xboxboy Posted October 9, 2008 Report Share Posted October 9, 2008 I am considering purchasing an aspire one. They appear to be fantastic. The linux version has a 8gb solid state drive. Very nice, but perhaps a bit small for what I could be doing. The windows version has 120Gb generic hard disk. The price difference is nelegible. What do you think the chances are I could easily install the original linux distro on a windows version? I don't think there should be any issue, as far as I can see only the hard drives vary between the two. The orignal install is Linpus, most reports are that it is a great made to fit install. [moved from Hardware by spinynorman] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ianw1974 Posted October 9, 2008 Report Share Posted October 9, 2008 The Windows version would be fine, I'd expect. All it is that it's been set up to provide Windows with it instead of Linux. Post the hardware specs, and we can help out a bit more. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scarecrow Posted October 9, 2008 Report Share Posted October 9, 2008 I also think the doze box should work fine with Tux... but if you can provide more tech info, it would be welcome. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mindwave Posted October 9, 2008 Report Share Posted October 9, 2008 i've bounced back and forth on these ultra minis since the eee701 came out, and like our original poster i keep hitting the cool factor of the SSDD and the speed, VS the size limit on the one hand windows NEEDS all that size, on the other hand i'm a data junky. heres the aspire 1 intel atom proc 1.6ghz 533 FSB 512MB upgradable to 1.5gb 8.9" wsvga 1024*600 8GB flash or 120gb hd multi card storage reader built in speaker and mic, UNK sound source wlan wireless G, lab 10/100 Linpus Lite Linux or Windows XP unfortunately for me by the time i get them configured where i want them they are as much or more than a trad laptop w/ 15" screen 3GB ram 120GB hd etc. the only advantage (for me) is they are lighter. all in all they are still toys, so i havet bought any of them yet. j Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reiver_Fluffi Posted October 9, 2008 Report Share Posted October 9, 2008 My wife has an Aspire One, Linpus Lite runs very well, but I have had limited success getting Fedora 9 or Ubuntu to work on the machine, and when I did they were dog slow. However I don't get a chance to play with it much as she is attached to it and to remove her would require surgery! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tyme Posted October 9, 2008 Report Share Posted October 9, 2008 (edited) I imagine "Linpus Lite" has been thoroughly optimized for the hardware. though the spec's don't seem to be anything most linux distro's couldn't run well on. Edited October 9, 2008 by tyme Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
adamw Posted October 9, 2008 Report Share Posted October 9, 2008 Mandriva 2009 runs fine on the Aspire (either Windows or Linux Aspire). We have one in Paris for testing. The SSD in the Linux version is known to be very slow, so don't buy it expecting amazing performance. It's slower than a regular hard disk in most ways. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tyme Posted October 9, 2008 Report Share Posted October 9, 2008 It's slower than a regular hard disk in most ways.That's unfortunate. Isn't speed supposed to be a pro for solid state? Or is it just a bad drive choice (i.e. this specific model bites)? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mindwave Posted October 10, 2008 Report Share Posted October 10, 2008 Mandriva 2009 runs fine on the Aspire (either Windows or Linux Aspire). We have one in Paris for testing. The SSD in the Linux version is known to be very slow, so don't buy it expecting amazing performance. It's slower than a regular hard disk in most ways. WOW thanks for that heads up thats the MAIN selling point for me for the ULPC's their boot speed. thats why teh HD versions dopnt seem much value to me Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
adamw Posted October 10, 2008 Report Share Posted October 10, 2008 tyme: the hdd vs. ssd speed issue is rather more nuanced than most people think - don't just trust me, see Linus' take on it! - http://torvalds-family.blogspot.com/2008/1...intel-ssds.html - but it's also just the case that the model in the Aspire One sucks, too. It's a poor piece of hardware. If you look around forums dedicated to the Aspire it's a pretty notorious issue among owners of it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
willie Posted October 10, 2008 Report Share Posted October 10, 2008 I agree with Adam, i've read everywere that the ssd of the acer one is slow. I have a eeepc (600mhz it's underclocked) and a acer one, the eeepc is much faster. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tyme Posted October 10, 2008 Report Share Posted October 10, 2008 I guess it's like any new tech, takes a while for the hype to pass before we start hearing the real facts. thanks for the info/link adam :) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xboxboy Posted September 30, 2009 Author Report Share Posted September 30, 2009 I ended up getting the 120gb Windows version, I'm dual booting with the UNR distro, and is running quite nicely. Thanks all. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.