4kg for a notebook? Seriously? Not a hope of it ever making its way out of the office or house then at that weight. I thought my HP was bad at 2.7kg and I refuse to carry that unless I really have to.

Have these people not figured out that portable is supposed to be easy to carry?

Is Superb! Try using it in the real world...

want to check your web mail? 5 sec boot up...

want to check google maps? 5 sec boot up..

want to read the news? 5 sec boot up...

Its fantastic for anyone whose computer is normally off... ie people who dont work at a desk = a very large number of people..

Why on earth would you turn a laptop off? These things have a battery for a reason. My mac gets to mail/maps/news in 1 second not because of some fancy tack on feature, but simply because it wakes from sleep nice and quickly.

17 inch screen and weighs 4kg?

Do me a lemon, that's a bloody LAPTOP!

It's a desk-top replacement, not a laptop! You're not meant to lug it around with you everywhere. They're really handy if you have limited desk space (as in student 'halls of residence') and you need to be able to clear the decks for an inpromptu party.

Yep - This is the other laptop to complement your eeepc 901. When you need more memory/cpu/disk/workspace for real work.

Which is why it is disappointing to see it only has 1600x900 resolution. Using a similar dpi to the 901 you should be looking at 1920x1080 (which would also make it true HD). Given that Asus has dropped the dpi for its successor eeepc models - are they going blind (to the market). Come on Asus, recapture the market by being truly innovative.

There are two points to a 16:9 screen on a computer.

1) To match the aspect ratio of HDTV for video playback.

2) To save money, because a 16:9 screen has less area than a 16:10 screen with the same diagonal.

So what they've done here is charge a reasonably large amount of money for a machine with an inferior resolution to any 1680x1050 screen (let alone WUXGA), that has an inferior aspect ratio for document editing (try fitting two A4 pages on it - 16:10 is much better), and that can't display HD resolutions without scaling (blurring) them.

Personally, I've never found black bars (aka "somewhere off-screen to put the DVD player control) distracting - certainly no more than the screen boundaries. I'll be amused if someone starts doing ambilight-esque coloured borders. This is entirely a cynical attempt to fob off a cheaper panel than a "real" 17" screen would have been, and claim it's superior.

16:9 is not, and never has been, a good choice of aspect ratio. Now it's polluting our laptop screens. Eugh.

Pint glass, for looking at distorted images through.

And it seems to be mostly made of plastic. Have they stuffed half a brick in there or something?

...with at best 1/7th the 3D performance of my 17" Sager, it'd have to be hellishly cheap to justify.

In the review you mention finding a driver that allowed for "n" speeds, where did you locate that driver?