Acer, Vista and potential for upgrades

My Acer Aspire 1362 WLMi has a GeForce FX 5200 Go card in it which I believe is a 64Mb card.

As I understand it for Vista and the Aero desktop you need a card with 128Mb of memory. That's not a problem if you can upgrade the card, but with laptops this is a little more tricky if not impossible in some cases.

From what investigation I've done I believe the card I've got is not surface mounted (integrated) but an OEM laptop card, but it's not accessible by the user without breaking the warranty. Acer also kindly put a warranty stick right over one of the case screw holes when I sent the laptop back for repair once.

So my question is, will Acer offer any kind of upgrade on graphics cards in laptops? I know they offer HDD upgrades though in theory you can do that yourself (but I've yet to work out how on the 1362).

I know the answer is likely 'no' and Acer expect you to buy a completely new laptop, but just maybe...

Ignoring the warranty though, has anyone ever replaced the card in the 1362 or similar laptops?

Other than the graphics card, the CPU in theory is okay (AMD Sempron 2800+) though not upgradable, the hard disc can be upgraded to a bigger size and faster speed, and hopefully it's okay to run vista with the bells and whistles (as after all what point is there to Vista over XP if not for the fancy desktop? ).

 

as vista has been designed for a maximum graphical visual interface and u want all the bells and whistles to take advantage of it u need a much faster laptop. the ideal requirements are a 64bit processor, at least 2gb of ram, HDCP screen and a GPU card with over 256mb of onboard memory. im personally waiting for the whole Vista hype to pass for at least 6months after the release then upgrade from my 8204Wlmi now, also saving myself buying Vista OS on its own. sure u can get a 32bit edition but thats not 'all the bells and whistles' is it? anyway thats my opinion

 

64-bit has no practical advantage.

you won't need 2 gb of ram. 1 should be fine.

HDCP is only necessary if you're watching HD movies with the ICT enabled on a digital display and wish to do so at a high resolution (and you haven't cracked the software that enforces this ridiculous restriction).

I, for one, will not be buying HD-DVD or Blu-Ray discs or players.

 

yeh, no practical advantage if u use Microsoft Word... do i need 2gb of ram yes i do, i reach the ceiling of 1gb on my last laptop all the time.
Vista is designed for Hi Def. on the higher more premium editions of Vista. A premium ready vista pc needs AT LEAST 1GB of ram, yes its fine but wanting to run everything flawlessly with aero and demanding programs u will need the extra ram ... from what it sounds like youre either not fussed with Vista and wont get it or u wil be upgrading to the Vista 'Starter' Edition

 

There is no program that would benefit from 64-bit on my system. Unless you're running 64-bit applications, there is no speed advantage. Even then, this advantage is minimal and 32-bit software may be slower when running in a 64-bit OS environment. (The only way anyone will notice either is if they're running benchmarks all day.)

Speaking of benchmarks, some applications perform faster as 32-bit than 64-bit on some CPUs.

Good for you. I am running Vista with 2GB of RAM and I only notice memory usage only going over 50% when I am running Visual Studio along with Outlook (2007), Opera, Firefox, iTunes, etc. or running Media Center with things in the background.

The funny thing is that high definition content already plays just fine in Windows XP with 1 GB of memory. Vista's "high definition" support is more like "high definition copy protection" support via the forced lower resolutions for those watching certain high definition content on non-HDCP monitors, along with support for HDTV in Media Center via the QAM tuners found in CableCard tuners.

It seems that high-definition Blu-ray and HD-DVD are already playable in Windows XP as well.

(On another note, since it seems like CableCard hardware will not be available outside of certified Media Center systems, I will stick with the cable company DVR or switch to another technology if they decide to play nice.)

While playing HD video (720p H264) Windows Media Player uses 45 MB of memory and physical memory usage increases by 2%. CPU usage is approximately 40% (with a singlethreaded decoder) on a 1.66GHz Yonah using ffdshow, so it's using 80% of that core. There is no H264 hardware decoding acceleration going on.

This system rarely uses more than 50% of Physical Memory according to the Vista task manager, unless I'm running Visual Studio. Most users will never run Visual Studio. In Windows XP memory usage rarely goes over 1 GB unless I'm running Visual Studio.

With just Opera, gaim, and Outlook open, memory usage is at 37%.

Media Center takes about 10% of physical memory. As Microsoft progresses with Vista development, memory usage will only go down.

Clearly, you don't know what you are talking about. I am running Vista Beta 5472 right now. My observations are based in _reality_ seeing as I have actually used one of the latest versions of the product.

 

ok fair enough, clearly u indicate u have a larger epenis then me as u are indeed brave enough to run an OS in beta where frankly i dont want the hassle of messing around with it till it is thoroughly tried and tested for the risk of losing my sanity.

Merom is marginally faster than the 32bit processors but not enough for me to upgrade and whilst i do agree on the 32/64bit application issue its another sound reason why i find it inappropriate to upgrade till the programs i frequently use adopt 64bit so its fully compatible in terms of optimum performance.

See for yourself a Benchmark of Merom and T2600 and T2500.... I was anticipating it would have had similar grounds of improvement similar to Conroe, its desktop counterpart from early benchmarks ive seen but this recent benchmark shows that it simply isnt and has let me down!

http://www.pcper.com/article.php?aid=276&type=expert&pid=7

If u say u rarely require the need of 2gb ram why question whether i do?
I got no idea wat visual studio does or how cpu or ram intensive it is but all i can say is that i run 3ds Max 8 and Photoshop CS2 simultaneously along with many other programs like AutoCAD 2006, IE, iTunes, MSN and other background apps... and being a student the need for a notebook where practicality/portability is essential and also a sole computer i 'still' believe i, myself could do with extra performance.

Re. the HDCP issue, [hands held high] im not a big fan so my knowledge is limited. All praise your supreme understanding of Vista.

 

I have my own reasons for using Vista. Nice attempt to make a comeback; however, this doesn't change the fact that you acted like you knew all about it when you've never used it.

I don't question whether you do. I am saying that an average user is unlikely to use more than 1GB of RAM in Vista very often -- you have suggested more than once in this thread that you would need "at least 2gb of ram" to run Vista optimally. But, my experience from actually using the product being discussed shows that this isn't the case.

 

ok chances are i replied without hesitation to the orginal question at hand but from wat i know i stand by my requirements and assumed the other user might feel the same.
As it is a forum i am entitled to my opinion and i shouldnt have said 'u need at least 2gb of ram' but more likely shud have said to run a pc more COMFORTABLY (now and near future) on vista i would recommend u have 2gb of ram....ive havent said 'u need at least 2gb of ram to run vista' twice, i think u will find its just once.

u said nice comeback.... u dont need to get cocky...the only part in my mind where i had no clue with Vista was with HDCP and i owned upto that as i do have some pride.

u got anything more to add from your fountain of knowledge?

 

Guys - please stop bashing each other. If it continues, thread is locked. You are both allowed to have your opinions on this forum, but you need to respect other user's opinions also.

 

thank you, dont u wanna join in?

 

So...

Any answers to my original question?

i.e. can I upgrade the graphics card, either officially or unofficially, and same question for the CPU.

As for the 64bit issue, as I understand it the Sempron 2800+ is a 64bit core, just locked down to 32bit. The architecture of the laptop should be able to handle full 64bit in theory but whether you can just pop in such a process I don't know.

As for the reality (speaking as a software developer), 64bit is really a non starter for the moment. Still very few companies are looking at 64bit development and few real customers that matter are asking for it (hence why at work we're not doing any 64bit development). Drivers are limited and few true 64bit software about, so really it's not that much benefit.

Either way it doesn't matter so long as I have the option. I'm not bothered at present. All I really want to know is whether I can crank up the spec of the laptop enough to run Vista with the Aero desktop comfortably? If not there's not really much point in upgrading to Vista in which case I'll hold off and buy a new laptop a few years down the line which of course might be a full blown 64bit system by then

 

Upgrade graphics card: Doubtfull (no posative answer, but assuming it's a "daughterboard" type card, you'd need to find a better one that fits in the same slot, that assumes that Acer ever even had one made (or someone else had one made)).

My recommendation would be, don't bother... wait a few years and buy a new laptop, by which time, as you state, 64bit programs might actually exist in a more common forum and Vista might have gotten over initial problems (which I'm banking on some).

 

It's all about marketing. Micro$oft is the best friend of 99% of computer manufacturers. Everthing is designed to confuse you and get ur precious money.
64bit will be useless for at least 1 year.