I wonder how much effect on battery life if it is 1024X768 vs 800X600? I would guess,
1024X768 = 786k vs 800x600 = 480k, this translates to 64% increase in energy, ie. the battery will be drained 64% more in regard to the video. Do you think that is what Asus is thinking, along the line higher resolution also increase the cost of production?
Just a thought,
bun
Good point, I guess higher resolution LCDs do draw more power - maybe higher resolution will be possible if Asus update the design to use the more power efficient Intel processors due in 2008?
I guess Asus could also offer a higher resolution model based on the current processor technology, then it's down to the consumer to decide if they want slightly more battery life or a less cramped display.
I wonder how much effect on battery life if it is 1024X768 vs 800X600? I would guess,
1024X768 = 786k vs 800x600 = 480k, this translates to 64% increase in energy, ie. the battery will be drained 64% more in regard to the video. Do you think that is what Asus is thinking, along the line higher resolution also increase the cost of production?
Just a thought,
bun
No, I don't think Asus was terribly interested in energy efficiency or battery life, I think it was all about price. I'd guess that both the display and CPU were chosen because they could get a large quantity cheaply. The processor is just a socket-478. Who else would Intel sell a 900MHz socket 478 CPU to? I'd bet that the screen was the same deal. Do keep in mind that the original reported price for the EeePC was $199. I think that this was Asus' plan all along and when they saw the interest in the EeePC, they raised the price. (Who could blame them? They're a business. Heck, I still bought one for $399.)
Also, judging by how much buzz the EeePC has, and how interested Asus seems to be in releasing a Windows version of it, I doubt we'll see too much more development of the EeePC 701 as a Linux-based laptop. Pity, I think they're on to something here. (It's quite Folio-like, really.)
I wonder how much effect on battery life if it is 1024X768 vs 800X600? I would guess,
1024X768 = 786k vs 800x600 = 480k, this translates to 64% increase in energy, ie. the battery will be drained 64% more in regard to the video.
Really? These are LCDs, not OLEDs. Isn't the backlight the primary source of power consumption in a LCD? This would suggest that the power required is a function of physical size and the designed/selected brightness, but not resolution. (Excepting the additional demands that more pixels place on the CPU/GPU.)
"Someone had a warehouse full of them" is a more likely explanation in my opinion (which benmhall and others already said).
Really? These are LCDs, not OLEDs. Isn't the backlight the primary source of power consumption in a LCD? This would suggest that the power required is a function of physical size and the designed/selected brightness, but not resolution. (Excepting the additional demands that more pixels place on the CPU/GPU.)
Backlighting could well remain the same assuming they replace the 7" 800x480 screen with a 7" 1024x768 screen (and backlighting is the biggest power drain) however LCDs are like dynamic memory and each pixel (row/column address) needs to be constantly refreshed so by increasing resolution it means more pixels need to be refreshed in a given period of time, requiring slightly more power than would be needed for a screen with fewer pixels. I really don't know if it's a big enough difference to have a noticeable impact on battery life, but I've read that doubling the amount of dynamic RAM in an N800 (ie. 128MB->256MB) would have resulted in reduced battery lifetime and I'm guessing the same is true of a higher res LCD.
