XP vs. Windows 7 RTM on the Eee PC 901

In a previous installment, I posted some preliminary benchmarks for Windows 7 RC vs. XP. Based on the feedback I received, it seems that people are interested in this sort of thing, so I thought I'd continue with it. I recently got a hold of the RTM (release to manufacturing) build of Windows 7 Ultimate, so here goes.

As previous, I'm dual booting XP and 7 across a Runcore 32GB SSD (PATA) on the 901 for ease of comparison, and because I wasn't ready to stop using XP altogether on my 901 because it runs really well and I'm very happy with it. This 901 has 2GB RAM (up from 1GB stock). Installed is the 2103 BIOS (official) that fixes the black screen video issue in Windows 7. Windows 7 RTM default drivers are installed except for ACPI (from Asus) and Aero is enabled. SuperHybridEngine is installed and set to Super High Performance mode for both. XP has all the latest official drivers running. Both have all Windows Updates installed. PassMark PerformanceTest 7.0 was used for the PassMark scoring.











Conclusion

Windows 7 RTM seems to have closed the performance gap quite a bit on XP in the latest build, especially in the areas of CPU and Memory benchmarks. My results last round did not have SHE enabled in the Windows 7 side, so that might explain it. Plus I'm using a different PassMark version. SSD performace is still great on Win7, which is very good to hear. What I take away from this is that XP is overall going to give a user the better Windows Experience of the two, but Windows 7 is now a viable netbook OS.

Coming up next... XP vs. Windows 7 on the Eee PC 701SD.

XP vs. Windows 7 on the Eee PC 901

I recently started playing around with Windows 7 on my Asus Eee PC 901. I had read that I could get it running smoothly if I upgraded the 901 to 2GB RAM, and since I was already running an upgraded RunCore SSD, I figured I'd invest $20 or so and give it a go. I'm actually very impressed with the performance of Windows 7 on my netbook. More on that later.

I thought people might find it useful to see a few performance benchmarks comparing Windows XP to Windows 7. Windows 7 seems to be the proper heir to XP, as most IT professionals and end users have written off Vista as crap. I'm dual booting XP and 7 across a Runcore 32GB SSD (PATA) on the 901 for ease of comparison, and because I wasn't ready to stop using XP altogether on my 901 because it runs really well and I'm very happy with it.

These benchmarks are not scientific. They are merely presented as a rough guide to how XP and Win7 run on a netbook. This 901 has 2GB RAM (up from 1GB stock). Installed is the 2103 BIOS (official) that fixes the black screen video issue in Windows 7. Windows 7 RC default drivers are installed except for video (Intel Vista drivers) and Aero is enabled. XP has all the latest official drivers running. Both have all Windows Updates installed. PassMark PerformanceTest 6.1 was used for the PassMark scoring.

Conclusion

Windows 7 actually shows modest gains on XP in SSD performance. This wasn't surprising, given the press coverage that has been dedicated to this very topic. However, this is where Windows 7's dominance ends. XP bests it in every other measurable way on the 901. Having said that, I really like Windows 7. It just feels right. It has all the new bells and whistles that we've been clamouring for from Microsoft for years. The included update of Windows Media Center is great. If I was forced to, I could switch over to 7 from XP without losing my mind. Thankfully, I'm not.

Mac OS X "Leopard" on the Asus EeePC 901?

I'm not a huge Mac fan. I find their software to be limiting and overly simplistic and their hardware way overpriced. That being said, there are certain things that Macs do well. Anything dealing with multimedia, for one. So, I thought it would be a fun project to see if I could get Mac OS X running on my favorite toy, my EeePC 901. Apparently, I'm not alone. The interwebs are chock full of tutorials about how to do this. The guide that I used, which I found to be the most comprehensive, is EEEmac. I obtained a "Leopard" retail disc via the usual channels, and simply followed the guide. You can see the results in the above images.

Overall, the process was a success. Software-wise, everything is fully operational. OS X is (un)officially running on my 901. I have the OS running on a 32GB RunCore SSD drive, so its pretty damn fast. Hardware is a different story. The system doesn't always shutdown, boot, or wake up correctly. Lots of holding down the power button involved. The camera and ethernet are not working yet (no drivers). There is a Unix (FreeBSD) ethernet driver here, but porting it to Mac is outside my scope.

So, I have a Mac netbook. Sounds weird. I may try it out for a couple weeks. I can't see ditching XP altogether, though. I really can't understand why Apple has yet to release a netbook. They'd sell a million of them on the first day. There is currently and will be a market for the netbook form factor for years to come. Smarten up, Apple. Get with the times.

EeePC 901 SSD Face-Off (Part 2): RunCore vs. Phison (SLC)

This is Part 2 of my EeePC 901 SSD Face-Off, where I compare various SSD drives for the Asus EeePC 901 (20G) Linux. Part 1 can be found here. In this installment, I compare the RunCore 32GB (MLC) drive against the stock Phison 4GB (SLC) drive. Going into the testing for this, I was assuming that the Phison was gonna get smoked across the board by the RunCore. Turns out that I was only partially correct.

About the Benchmarks

As I mentioned in Part 1, these benchmarks are not scientific. I didn't try and clone the drives, or assure that they all had the exact same services and apps running during testing. However, I did attempt to make the runtime scenarios as similar as possible. This time, we are comparing NTFS to NTFS to even the playing field. Both machines contained the following:

-Windows XP Professional SP3
-All Windows Updates
-BIOS 1808 (latest)
-"Super Performance" mode a.k.a. full CPU speed
-Latest device drivers


Results








I found these results very surprising. With the exception of Hibernate and Shutdown, The Phison holds its own. Of course, the RunCore still tops the Phison across the board, but it was a much closer race than the Phison 16GB (MLC). Based on these results, one might actually be able to tolerate Windows XP as a system parition on this SSD.









Now this is more along the lines of what I expected from the 4GB Phison. Again, I used PassMark PerformanceTest 6.1 on both drives to evaluate disk speed. All of the other tests in the benchmarking suite, i.e. 2D, 3D, RAM, CPU, etc., were statisically insignficant between the 2 drives. The RunCore, once again, makes the Phison look silly. Even though these are not "real-world" tasks that are running, these benchmarks do allow for the technical limitations of the Phison drive to be seen clearly. The Phison 4GB has a modest gain in Disk scores over the 16GB drive, but neither can touch the RunCore drive.

Conclusion

If you want speed, in both real-world and extreme scenarios, and capacity for your Asus EeePC 901, all at a very reasonable price, then RunCore SSD's are for you. They significantly outperform both of the stock Phison drives in every measurable way. RunCore SSD's are available from MyDigitalDiscount.

If there should be a Part 3 to this series, I'm open to suggestions for topics.

EeePC 901 SSD Face-Off (Part 1): RunCore vs. Phison

In July 2008, I purchased an Asus EeePC 901 (20G) Linux netbook, pretty much the day it came out. Since then, it has accompanied me on trips long and short, and has been what I consider to be a wise purchase. However, the 901 is not without its shortcomings. The 901 Linux has 2 SSDs, or solid state disks, both made by Phison: a 4GB (SLC) and a 16GB (MLC). Both SSDs have slow read/write speeds, with the 16GB being the slower of the two. Out of the box, the 901 is a Linux machine, running a Xandros variant. I liked this OS, but I wanted to use Windows XPon the machine as well. So the day I got it, I decided to dual-boot Linux and Windows. Until recently, I had the 4GB running Linux and the 16GB running XP. Linux was slow but usable. I've since removed the Linux partition, leaving only XP on the 16GB. I found the read speeds to be tolerable on XP, but the writes were downright painful. Thankfully, 3rd party manufacturers recently began releasing faster replacement SSDs for netbooks. One of these makers is RunCore. Somehow, RunCore has managed to produce the fastest AND cheapest replacement SSDs for netbooks like the EeePC and the Dell Inspiron mini 9. Last week, I bought a 32GB MLC replacement for the 16GB Phison, and installed XP on it. I ran some common tasks and a commercial benchmark suite, and I immediately saw returns on my investment. The results of the tests, shown below, are breathtaking.

About the Benchmarks

These benchmarks are not scientific. I didn't try and clone the drives, or assure that they all had the exact same services and apps running during testing. However, I did attempt to make the runtime scenarios as similar as possible. The one "apples-to-oranges" issue would be that the Phison was formatted FAT32 and the RunCore was formatted NTFS. I used FAT32 on the Phison because FAT32 has a smaller block size and does not use journaling or the other more advanced write-intensive features of NTFS. On a systems with slow write speeds, this seemed to make sense. Both machines contained the following:

-Window XP Professional SP3
-All Windows Updates
-BIOS 1808 (latest)
-"Super Performance" mode a.k.a. full CPU speed
-Latest device drivers


Results







These are the common tasks I chose to look at. Number 3 is a cold startup timed from button press to right after the sound drivers load, but before the network (wireless) drivers load. Number 5 is copying and pasting a 98Mb zip file.





I used PassMark PerformanceTest 6.1 on both drives to evaluate disk speed. All of the other tests in the benchmarking suite, i.e. 2D, 3D, RAM, CPU, etc., were statisically insignficant between the 2 drives. As you can see, the Disk tests yielded far different results.

Conclusion

The results speak for themselves, I think. The bottom line is that the RunCore SSD destroyed the stock Phison disk in every measurable way. Some of the results are so extreme, they're practically laughable. In short, adding a RunCore SSD to your EeePC 901 will turn it into the machine you wished it was out of the box. I'll go so far as to say that it makes the 901 useful for more than just web browsing, which in the realm of today's netbooks is really saying something. RunCore SSDs are available from MyDigitalDiscount.

Not sure what Part 2 of this article will be. Could be Phison NTFS vs. FAT32. Could be Phison SLC vs. RunCore. Ether way, Part 2 will be coming soon. If you have strong feelings about what you'd like to see given what you've just read, feel free to comment.