bplinson wrote:Is this thing powerful enough to play MP3s?

You're kidding and being mean, right?
Playing MP3s take very little processing power. Witness the 2" displayless devices you can buy at $1 stores and ebay.

My guess is that this Acer can play several hundred MP3s concurrently.

bmw66x wrote:Actually, AMD gets higher overall ratings than the bigger (better known) Intel processors. Love the double sided write up though, very funny!

Do you really need the Intel cache? AMD gewts it done much cheaper, and usually just as good.

JN88 wrote:"In the box" No mention of a Windows 7 Install CD or Drivers CD. I was going to buy this Notebook though it is already old technology but without installation disks I will not risk it. Was the Woot master in a rush and forgot to fully complete tonite item description? Sorry Woot I will not chance it without the complete OS re-install disks. :-(

Virtually no computer comes with installation CD/DVDs anymore. You need to create them yourself. You should do this right after initializing the computer. It'll usually take about 3 DVDs.

JN88 wrote:"In the box" No mention of a Windows 7 Install CD or Drivers CD. I was going to buy this Notebook though it is already old technology but without installation disks I will not risk it. Was the Woot master in a rush and forgot to fully complete tonite item description? Sorry Woot I will not chance it without the complete OS re-install disks. :-(

I'm not sure what you mean by "complete OS re-install disks." If you mean disks that you can use to re-install Windows FOR THIS COMPUTER, those need to be created once you set up the computer. The disks are then stored away for emergencies. Don't even think of using the disks to install Windows 7 on another computer though because it's not going to work.

In other words, you can create complete OS re-install disks, but not install disks.

gonffen wrote:What is with all these massive laptops these days? 17.3" is way past portable!

Portable simply means that it can be manually moved without much assembly/disassembly. If you're not able to do that with this 7.1 lb laptop, you need to get checked for myopathy or anemia.

They're known as desktop replacements. They have a larger screen, more powerful CPU and keypad -- just like most desktops. Some, like the multimedia HPs, even come with remote controls for watching DVDs and videos.

They're perfect for people who don't have the room for a full desktop (and don't need its expandability). For example, dorm dwellers who don't need to drag their computers across campus. The fact is that most laptops stay in one place 90% of the time, or don't travel more than 20 feet away, so 17.3" 7.1 lb laptops are just fine, given their power.

46and2 wrote:Says 667MHz. Not that RAM speed matters for actual performance, especially in an AMD based laptop.

(snip)

Gotta agree with you there. For the last 2 or 3 years, manufacturers have been offering RAM that is too fast too offer the user any tangible boost in performance. I suppose there is something to the promise that "tomorrow's applications may take advantage of it," but it's mostly hype.

Here's a study of RAM speed and its benefits. It's from 2008, but I chose it for relevance and expertise (and it's from Tom's Hardware, a respected site):

Is Fast Memory Really Worth It?

jump to conclusion

Ramming speeeeeed!

gonffen wrote:What is with all these massive laptops these days? 17.3" is way past portable!

If the screen was 1920x1080 (or 1920x1200) then I would be interested.

I am in the market for a 17+" laptop with a Blu-ray drive but I want to take full advantage of the large screen. Any recomendations?

While I don't have this laptop I have another Acer with the exact same keyboard and the keys get mushy relatively fast and the arrow keys are most prone to buttafuocoure so if you use them a lot don't expect them to stay in tip-top shape for long.

Also, overall, this laptop is fairly underpowered for a 17".

portezbie wrote:nice laptop. 2.0ghz is a bit weak imo, but the rest of the specs are very respectable. I'm impressed that its this price new as well. I agree though that I would never want such a big laptop but this could be good for a college student.

You do realize that the processor speed in ghz has very little to do with the overall performance of the computer, right? All it's good for is distinguishing between the performance of processors in the same line.

Not to mention that the lower the clock speed --generally speaking-- the lower the power usage. So in a laptop, for most purposes, the lower clock speed is favorable...

NightGhost wrote:

jump to conclusion

I'd rather not jump to conclusions...

ircmaxell wrote:You do realize that the processor speed in ghz has very little to do with the overall performance of the computer, right? All it's good for is distinguishing between the performance of processors in the same line.

Not to mention that the lower the clock speed --generally speaking-- the lower the power usage. So in a laptop, for most purposes, the lower clock speed is favorable...

That's generally not true for 17" laptops, which are considered desktop replacement. In other words, they're plugged in most of the time so saving power is not an issue. Furthermore, many modern CPUs, especially the new Intel i3/i5/i7s, automatically manage clock speed in response to demand and power source. Finally, that's not the determining factor for this Acer. The problem is that it uses the cheaper power hungry Athlon II (probably 45-65 watts) rather than the more advanced Turion (35w/25w).

stet wrote:If the screen was 1920x1080 (or 1920x1200) then I would be interested.

I am in the market for a 17+" laptop with a Blu-ray drive but I want to take full advantage of the large screen. Any recomendations?

Take a look at ASUS, great Laptops

rd385 wrote:This laptop should be perfectly suitable for most projects in Photoshop, coding, etc.. My laptop's resolution is 1440x900, has half the memory, and an older ATI Radeon chip/card, but with a Core2Duo 1.83GHz processor, and I'm able to get plenty of "real" work done, both design and web-related.

If you truly need more pixels, just hook up an external monitor. But yeah, 17.3" is a bit diesel for a laptop

btw, I'm not debating on cost or whether or not it's a worthy deal, just saying that it's plenty capable for more than just idle browsing and the like...

Heck, I've been photoshopping on an Acer Netbook!

Clearly I should have waited before buying this exact same computer from Woot a month ago and saved myself $50. It's a nice computer regardless. Good sound quality from the built in speakers, good graphics card, and hard drive. A few convenient buttons for quick access to stuff. It doesn't have a top end processor so that's my only real complaint. That, and the big keyboard still takes some getting used to.

The first laptop I ever had was an Acer. Hated it... There's got to be better deals out there.

Ummm... 7lbs? What year is it, again?

gonffen wrote:What is with all these massive laptops these days? 17.3" is way past portable!

Actually I have a 17.5" hp and i take it everywhere with no prob. I hate all these small screens nowdays, bigger is better. You cant put a good computer into a small notebook, is it really worth the sacrifice? Go get your self a 7" mini netbook for a 100$ and stop complaining.

ChristanEff wrote:Unless you're really into BluRay, take a pass on this. Laptops with better specs (processor, DDR3, etc.) are readily available online for $50+ cheaper, save that they'd usually have DVD-RWs instead of BluRays. You can actually probably find BluRay with, say, an i3 chip and other specs similar for about the same price or a little less even.

I don't know anyone with BluRay... I'd rather have a faster processor, personally.

You got a link to back this up?

gonffen wrote:What is with all these massive laptops these days? 17.3" is way past portable!

Gawd, you kids are such spoiled wimps. We neanderthals had to hunt dinosaurs, drag our women by the hair, and use CP/M...

The first portable computer, Osborne I, was 24lbs, cost $1795 in 1981 and had a whopping 64K of RAM to hold both the OS and apps. That's approximately 1/62500th the amount in this 4gb Acer. And it had a 5" monochrome screen ... proving that a smaller screen doesn't make the computer more portable! Imagine word procesing ona 5" screen. Loved Wordstar's dot-commands...


And the first Microsoft compatible portable was the 28 lb Compaq in 1983, with a 9" screen and costing $3590.

Mescalero wrote:You got a link to back this up?

http://www.pacificgeek.com/showcategory.asp?c=213&s=2071 I know its not exact, but check it out.

MrD3a7h wrote:MrD's prediction for the rest of this thread:

20% about todays woot
80% arguing about the midterm elections.

When will people get it... Democracy just DOESN'T WORK!

samijubal wrote:I've got an Acer desktop. Not a bad computer but I'll never buy another Acer product due to their TOTAL lack of support for what they sell.

Just hope you never need any customer support if you buy this because you won't get any.

My experience was just the opposite. I found the build quality of my Acer laptop to be utter crap, but when the CPU fan failed with a horrible grinding noise a month out of warranty, they still fixed it for free.

Unless you really want the 17 inch, you might want to look at Office Depot.

$480 Acer Aspire AAS5742-7120 4GB, 320GB, i3-370M - 2.4GHz 15.6 inch, 5.7 lb. wireless n, HDMI, 3 USB, webcam, numeric pad

albuquerquemat wrote:Unless you really want the 17 inch, you might want to look at Office Depot.

$480 Acer Aspire AAS5742-7120 4GB, 320GB, i3-370M - 2.4GHz 15.6 inch, 5.7 lb. wireless n, HDMI, 3 USB, webcam, numeric pad

I'd be wary of a 15.6" laptop with a numeric pad. The main keyboard must have been massively shrunk to make room for a keypad. Not good for typing.

albuquerquemat wrote:Unless you really want the 17 inch, you might want to look at Office Depot.

$480 Acer Aspire AAS5742-7120 4GB, 320GB, i3-370M - 2.4GHz 15.6 inch, 5.7 lb. wireless n, HDMI, 3 USB, webcam, numeric pad

Sorry guys, that's Office Max not Office Depot

sdc100 wrote:And the first Microsoft compatible portable was the 28 lb Compaq in 1983, with a 9" screen and costing $3590.

I had one of those (or a similar model). I seem to recall the screen being only 6", not 9", but either way it was very small. Mine had no hard drive, the screen was light green on dark green with an incredible amount of ghosting, and there was a handle built into the side so you could lug it around.

I remember playing Microsoft Flight Simulator (the original) on it and being amazed at the wonderful graphics.

Imagine this in green with a terrible refresh rate and horrible ghosting:

ChristanEff wrote:Unless you're really into BluRay, take a pass on this. Laptops with better specs (processor, DDR3, etc.) are readily available online for $50+ cheaper, save that they'd usually have DVD-RWs instead of BluRays. You can actually probably find BluRay with, say, an i3 chip and other specs similar for about the same price or a little less even.

I don't know anyone with BluRay... I'd rather have a faster processor, personally.

Mescalero wrote:You got a link to back this up?

Sure. If you don't need BlueRay and don't mind refurb, here's a HP G72-250us 2.26GHz Intel Core i3 HDMI Notebook for $499. There even seems to be a $14 rebate.

The specs are impressive:
2.26GHz Intel Core i3-350M Processor (with 3mb L3 cache), 4GB RAM, 320GB Hard Drive, DVD±RW, Wireless 802.11b/g/n, Ethernet LAN, Intel HD Graphics, 17.3” High-Def LED Widescreen, HDMI, Webcam, Genuine Windows 7 Home Premium 64-Bit.

The only thing it's missing is the BluRay, but you're getting a much better CPU at $50 less. Yes, even though i3 is the lowest i-processor, it's still way ahead of the AMD Athlon, which was(is) AMD's worst dual core processor. Not only does this CPU have a faster clock speed, but everything about it more advance, including power usage.

And at 6.6 lbs, it's kinda sexy looking...

sdc100 wrote:
Furthermore, this has a shockingly slow 2.0GHz AMD Athlon II X2 Dual-Core CPU. My HP and subsequent HPs offered by Woot are based on the AMD Turion CPU at 2.4 Ghz or higher. Not only is this Woot running at a lower speed than the HPs, but the Athlon is also a vastly inferior CPU to the Turion. According to this Wiki, not only does the Athlon 64 use more power (Athlon 64=65W, Turion 64=35W/25W) but it's also a less robust CPU:

"Turion 64 X2 Dual-Core processor family is AMD's most advanced family of dual-core processors made for mobility to date. Athlon 64 X2 Dual-Core processor family is a more affordable relatively lower performance range of processors for notebook PCs."

In other words, not only is this incredibly slow at 2.0Ghz, but it also uses the cheapest dual core CPU by AMD. Once the Intel i3/i5 CPU came out, even the more advanced Turion was considered old technology so what would we call the Athlon? Just a notch or two above the Atom used by netbooks?

There is a fatal flaw in your post. That is recognizing the difference between an 'Athlon' and an 'Athlon II'. Athlon is outdated. Athlon II is not. The text you quoted talks about Athlon. This laptop has an Athlon II.

http://www.tigerdirect.com/applications/SearchTools/item-details.asp?EdpNo=6627151&Sku=S445-170024&cm_re=Homepage-_-Spot%2001-_-CatId_17_S445-170024

$430 plus

The Acer Aspire AS7741Z-5731 LX.PY902.001 Refurbished Notebook PC features components like the Intel Pentium P6000 1.86GHz Dual Core processor and 3GB of DDR3 memory. It also gives you the Windows 7 Home Premium 64-bit operating system, 250GB hard drive and a DVD-Super Multi Dual Layer optical drive. The Acer Aspire AS7741Z-5731 LX.PY902.001 Refurbished Notebook PC lets you do a multitude of things.

quantamm wrote:I had one of those (or a similar model). I seem to recall the screen being only 6", not 9", but either way it was very small. Mine had no hard drive, the screen was light green on dark green with an incredible amount of ghosting, and there was a handle built into the side so you could lug it around.

Yep, that's why they were affectionately known as "luggables."

I'd like to meet a woman who can casually carry her 24lb Osborne like that!

I wouldn't recommend an Acer. Have one now and there are known problems with the case hinges freezing and cracking the case. Do research, it's all over the internet.

sdc100 wrote:Sure. If you don't need BlueRay and don't mind refurb, here's a HP G72-250us 2.26GHz Intel Core i3 HDMI Notebook for $499. There even seems to be a $14 rebate.

The specs are impressive:
2.26GHz Intel Core i3-350M Processor (with 3mb L3 cache), 4GB RAM, 320GB Hard Drive, DVD±RW, Wireless 802.11b/g/n, Ethernet LAN, Intel HD Graphics, 17.3” High-Def LED Widescreen, HDMI, Webcam, Genuine Windows 7 Home Premium 64-Bit.

The only thing it's missing is the BluRay, but you're getting a much better CPU at $50 less. Yes, even though i3 is the lowest i-processor, it's still way ahead of the AMD Athlon, which was(is) AMD's worst mobile processor. Not only does this CPU have a faster clock speed, but everything about it more advance, including power usage.

And at 6.6 lbs, it's kinda sexy looking...

Not QUITE everything... the acer has a better video adapter.

We ordered two Acer computers from WOOT. Both have to be shipped back to the manufacturer for repair! Neither one works. We are very disappointed and hope other products we have ordered from WOOT are reliable.

afxtal wrote:There is a fatal flaw in your post. That is recognizing the difference between an 'Athlon' and an 'Athlon II'. Athlon is outdated. Athlon II is not. The text you quoted talks about Athlon. This laptop has an Athlon II.

No, there was no flaw because I was comparing Turion technology to Athlon technology. Both models have since come out with a second generation, Turion II and Athlon II -- and it is these two second generation processors that are used in the HP and Acer I compared. The Athlon IIs are still inferior to Turion IIs for the same reasons, i.e. power usage, etc. And Athlon IIs are still considered budget to midrage processors. In fact, unlike the Turions, I don't think that Athlon IIs were ever meant specifically for laptops, so it's a poor choice for mobile computing.

When I say outdated, it's an opinion, not fact. I'm not saying that it's been discontinued. But I am saying that with the advent of the Intel i-processors, the Athlons are outdated in terms of performance and features -- especially for mobile computing.And a

The only computer for me:

quantamm wrote:I remember playing Microsoft Flight Simulator (the original) on it and being amazed at the wonderful graphics.

Imagine this in green with a terrible refresh rate and horrible ghosting:

You had GRAPHICS???? Wow, rich boy, we ghetto guys played Zork, a text-based role-playing game. When it became apparent that graphical games were becoming standard, the Zork folks claimed that your imagination is better than any graphics card.

To relive those precious watercolor memories, you can download a playable version of Zork here.

catkisson wrote:How's this laptop for game play?
Thanks!

Pretty good price but I don't see the point in watching a blu ray movie at 900p but that's just me. As for gaming, that Ati 4200 is better than the inegrated intel crap, you can at least play some games on the 4200 (on low settings of course). I play L4D2 and Titan Quest on my 4250 all the time and it's just barely better than the 4200. I would not buy this laptop as a gaming laptop, but if you need a lappy for other reasons and playing games is secondary then by all means...And yeah, that processor is kind of weak but for a cheapy laptop this one is pretty good.

If the panel had a higher resolution I would have bought this. Why is it so hard to find a laptop with a high resolution panel?

I have an Aspire 5517 Laptop. Athlon II Proc that clocks UNDER 1.6 ghz. I could probably get this higher, but I haven't tried. It has basically the same stats as this one, but with a 15" screen and no blu-ray. I love this little thing. I use it for all my computing needs, as I don't have a desktop. It handles multitasking like a dream. I always have 5 or more programs running at the same time. Between word processing, web surfing, photo editing, and games, this little guy handles em like a dream.

I did have the hard drive buttafuoco on me after about 5 months, but that could be attested to the fact that I dropped a 2lb power converter on my computer in the specific spot where the drive was. However, Acer replaced the hard drive no questions asked, for free. I waited about two weeks, and had my computer back.

Overall, Acer's quality is okay, the actual hardware on the computer is not the best (my screen has a weird light spot that occasionally moves around my screen over a few days.) And my dad had a problem with his cd drive, but the Acer customer support was awesome and got it fixed right up.

All that to say, Acer is a good medium-quality producer. If I had the money, I would go for Asus, but I am very happy with my laptop.