Vista on an Eee PC 901?

[this_is_gav]

I'm a bit fan of Vista, and even though I still maintain it's no worse than XP in a low end system, RAM wise at least, even I would condemn you as nuts for installing it on an UMPC.

The original Eee PC spec with more RAM would be acceptable, if not ideal, but not an Atom. That said, Vista on an SSD would be quite tasty.

[amwhite2008]

The original Eee PC spec with more RAM would be acceptable, if not ideal, but not an Atom. That said, Vista on an SSD would be quite tasty.

Why not with an Atom? I thought the Atom was better then the ageing Celeron? Its also 700MHz faster, double in turbo mode. Why would this make it worse for running Vista then the Celeron version? Maybe Im missing something obvious here...?

Thanks
Alex

[Neo_VR]

Why not with an Atom? I thought the Atom was better then the ageing Celeron? Its also 700MHz faster, double in turbo mode. Why would this make it worse for running Vista then the Celeron version? Maybe Im missing something obvious here...?

Thanks
Alex

Ahh, another victim of marketing..
The Atom, even though its clocked faster, is actually slower than the 900mhz celly at everything except programs that can benifit from hyperthreading. it does use alot less power, but again the platform is let down by the chipset not being so power-thrifty.. so basically there is little to no reason at the moment to go for a ATOM machine over a celeron one.

Also i wouldnt rate the SSD speeds... A well-tuned and slipstreamed XP install is definately the way to go! (i have a 701)

[amwhite2008]

OK... thanks for explaining the Atom, I didn't realise that. Do programs writting for Dual Cores support Hyperthreading, as Hyperthreading effectively splits one core, or does it not work like that?

Ill see how it goes, but will definitely order the XP model then.

Thanks
Alex

[Neo_VR]

Yes.. Hyperthreading just makes the OS think there are two cores, and it makes the OS spread the cpu load of apps a bit better rather than choking the whole system if its maxed out.

[Funkstar]

Yes.. Hyperthreading just makes the OS think there are two cores

No, no and thrice no.

For extreme detail, have a look on Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperthreading

But in short, although Hyperthreading appears as two processors, it isn't the same as dual core. In very simplistic terms, when a single process is doing a lot of floating point calculations, the integer units aren't normally doing anything. With a hyperthreading processor (along with an OS and applications that can take advantage of the technology) other processes that can take advantage of those unused portions of the processor can be run in parallel.

certain tasks can take really good advantage of this, media encoding for example. This often has processes that can take advantage of the different portions of the processor at one time, and because it is dealing with a stream of data, the processor can handle all this very efficiently. This is why the P4 was especially good at video encoding.