The quality of Acer products

Hello,

I have been doing lots of research about laptops lately, and so far the best candidate for my new notebook is Acer TravelMate 8005 with 1.8ghz Pentium M Dothan, Radeon 9700 128mb, dvd+/-rw and so on...

Before making final decision (I still very much like to see Vaio S series in person) I'd still like to know about the general quality of Acer laptops. So any of you who have owned one, would you please share your experiences about the manufacturer.

So far the only negative thing I've heard is that the 800 series' screen might get scratched or lose quality when carried around a lot.

"I guess it's just the perfect time to send some roses."

 

Hi Lum,

I'd also love to know this, as I read a very negative message which has left me in some considerable doubt regards Acer:-

http://sound-on-sound2.infopop.net/2/OpenTopic?a=tpc&s=215094572&f=351097254&m=709100561&r=379100512#379100512

 

Right, you can look at any brand and find people on both poles. The trick is to understand where the mass resides. In Acer's case I feel like it's mostly favorable. I considered an Acer when I made my last notebook purchase and would buy the Ferrari in a heartbeat if I wanted a performance notebook. I think they're solid, just under-marketed in the US.

Editor in Chief http://www.bargainPDA.com and http://www.SPOTstop.com

 

The quality of a notebook hard to rate. Some that have had bad experiences with the Acer brand may say that their notebooks are pure garbage, but then another person who have bought Acer's all their lives have never had any issues at all and says they're the best.
From the posts I have read from this site, the owners of Acer units seem happy with their purchases.
Then there are the Dell notebooks. I've read a lot of issues with their notebooks in the forums regarding quality and heat issues, but they are the #1 or #2 (depends on what day it is, shared with HP) in computer/notebook sales. How can this be if a lot of people have indicated otherwise?
We may recommend a system that we think is good, but then the person who bought the unit may just have a problematic unit. It may happen.
So, the only thing I could recommend is, if the unit appeals to you, it has the features you want/need, is within your price range and is from a reputable company, I say get it.

-Vb-

 

Subjective I know, but out of these two laptops, for example, which would have the better overall performance (for crunching raw numbers, as opposed to graphics, etc.):-

Acer Ferrari 3200 - [click here]:-

* Low-power Mobile AMD Athlon™ 64 processor 2800+, with VIA ProSavage™ K8T800 chipset
* 512MB (2*256) DDR333 SDRAM (up to 2GB)
* 80GB ATA-100 hard disk (4200RPM)
* CD-RW/DVD+/-RW
* 15.0" SXGA+ TFT LCD with 1400 x 1050 pixel resolution, 16.7 million colours, 200 nit high brightness
* ATI® Mobility Radeon® 9700 with dedicated 128MB of video memory
* 2.5Hrs battery life

and...

Sony VAIO VGN-A117S - [click here] (from the A-series)

* 1.7GHz Pent-M 735,
* 2MB L2 Cache,
* 400MHz FSB,
* 512MB > 1GB 333MHz PC2700 DDR
* DVD±RW Drive
* 1920 x 1200
* Radeon 9700 64MB Ram

----

Because I've been primarily looking into Centrino laptops, I'm unfamiliar with Athlon laptops, so wondered how the Athlon compares with the Centrino - is it a similar match?

I noticed the Athlon processor looks like it uses standard GHz speeds to illustrate CPU speeds? ...while the Centrino allegedly 1.5 x it's stated speed (roughly speaking) when compared to the desktop equivalent?

So, essentially, how would the 1.7GHz Centrino with 2MB L2 on-die Cache compare with the Athlon 64 2800 with 512kb L2 cache?(disregarding the add-ons such as the graphics cards, etc.).

Thanks,

K