Acer Timeline 13.3" Owners?

The single core ones CAN play youtube HD. It depends on the video though. Check out the discussion going on @ notebookreview
 
i can play 380p (or whatever the setting is hulu) in a small window perfect. full screen it gets a touch laggy at spots. the 480 (or whatever) is actually pretty similiar. its not perfect but its passable. its not a good OMG HD ONLY player, but to pop on an episode here and there I personally wouldnt mind.

only thing I DOOO wish this had was a backlit keyboard...would be heaven then.

one issue so far...the function numpad keys are goofy. i can function + alt + keys for goofy characters ∙EÅé like those...but i cant function + keys for the regular numpad...its odd.

starcraft plays ace, i was messing around with wolf:et a bit earlier and didnt have any problems. i think i might get beyond good and evil off GOG tomorrow, ill let you know if i do =D
 
lowteckh said:
#1. WC3 isn't a fps.
#2. You have no idea what a complete POS WC3 looks like with settings turned down do you...?
Click to expand...

#1. I didn't say it was, I said there is even less need to have high settings in a fps
#2. No, I tried playing the game for about 5 minutes and wasn't impressed. ;) Can't imagine it being any worse than any other old game. Just tried AoE2 and could tell 0 difference between low and high. Then again it doesn't look good to start with stretched out to 19x12. :eek: Would still rather play it than most new games.

In canada the price for this dc CPU over the solo is about $400Cdn. Intel really gets ya for wanting two cores,and on wanting the use of HD and 720 on a 'net-note' book
Click to expand...
That stinks.
Wiki shows no difference in price between the single and duals (US anyway):confused: If that's the case it's kind of ridiculous that they get away with charging 150-200 bucks more on a machine that's only 600 to begin with.
 
chrispycrunch said:
In canada the price for this dc CPU over the solo is about $400Cdn. Intel really gets ya for wanting two cores,and on wanting the use of HD and 720 on a 'net-note' book
Click to expand...

PointandClick said:
#1. I didn't say it was, I said there is even less need to have high settings in a fps
#2. No, I tried playing the game for about 5 minutes and wasn't impressed. ;) Can't imagine it being any worse than any other old game. Just tried AoE2 and could tell 0 difference between low and high. Then again it doesn't look good to start with stretched out to 19x12. :eek: Would still rather play it than most new games.


That stinks.
Wiki shows no difference in price between the single and duals (US anyway):confused: If that's the case it's kind of ridiculous that they get away with charging 150-200 bucks more on a machine that's only 600 to begin with.
Click to expand...

You use Wiki to do comparison shopping? :rolleyes: The price difference between the SU9400 and the SU27/37 Timeline is around $300 USD as well, not just a Canadian thing.

Since you're not familiar with WC3, stop imagining :)
 
lowteckh said:
You use Wiki to do comparison shopping? :rolleyes: The price difference between the SU9400 and the SU27/37 Timeline is around $300 USD as well, not just a Canadian thing.

Since you're not familiar with WC3, stop imagining :)
Click to expand...

No, I just happen to look up the culv's the other day to see what the lineup is (since I'm not familiar with the chips) and remembered that they price difference they had listed wasn't much.

Intel's website also lists the price for the SU3500 (1.4 single) and the SU9400 (1.4 dual) as $262 each (OMG Wiki got something right :eek:). My point was that I can't see how they get away with charging so much more for timelines with the duals when they aren't actually paying any more.

I'm not imagining that going from crappy graphics to crappier graphics really doesn't take away from gameplay. ;)
 
PointandClick said:
No, I just happen to look up the culv's the other day to see what the lineup is (since I'm not familiar with the chips) and remembered that they price difference they had listed wasn't much.

Intel's website also lists the price for the SU3500 (1.4 single) and the SU9400 (1.4 dual) as $262 each (OMG Wiki got something right :eek:). My point was that I can't see how they get away with charging so much more for timelines with the duals when they aren't actually paying any more.

I'm not imagining that going from crappy graphics to crappier graphics really doesn't take away from gameplay. ;)
Click to expand...

It takes away from gameplay. Since you don't play it, stop commenting on it already.

They put that price tag cuz they could. It is the only 2core ULV that can run 8 hours, and since they know a single core 1.3/1.4GHz would have limitations, people were pretty much forced to pay the grand premium. Could also have been priced uber high to make room for the upcoming SU4100 2core ULV CPU coming up, so they can charge another grand premium but make it look like a deal.
 
lowteckh said:
It takes away from gameplay. Since you don't play it, stop commenting on it already.
Click to expand...
So I don't know what constitutes good gameplay because I haven't played this particular game? If you really believe that its' not as good then why are you playing such an old game to begin with? Obviously it the gameplay can't be good with such horrible graphics.:rolleyes: I'm just trying to understand your logic.
Considering people are getting perfectly acceptable framerates out of the 950's in regular netbooks, you shouldn't even have had an issue anyway.

[/QUOTE]

They put that price tag cuz they could. It is the only 2core ULV that can run 8 hours, and since they know a single core 1.3/1.4GHz would have limitations, people were pretty much forced to pay the grand premium. Could also have been priced uber high to make room for the upcoming SU4100 2core ULV CPU coming up, so they can charge another grand premium but make it look like a deal.[/QUOTE]

When Apple does that people cry unjustice. :p Maybe I'm alone in thinking that a $200 upgrade on a sub $600 laptop is insane when it costs the manufacturer absolutely nothing. If they weren't soldered you could swap them yourself for little to nothing after selling the old chip.
 
lowteckh said:
You go run a netbook without a fan and report back how much insurance $ you were able to claim with your burnt down house :)
Click to expand...

Umm, netbooks can easily run fan-less... In fact, Dell's first few models didn't have a fan, I dunno if the current ones do. Their heatsink was basically a big flat metal plate that sat under the keyboard. I set the fan on my Aspire One to not kick in 'till it reaches 65C IIRC (with a1ctl) and under AC it usually doesn't (tends to hover at right around 60C) unless I leave it on for hours... The NB/IGP actually runs much hotter than the Atom, so if anything, the fan's in there to cool that down (as they often share the same heatsink).
 
PointandClick said:
So I don't know what constitutes good gameplay because I haven't played this particular game? If you really believe that its' not as good then why are you playing such an old game to begin with? Obviously it the gameplay can't be good with such horrible graphics.:rolleyes: I'm just trying to understand your logic.
Considering people are getting perfectly acceptable framerates out of the 950's in regular netbooks, you shouldn't even have had an issue anyway.
Click to expand...
Frame rates suck, stop trying to argue and leave it at that.

When Apple does that people cry unjustice. :p Maybe I'm alone in thinking that a $200 upgrade on a sub $600 laptop is insane when it costs the manufacturer absolutely nothing. If they weren't soldered you could swap them yourself for little to nothing after selling the old chip.
Click to expand...
It is insanely ridiculous, no argument.

Impulse said:
Umm, netbooks can easily run fan-less... In fact, Dell's first few models didn't have a fan, I dunno if the current ones do. Their heatsink was basically a big flat metal plate that sat under the keyboard. I set the fan on my Aspire One to not kick in 'till it reaches 65C IIRC (with a1ctl) and under AC it usually doesn't (tends to hover at right around 60C) unless I leave it on for hours... The NB/IGP actually runs much hotter than the Atom, so if anything, the fan's in there to cool that down (as they often share the same heatsink).
Click to expand...
My experience - MSI Wind, EEEPC 1000HA, NC10 can get pretty damn hot. No one else taking the step into fanless territory after Dell is a good indication that they're not confident in the heat department. The newer netbooks w/ GS40[?] like the 1005HA all have fans.
 
What are the chances of this timeline playing diablo 3? The su9400 version.

799 for 8 hours + 9400+ SSD drive aint too bad. Saw the other versions at fry's and i love the thinness.
 
lowteckh said:
My experience - MSI Wind, EEEPC 1000HA, NC10 can get pretty damn hot. No one else taking the step into fanless territory after Dell is a good indication that they're not confident in the heat department. The newer netbooks w/ GS40[?] like the 1005HA all have fans.
Click to expand...

Well, I wouldn't urge manufacturers to build them without fans either... Like I said, under ideal conditions (in AC and only running it for an hour or two) the fan is unnecessary... But if you push it then the fan is definitely necessary. If you run it outdoors in 90F weather you'll definitely need some airflow, if you're running it for three or four hours while it's doing intensive work (playing very compressed video or even encoding, etc) you'll definitely need a fan, so on and so forth.

I was just commenting that they can run relatively well fan-less, saying they'll start a fire w/o a fan is a bit of a stretch considering the typical use most people give netbooks. I agree that it's smart design to include the fan, I just think they could be a lot smarter in configuring when/why the fan spins up instead of leaving it up to the user (and the freelance programmers out there).
 
dunelly said:
What are the chances of this timeline playing diablo 3? The su9400 version.

799 for 8 hours + 9400+ SSD drive aint too bad. Saw the other versions at fry's and i love the thinness.
Click to expand...

hard to say, blizzard is usually pretty backwards compatabile...but i can run sc1 no problem (expected)

i was surprised to find that i could play wolfenstein: enemy territory pretty smoothe...dont remember my exact settings..I think i just dialed in resolution and went to medium and it was definitely playable. i would guess it will run it, but i wouldnt expect high or max settings.

im happy with what i can do in terms of gaming...enough to keep me busy in some downtime...but for anything serious i still fall back on the desktop. =\
 
Who honestly enjoys playing FPS on 13" screens or smaller anyway? Do you whip out the mini-mouse while waiting at the airport or in the middle of a study session at the library? If you need a LAN machine you can build a much more powerful mATX rig for the same amount of money... Stick to more laid back games otherwise imo. Personally I enjoy stuff like World of Goo, old SNES games on an emulator, and Civ on my netbook.
 
Impulse said:
Who honestly enjoys playing FPS on 13" screens or smaller anyway? Do you whip out the mini-mouse while waiting at the airport or in the middle of a study session at the library? If you need a LAN machine you can build a much more powerful mATX rig for the same amount of money... Stick to more laid back games otherwise imo. Personally I enjoy stuff like World of Goo, old SNES games on an emulator, and Civ on my netbook.
Click to expand...

HAHHAHA. Good point. The only game I prefer to play on a small screen or on mobile is chess or civ. Best to keep it simple, because if you include gaming specs for a netbook, then the more appropriate choice is a gaming laptop or a powerful desktop.
 
I can actually comment on playing WC3 (particularly dota) on the acer timeline 13.3" as my brother has one.

At an ok res (1280x1024) with all the graphics high, there is definitely frame rate stutter during large ganks. Turning the graphics down lower does help, but it does look terrible on low.

People who don't regularly play dota won't understand this, but having the graphics on high vs low does make gameplay more enjoyable especially at a clear resolution.
 
Hate to bump this thread, but I'd like to ask a question. I have a friend who just ordered the AS3810, replacing a 2 year old VAIO primarily because the thing was too heavy for her. The model she ordered has an SU2700 in it, and I'm a little worried about its power. Can this thing run Word/Excel 2007 and a web browser competently?
 
Look, forget the Atom.

"Can this thing run Word/Excel 2007 and a web browser competently?"

Ask yourself: can a P4 or an Athlon 64 run it?


Single-core or not it's still a Core 2, i.e. it kicks the living shit out of that puny Atom.


So the answer is: YES.
It just has some trouble with 1080p playback, with it being single-core and all.
 
Raudulfr said:
Look, forget the Atom.

"Can this thing run Word/Excel 2007 and a web browser competently?"

Ask yourself: can a P4 or an Athlon 64 run it?


Single-core or not it's still a Core 2, i.e. it kicks the living shit out of that puny Atom.


So the answer is: YES.
It just has some trouble with 1080p playback, with it being single-core and all.
Click to expand...

This is what I was looking for. Thank you.
 
I'm not interested in 1080p playback, but can the single core ones play YouTube HD or HQ vids?
 
Terpfen said:
She bought the Timeline because her Atom-based netbook was too slow for her. So, that's why I ask.
Click to expand...

Well, the Atom is plenty for the web and word processing, so either you're mis-representing her needs or she was putting unnecessary loads on it with background apps, a bad AV app, etc. If she's multi-tasking a lot or trying to watch a lot of flash video with 20 tabs open then yeah, the Atom might struggle a touch, but I figured her needs to be more simplistic from what you said previously. Her problem might've simply been w/the smaller form factor as well... Hard to go into specifics from the info you've given us to go on.
 
Impulse said:
Well, the Atom is plenty for the web and word processing, so either you're mis-representing her needs or she was putting unnecessary loads on it with background apps, a bad AV app, etc.
Click to expand...

According to her, the Atom was unbearably slow for what she needed to do with Word and Excel. Her thing is that she needs some basic multitasking: the web browser and Office open at the same time.

It could have been bad AV software, as her university forces McAfee on every computer that connects to their network. But given the nature of what she needs to do, the culprit was probably multitasking.

As long as the SU2700 is okay for running AV in the background, an instance of IE, and Word, that's all she needs.
 
Terpfen said:
It could have been bad AV software, as her university forces McAfee on every computer that connects to their network. But given the nature of what she needs to do, the culprit was probably multitasking.
Click to expand...

That's my guess. I've never used McAfee, but if it's half as bad as Norton was the last time I used it 3-4 years ago I wouldn't touch it with... anything.

Even Nod32 bogged down the Core 2 machines at school. We were all waiting for visual basic to load and wondering why it was so slow. Then we realized it was scheduled to scan right in the middle of our class. I couldn't believe that it had that much effect on a dual core system.
 
I had the solo version and I returned it, couldnt watch a lot of internet videos in HQ or HD, which was not what I was looking for. I would go with the dual core if I got one again, the laptop itself though is nice.
 
it is probably the antivirus, i found the netbook to be substantially faster if you don't have any A.V. running in the background.
 
PointandClick said:
That's my guess. I've never used McAfee, but if it's half as bad as Norton was the last time I used it 3-4 years ago I wouldn't touch it with... anything.

Even Nod32 bogged down the Core 2 machines at school. We were all waiting for visual basic to load and wondering why it was so slow. Then we realized it was scheduled to scan right in the middle of our class. I couldn't believe that it had that much effect on a dual core system.
Click to expand...

Norton has gotten increasingly better in that regard. In fact, right now it's probably better than anything else as far as not taking up too many resources and working around the user. The bad rap it developed a few years ago is really the only thing going against it right now (much like Vista).

It only uses something like 8MB of RAM, automatically kills scans when the user is actively working on the system (unless the system has gone w/o a scan for too long, even then it gives them lower priority), etc. etc. It's probably the best solution for the casual user in this regard, and it's detection marks are pretty good too from what I've seen.

OTOH McAfee has only gotten worse in this regard from what I've seen (mostly dealing with it on systems I repair or uninstalling it from systems I'm cleaning/formatting), and it tends to miss a ton of malware anyway.

I still don't understand her comments regarding the Atom tbh, even taking McAfee into account (unless it really is worse than I think it is). On my netbook right now I've got 3 FF windows with a total of 20 tabs open across them. In addition I've got iTunes, Paint, notepad, a couple of explorer windows, and Word open... It's running fine as far as I'm concerned. I've only got 1GB of RAM on it too and there's still like 250MB free... /shrug
 
Last edited:
Impulse said:
Norton has gotten increasingly better in that regard, in fact it's probably better than anything else right as far as not taking up too many resources and working around the user. The bad rap it developed a few years ago is really the only thing going against it right now (much like Vista).

It only uses something like 8MB of RAM, automatically kills scans when the user is actively working on the system (unless the system has gone w/o a scan for too long, even then it gives them lower priority), etc. etc. It's probably the best solution for the casual user in this regard, and it's detection marks are pretty good too from what I've seen.
Click to expand...

I have to jump in here and agree. We all know how bad Norton had become, but with the 2009 and now the 2010 versions, they have definitely cleaned up their act. I had been using Kaspersky and Bitdefender for a few years now as my main security package. However, KIS seems to have gone the way of the old Norton these days and become bloatware and Bitdefender is just too buggy for me(I do still have it running on one old PC I still use tho).

I just recently got a couple Gateway netbooks(LT3103 and a 3114), which came with Norton 2009 installed. I was gonna wipe it but decided to just let it go for the 2 months it was good for. It really has been great so far. I changed the 3103 to Windows 7 RC and installed the 2010 version and it has been great as well. I liked it so much, I changed out KIS 2010(my license was up anyway) in my main PC with Norton 2010 and it has been quicker than KIS was.

I think if people could throw out their previous bitter experiences with Norton(something that I know is NOT easy to do), they would be pleasently surprised by Norton's 2009 and 2010 versions.
 
Hmm that's interesting. I always used avg, but it's disappointing to see it headed in the same direction. Since I got my i7 machine is actually the first time I've personally been using Windows regularly in over 2 years. I haven't put anything on it just because I was out of the loop on this kind of stuff, but after almost 3 months I haven't seemed to have had any problems. :eek:
 
If you wanna stick with a free alternative, you can try out Avira AntiVir. I started using that for clients and friends a couple months ago after I saw it recommended a lot around here and I like it a lot better than AVG at this point. If nothing else, kill that Link Scanner AVG tries to install if you're using AVG, it just bogs down the browser imo. Avira's pretty nice tho, more lightweight, faster scanner, etc.
 
I'd just like to throw some of my two cents out there.

One thing when people talk about the atom handling certain applications, that also depends on the model of Atom your using. The newer n280 from my personal hands on expereince with other peoples NetBooks. Is that it seems to handle things a tad better, which in most cases when talking about a normal pc/notebook build, things like marginal performance increases don't matter. In the world of the Netbooks, it does. It can mean the difference between being able to handle youtube/hulu without staggering. Also, is the Atom paired with the max two gigs? or just the one. Does it have a SSD or a 2.5" 5,200rpm hdd installed? Also a big play, what OS are you running? Vista and XP from what I can see are just HORRIBLE for these things. When I put W7 RC1 when it first came out on my mom's Netbook, from XP, was like night and day.

Also, like with the SU2700 people are getting confussed thinking it might suck because its a single core. Like others have noted I believe just in this thread, that doesn't mean much. At least for the realm of ultraportable notebook/netbooks. The things you'll be expecting/should be expecting from these, shouldn't detail things like burning something while typing in word while having a browser up with 10+ tabs, etc. That's really not the point of these notebook/netbook builds.

Just my two cents and some =P
 
For the record, all my comments were based on my own experience with a netbook running an N270 (1.6GHz, not the N280... only 60MHz faster anyway), with 1GB of RAM, under WinXP, with the standard 5,400 RPM HDD... So hardly a best case scenario. Vista ran fine when I tried it, frankly I'm not hoping Win7 will be a huge improvement over WinXP performance wise but I'll be pleasantly surprised if it is, I'll be installing it for usability reasons mainly.

pr1m3 said:
Also, like with the SU2700 people are getting confussed thinking it might suck because its a single core. Like others have noted I believe just in this thread, that doesn't mean much. At least for the realm of ultraportable notebook/netbooks. The things you'll be expecting/should be expecting from these, shouldn't detail things like burning something while typing in word while having a browser up with 10+ tabs, etc. That's really not the point of these notebook/netbook builds.

Just my two cents and some =P
Click to expand...

I dunno, people are expecting more and more out of these systems all the time... And the SU2700 is in more of a grey area than anything else. Being a single-core would make just as much of a difference as any of the other stuff you quoted that would affect the perception towards a netbook, it can mean smooth playback while having other crap open or not, etc. Dunno why you'd dismiss that but not those other factors...
 
Impulse said:
I dunno, people are expecting more and more out of these systems all the time... And the SU2700 is in more of a gray area than anything else. Being a single-core would make just as much of a difference as any of the other stuff you quoted that would affect the perception towards a netbook, it can mean smooth playback while having other crap open or not, etc. Dunno why you'd dismiss that but not those other factors...
Click to expand...

(sorry, this was typed on and off at work on my work laptop. There are spelling errors I know, i'll fix after work)

If I'm taking what your saying wrong, sorry if I'm not. Is I'm saying there's no difference between having a single or dual core on them?

I'll see if I can make myself more clear. When taking into account for ultra-portable laptops (I'd say 13.1 and smaller. Even though the timeline has a 14 and 15 inch version, they're still super skinny) or Netbooks. A single core per say is not going to make it a bad device. Example. There are tons of dual cores on the market. Do they all run the same? No, there's different series, low budget ones vs high budget ones. Just because they're both dual core doesn't make them equal. Back to the notebook side of this, when taking into account what your going to be using a laptop for, especially a ultra-portable/netbook, you probably shouldn't go in expecting to play high end games, 1080p playback, CAD work, etc. At least for now until technology involves, blah blah.

Sorry, I'm rambling. Its not that I don't take that into account, I do. The dual core would allow for better multi-tasking. That doesn't mean a single core can't be smoking and get down what you need. Hell, even in the gaming world maybe.. (I'm guessing here) 10-15% get true performance increases for multi cores. Are those the games one shouldn't expect a sub par $600 laptop should handle? Why then would you expect an ultra-portable/netbook too. (not saying that you personally are). My point is, I don't know my point =( Basically, its subject to each persons needs and how each manufacture has setup their build. My main thing, towards the Atoms. At least for now until newer ones come out, is not to expect them to handle everything your desktop can. That's what your desktop is for. And if you don't have one? ... don't buy a Netbook? You would be better off finding an older model laptop for around 350-400$. I do understand though everyone is drawn towards how small and easy an Netbook is to carry around. Hell, that makes it appealing to me. I just want something that can handle at LEAST five tabs in Firefox while windows media player is playing in the background. Wouldn't hurt if I had Word or Excel up as well, going between everything.
 
Last edited:
I'm not saying the system is crap because it's a single-core, but I can see why someone would prefer a dual-core system even if it's more expensive. Don't get me wrong, I'm perfectly happy with my netbook's performance (even during semi-heavy multi-tasking, tons of FF tabs w/several apps open, etc.), but I can see why someone that's unhappy with a netbook would also be unhappy with something like this Acer Timeline, even tho it is significantly faster than a netbook. There are a lot of things neither can do (such as reliably playing some online HD streams).

My point is this, you seemed to be discounting the fact that it was a single core as if it didn't matter, but at the same time you were saying that small differences amongst netbook models (N280 vs N270, 1GB vs 2GB, WinXP vs Win7) could have a big impact on performance... That seemed almost contradictory to me.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top