I'm running an ASUS EeePC 1015T netbook, with the AMD Nile V105 and integrated ATI Radeon HD 4250 graphics. It came with 1GB RAM but I upgraded it to 2GB (it can take up to 4GB... advantage of the AMD chipset it's running). On it, I run the pre-installed Windows 7 Starter and Ubuntu 11.04 Natty in a dual-boot environment.
11.04, whether running GNOME 2 or Unity, works very very nicely and I run it far more than I run Windows. All my function keys and buttons work on it right out of the box, as do my wireless LAN and ethernet ports for connecting to the internet. My touchpad works perfectly too, though I have to go into my mouse settings and change from edge-scrolling to multi-finger for scrolling, but that's just my preference.
However, I have found 2 issues running Ubuntu on this model of netbook:
1) Ubuntu 11.04 seems to use more battery than Windows 7 Starter does, whether I'm running Ubuntu Classic or Unity (2D and 3D), even when I add Jupiter and Jupiter EeePC support. I can get up to 6 hours in Windows 7, but only up to 4 hours in Ubuntu. That's only of a minor nature as I'm usually not far from an electrical outlet and can run on AC most of the time. But on long-extended trips... it matters. Not sure why the less resource-intensive Ubuntu would use more battery power than software-bloated Windows.
2) The ATI proprietary driver seems to have poor performance. This became extremely apparent when I was running it while watching YouTube videos and other streaming videos, as they were so extremely choppy. The open-source driver performs much better for those than the proprietary one does. It seemed to run my desktop environment just fine, but once I started playing streaming videos (I haven't tried any movies from AVI's, MP4's, or Matroska), it really sucked. So I went right back to using the open-source driver that came with Ubuntu. I suspect it might be an Adobe Flash issue (not sure if I had already installed Flash. I know I hadn't installed the Flash-Aid plug-in), but I've also heard that ATI's Linux drivers basically suck compared to NVidia's.
I could find the time to give the proprietary driver another go, and do a full test of everything I normally run, and see how it runs. Does anyone else have problems running the proprietary drivers on a netbook/laptop/desktop with integrated ATI graphics?
Updates: I did another test running the proprietary fglrx Catalyst driver, and here is what I've found so far: I actually got better battery consumption using the proprietary driver over the open-source one. With the open-source, I got maybe 4 hours at most. With the proprietary driver, I'm getting up to 5 hours. That's a pretty good improvement, but still not quite the 6 hours I'm getting in Windows 7 Starter (which doesn't have Aero)... and is what the manufacturer's specs are. But, that was me running Compiz like I usually do. I didn't try it in Unity 2D nor in Ubuntu Classic (effects disabled).
Advantage aside, I found that my Compiz effects seem to run a little bit slower in Ubuntu Classic (I didn't try it in Unity as it also runs Compiz), not much, but still slower. In addition, I ran into the same problem with streaming videos on websites like YouTube, which all use Flash animation. I even ran my Flash-Aid again to make sure everything was up to snuff, and I still get very choppy Flash videos. BUT... my avi's, mp4's, and mkv's all run flawlessly.
Bottom line... the fglrx driver sucks at running Adobe Flash, and is a bit slower with Compiz. But it has much better power management and plays my movies just fine But I do visit YouTube and other sites for streaming videos, so I'm back to the open-source driver.