Nice post good luck, I am amaze to your post.

And as I responded above,I know that the performance is comparable, but in the general market, very few users will actually realize that. Plus, it flowed better with the rest of that paragraph, so I was fine with how it was phrased.

And if they were the same price, I’d probably go EEE as well, since I generally prefer Asus over MSI.

Congrats, Vivek.

I do feel I should say your post could’ve been a little more informed – as said above, the piece about the processor simply isn’t fair. The 900 mhz proc in the current EEE often even outperforms the Atom @ 1.6 ghz, so saying it’s 150% faster is simply wrong. I also believe the difference in weight to be larger, but I don’t have any numbers at hand.

I do agree on the price issue, though, $650 is a bit much for the 901. But if they had the same price, I’d choose the 901 over the Wind anytime!

Congratz!

I’ m not overly comfortable with the design of any MSI product. They have always been cheaper in the catagories of market they compete (Graphics cards, Motherboards etc) but i always have problems with their products (motherboards, bluetooth dongles, memory sticks etc). I believe they try to clone products and just use sub-par grade components to get the cost down. Once i went through 3 motherboards in a row (with the Via KT600 chipset) and they all died within 3 months. Their customer support was terrible. I thought it was a overheating or over voltage problem but it turned out that the boards were dying with different problems each time. In the end i got myself an Asus board and everything was fine (with same components in case such as PSU, fans, CPU, RAM etc). Still using the asus board now after 4 years of use in an older computer.

The MSI Wind sounds great but i’m going to wait a few months after launch and see what problems people are having before i even consider lining MSI’s pocket with my pennies.

Great blog post, Vivek. I learned something and enjoyed the article at the same time. I sent in an article myself, but I must admit yours was definitely better. And, thanks to you, I’ll be going towards the MSI machine over the Asus.

This is very true, but I figured with the 45nm core and all of the architectural changes, it’d be faster than the 900MHz Celeron, even with the in-order processing. The comments on clockspeed were pretty much a small liberty that I took – it flowed much better that way.

Plus, nobody other than geeks who buy these will know the difference in architecture and such. They will see 1.6GHz and 900Mhz, and which will they think is faster? The 1.6GHz, obviously. I know the difference, but I’m just saying…

Congrats to Vivek,

Just a point the 1.6GHz Atom is around the same speed as the 900MHz Celeron-M (It should have better battery life though). As always you can’t take raw CPU clock speed as the only factor in it’s performance.