works. The best thing I found was to mount the SD as a
folder instead of a drive letter and then everything will install there.

Whatever works. I did it one way, you did it another.

Thanks. Windows 2000 is so much like XP, but with the look and feel of
W9x. And most XP drivers work just fine under Windows 2000. The Webcam
one doesn't, but there is a webcam driver that will work in its place
anyway. The ACPI driver doesn't work well, so without it you have sleep
and screen brightness controls under Fn+whatever. But volume and stuff
is dead.

There's a published fix for the sound problem on XP. The sound driver on
the Asus driver CD is buggy, so you need to download the generic chipset
driver from the Realtek site, uninstall the default Microsoft HD audio
driver, which is what causes the problem, and re-install the correct
driver. If you check for EEEPC sound not working on the web, there are a
couple of sites that explain the procedure in detail.

 

[BillW50]

In

I see you've completely missed the point. The point is not whether MS
or OpenOffice or Linux is the answer for everyone in the world.
Obviously none of them are. It is a question of adequacy. Just
because OO and Linux are fine for someone else does not mean it's
just what you need - and the same thing is true of MS.

If you look back, you'll see that the OP was asking about win7 on an
ASUS eeepc. You may also find that Ken Blake admits that win7 on a
netbook is not very fast (to say the least). I have both win7 and
Debian Linux on an Acer netbook - win7 does not run - it crawls. But
the Linux install is very usable. You may also be interested to know
that in putting Debian on my wife's eeepc - it was absolutely no
problem - on the 4gb SSD - in fact there was about 1.5gb left - and
it runs with all the software she needs. The win7 install on my Acer
took up over 14gb!!

As I say, the whole question boils down to suitability and useability
- and the only real way to know whether something will work for you
IS TO TRY IT - particularly when it's free.

Well do you also understand that a few manufactures have thought the
same as you have? And researched all of the Linux distros and came out
with a model that they thought which worked best. And every time it has
been tried, it has failed.

The closest thing to a success story was Asus EeePC 700 series netbooks.
They were doing pretty well. They only come with Linux, but included XP
drivers to install your own Windows if you wanted to. Then months later
they offered either Linux or Windows. Now the Windows ones sold in the
millions. And virtually nobody wanted the Linux ones (even though they
were like 40 bucks cheaper). Sales of the Linux machines were so bad
that they finally ended this option. And they went to all Windows
machines instead.

And this is the closest it ever got. Asus pulled it off better than
anybody before and perhaps after (talking about the future). And if your
needs are very modest, Linux will probably be fine for you. Or you use
it to run a microwave, router, server or something, but those are modest
needs too.

But what you forget Ray, the vast majority of computer users have no
interest in Linux. My mentors back in the early 80's said before there
was a main OS. They said pick the applications that you want to run and
then pick the OS that will run them. This is so truer today than ever
before. Sure Linux is cute and can run some basic tasks and all. But
this is the 21st century and most want more.

 

[ray]

In news:[email protected], Gordon typed:

It works beautiful if that is the native resolution. Here it is 800x480.
Under Windows I can select a higher desktop resolution like 800x600
works much better. Although sometimes you want a larger one for some
windows.

And I don't call Ubuntu 8.10 as old. Although it lets me pick a higher
resolution if I use an external monitor and then disconnect it. Now the
internal 800x480 will use the higher resolution desktop. But I don't
often carry an external monitor in my pocket. And I shouldn't have to do
it that way anyway.

In computer terms, 3 and a half years is eternity. Ubuntu 8.10 is very
old - I don't know anyone using a version that old.

 

[BillW50]

In

In computer terms, 3 and a half years is eternity. Ubuntu 8.10 is very
old - I don't know anyone using a version that old.

I have the iso for Ubuntu 9.10 and Ubuntu 10.something. And if you will
swear it will solve the problem I will install. If it doesn't, you go
directly to jail, ok? Or pay me a million dollars, your choice.

 

[BillW50]

In

You must be running some strange software, is all I can say. I've
never found anything apart from the security software that got
stroppy.

It was a very common problem on the eeeuser forum. The earliest fix was
to replace the USB driver with some HP driver for something else. But it
worked and the SD card was seen by Windows as a fixed drive. Yo had to
modify the registry too. Most AV needed a fixed drive only. And I think
Office refused to install on a removable drive as well. I don't recall
all of the others.

Whatever works. I did it one way, you did it another.

There's a published fix for the sound problem on XP. The sound driver
on the Asus driver CD is buggy, so you need to download the generic
chipset driver from the Realtek site, uninstall the default Microsoft
HD audio driver, which is what causes the problem, and re-install the
correct driver. If you check for EEEPC sound not working on the web,
there are a couple of sites that explain the procedure in detail.

How is it buggy? I haven't seen any problems with the 701s. The 702s,
some of them the left channel might drop out. But cranking it up for a
second pops it back and it is usually good until you power down. Is this
the problem?

 

[BillW50]

In

In

I have the iso for Ubuntu 9.10 and Ubuntu 10.something. And if you
will swear it will solve the problem I will install. If it doesn't,
you go directly to jail, ok? Or pay me a million dollars, your choice.

Oh sorry. I am running 9.10 and have 10.10 and 11.something iso.

 

[ray]

Well do you also understand that a few manufactures have thought the
same as you have? And researched all of the Linux distros and came out
with a model that they thought which worked best. And every time it has
been tried, it has failed.

The closest thing to a success story was Asus EeePC 700 series netbooks.
They were doing pretty well. They only come with Linux, but included XP
drivers to install your own Windows if you wanted to. Then months later
they offered either Linux or Windows. Now the Windows ones sold in the
millions. And virtually nobody wanted the Linux ones (even though they
were like 40 bucks cheaper). Sales of the Linux machines were so bad
that they finally ended this option. And they went to all Windows
machines instead.

And this is the closest it ever got. Asus pulled it off better than
anybody before and perhaps after (talking about the future). And if your
needs are very modest, Linux will probably be fine for you. Or you use
it to run a microwave, router, server or something, but those are modest
needs too.

But what you forget Ray, the vast majority of computer users have no
interest in Linux. My mentors back in the early 80's said before there
was a main OS. They said pick the applications that you want to run and
then pick the OS that will run them. This is so truer today than ever
before. Sure Linux is cute and can run some basic tasks and all. But
this is the 21st century and most want more.

Ever hear of "Android"?

 

[ray]

I have the iso for Ubuntu 9.10 and Ubuntu 10.something. And if you will
swear it will solve the problem I will install. If it doesn't, you go
directly to jail, ok? Or pay me a million dollars, your choice.

How about trying a recent one? I don't care that much for Ubuntu, anyway
- I use Debian stable.

 

[Paul]

In

Oh sorry. I am running 9.10 and have 10.10 and 11.something iso.

Well, first off, Linux doesn't work for people that hate it
So forget that idea right away. The same would go for Windows.
If a person is completely computer-phobic, and their blood pressure
rises any time they see a glowing glass screen (my youngest
brother is like that ), they're bound not to enjoy it.

Anyone who works with Linux, is eventually going to have to face
the "Xorg monster". A.k.a Xwindows. That, and the various driver
options for running the graphics card. (No, don't assume the
driver needs to be changed just yet... Save that for when you're
really really desperate. Changing drivers can have some
long term maintenance implications.)

*******

By the way, you don't want the latest one here, as you may end
up stuck with the Unity interface. 10.04LTS is supported (has
package server) until 2013-04, so that will do for now. With the
11.10 desktop version, you might not be able to disable Unity (easily).

http://www.ubuntu.com/download/ubuntu/download

This is my VM running 11.10, with classic interface. I did
this, by starting with the *server* version of 11.10, and "adding
crap" to it, until it had XWindows and a window manager. For
any of you Linux people out there, don't gag This is
still Ubuntu, warts and all. I did this to show Canonical
what I think of Unity.

http://img19.imageshack.us/img19/9074/u1110svr.gif

Anyway, stick with the 10.04LTS for now, or try a
derivative, like some version of Linux Mint. It'll allow
you to concentrate on the problem at hand.

*******

You should be looking in /var/log/Xorg.0.log and friends. In
there, you can watch as X tries a large number of resolution
combinations. For each that doesn't pan out, X will report the
reason why (clock out of range, Horizontal or Vertical scan rate
out of range, and so on). While the error messages might not
point at the root cause, this file is like a "fingerprint"
and helps "point at the criminal".

When you use Ubuntu "out-of-the-box", X will be running in its
own self-discovery type world. It'll try to develop its own
settings, based on testing. But you can override this. The
tradition was, you crafted your own Xorg.conf, before you'd
even try and start X. But over the years, the situation has
improved. For example, the Nvidia Linux package, had an
application, which would generate sensible Xorg.conf values
you could actually use. That's what I used as a template for
mine, rather than reading whatever passes for documentation
and typing it in from scratch.

I run quite a few different distros of Linux in VPC2007,
basically to make it easier to tame any rough edges. And
in each case, I have to "fix" X, because very few distros
configure everything exactly right. (Nobody tests, that
their distro will run well in VPC2007...)

In the VPC2007 environment, the emulated video driver pretends
to be some kind of ancient S3 graphics. The chip is assigned
a "maximum pixel clock rate", which in a virtual environment,
doesn't mean a damn thing. But for some reason, they decided
they would make their software emulation, adhere to how the
hardware works, right down to reporting the pixel clock can't
go any higher than 80MHz. The end result is, most Xorg runs
start the screen in 24 bit mode, at a resolution of 1024x768
or 800x600 (which is too small for my tastes).

To fix that, I generated my own "modeline", and also run
the screen in 16 bit mode instead of 24 bit mode. That allows
the dimensions of the virtual screen to be made much larger,
without really compromising other things. (Video doesn't
play very well in that environment, because the emulated
environment lacks even the simplest support for video, making
the processor have to grunt too hard to make good video possible.)

Anyway, this is a copy of one of my Xorg.conf files, for your enjoyment.
This goes into /etc/X11/xorg.conf. I haven't attempted to make this
pretty or anything. The file was auto-generated, to save typing
the trivial stuff, and then I added a line or two. Notice that
a modeline of "1152x864_50.00" makes no physical sense, because
you really wouldn't want to run a physical LCD screen at 50Hz. But because
this is a virtual environment, I can get away with this (the pixmap
from the virtual machine, is being scanned at 60Hz by the real
video card and driver in Windows). The modelines were computed
to stay below the 80.0MHz pixel clock limit for the S3 emulation.

******* Half-baked xorg.conf, to tame the Xorg beast *******
# nvidia-xconfig: X configuration file generated by nvidia-xconfig
# nvidia-xconfig: version 256.53 (buildmeister@builder101) Fri Aug 27 21:34:01 PDT 2010

Section "ServerLayout"
Identifier "Layout0"
Screen 0 "Screen0"
InputDevice "Keyboard0" "CoreKeyboard"
InputDevice "Mouse0" "CorePointer"
EndSection

Section "Files"
EndSection

Section "InputDevice"
# generated from default
Identifier "Mouse0"
Driver "mouse"
Option "Protocol" "auto"
Option "Device" "/dev/psaux"
Option "Emulate3Buttons" "no"
Option "ZAxisMapping" "4 5"
EndSection

Section "InputDevice"
# generated from default
Identifier "Keyboard0"
Driver "kbd"
EndSection

Section "Monitor"
Identifier "Monitor0"
VendorName "Unknown"
ModelName "Unknown"
# Hacked numbers, to prevent sync rates from limiting operating modes
HorizSync 31.5 - 75.0
VertRefresh 50.0 - 100.0

# Modelines via "cvt".
Modeline "1152x864_50.00" 66.25 1152 1208 1320 1488 864 867 871 892 -hsync +vsync
Modeline "1024x768_60.00" 63.50 1024 1072 1176 1328 768 771 775 790 -hsync +vsync
Option "DPMS"
EndSection

Section "Device"
Identifier "Device0"
Driver "s3"
VendorName "Vanilla Corporation"
EndSection

Section "Screen"
Identifier "Screen0"
Device "Device0"
Monitor "Monitor0"
# Try values like 8, 16, or the default 24 bit
DefaultDepth 16
SubSection "Display"
Depth 16
Modes "1152x864_50.00"
EndSubSection
EndSection
************************************************************

Linux is meant to make you sweat. If you're not
editing config files by hand, "you're not holding it right"

HTH,
Paul

 

[John Williamson]

In

It was a very common problem on the eeeuser forum. The earliest fix was
to replace the USB driver with some HP driver for something else. But it
worked and the SD card was seen by Windows as a fixed drive. Yo had to
modify the registry too. Most AV needed a fixed drive only. And I think
Office refused to install on a removable drive as well. I don't recall
all of the others.

I've not seen it, but I don't use MS office, and I never tried using it
for any AV other than playback. You live and learn.

How is it buggy? I haven't seen any problems with the 701s. The 702s,
some of them the left channel might drop out. But cranking it up for a
second pops it back and it is usually good until you power down. Is this
the problem?

The problem I know about on the 701 is that sound doesn't work at all
under XP using the driver supplied by Asus. Installing the right driver
gives full control and no glitches.

 

[mechanic]

I have the iso for Ubuntu 9.10 and Ubuntu 10.something. And if you
will swear it will solve the problem I will install. If it
doesn't, you go directly to jail, ok? Or pay me a million
dollars, your choice.

Ubuntu comes on Live-CDs so no need to install to test hardware
compatibility.

And by the way we're up to 11.10 and 12.04 soon will come out so
you're well behind the times with 8.10!