I still say that the main thing missing from these “Box”es are a CD drive. I can easily see not having one in a netbook for portability, but having a CD reader at a minimum seems like a requirement for a desktop system. And if you're talking about making it a low profile media center pc, then a DVD reader would be a minimum. It wouldn't take that much extra space/power/expense to throw in a slot loader CD/DVD reader, would it?

Do you know if the 220 will be more powerful than the 1.6 Atom? I would love to use the Eee Box as a replacement for my Aopen Mini PCs as media centers. My units are up in years sporting a Centrino M750 cpu.

I know a lot of people are going to laugh at this, but I think it should be pointed out.

Don't you think a low end machine, like this, should have a modem built in?

Believe it or not, there are still people out there that don't have computers, and if they were to get one, would want the cheapest way possible to get online. I'd think fixed income types are the ones who would be most interested in a system like this, and I doubt they'd be popping for broadband.

Ditto on that sentiment. If I take a small box like this down to my parents house for hookup, it would have to have a modem (internal or external) as they have no highspeed internet available to them wireless or other.

Same here.

I've been looking for a computer for my in-laws, who've never really used one. An Eee Box would be perfect if it had a modem.

Hey, that's a good point! Surely a modem can't be that expensive or take up that much space. These little low power boxes don't NEED gigabit connections. One could argue that the wireless network adapter is overkill.

There are more usb wireless network adapters than there are usb modems out there. For a low cost low power computer, it would be good for someone who doesn't have an expensive broadband connection. A low cost dialup isp would be more appropriate for someone to get basic internet connectivity.

I agree with you, Nate. A modem would be more appropriate for these boxes than, say, wireless or a gigabit network adapter. It would certainly expand the potential customer base to those who don't have a broadband connection.

This may also be a laughable question but what would be faster: 1.6 GHz Atom or 1.2 GHz Celeron? Both are single core but Atom is hyperthreaded. Some applications, e.g., Folding@Home, can only use one core so it only uses half of an Atom CPU but it would theoretically use all of a Celeron. Yes, the Celeron would run hotter and consume more power than Atom, but it's not a power hog like a full Core 2 Duo, et al.