ACER apsire 1681?

T

towert7

2[H]4U
Joined
Dec 18, 2003
Messages
2,930
Hello.

Im looking at a cheap laptop with relativly good battery life (at least 3.5 hours).

I really like the specs on the ACER apsire 1681.

I'm just wondering if anyone has had any personal experience with it.

~Thanks
 
if your talking about the one with integrated graphics DONT GET IT, integrated graphics suck so bad its not even funny, you cant even surf web forums properly. if you have the cash i would get the 1804 aspire, that thing is wicked for the price on tiger direct. the X600 is the equiv of the 9700 with some other stuff. the diff between 64MB and 128MB is almost nothing.
 
klowngoblin said:
if your talking about the one with integrated graphics DONT GET IT, integrated graphics suck so .
Click to expand...
too broad of a statement.

The right integrated are good for battery life. Some people have desktops for games.
 
M4tt said:
too broad of a statement.

The right integrated are good for battery life. Some people have desktops for games.
Click to expand...

yea, i have a desktop for games. The only games ide ever play on a laptop might be minesweeper.

Its funny, because i have a dell SC420 server with intigrated graphics, and it works fine for general internet use (i mean, its only 2D).

And yea, the about 5 hour batter life is an important feature that i would want. I can't have a laptop with 2.5 hours battery life.
 
It seems that the acer 1681 is not to popular here, but ill give this question a shot anyway.

Has anyone had any experience with upgrading the stock memory?

I was thinking of changing one of the 256mb sticks with a Corsair value select 512mb DDR333. vs512sds333.

~Thanks
 
hmm you guys dont do any hard surfing im guessing, in opera i have 15Tabs open right when i start it, it opens all the forums and on my 9700 its SMOOTH even with lots of 56K beware threads open. when i even open 1 thread on my desktop at work with 56K beware in the title (intel extreme graphics w/ 2,4GHz P4 512MB) it slows to a peice of crap. this is true for the geforce4MX IGP in the shuttle i have at home. on my desktop i got the 9800 and it never slows down. my friend at work has an athlon 64 3000 + 1GB ram + intel graphics, it also slows down to an unbareable state opening the same thread.
 
hard surfing? that's a first.

to the OP: ignore such elitist comments.

rendering capacities in web browers have a host of variables. for example: my desktop at home has an 440mx graphics card. i don't game. firefox crawls when i have more than one image heavy tab open. on the other hand, the same hardware in linux has no problems. same hardare different result.

my laptop has an ati 7500 gpu, i have no problems opening many image heavy tabs at once, neither in winxp or linux.

i'd recon you would have no problems with an integrated gpu
 
yea, that's the first time ive ever heard someone say the deciding factor in how "hard" you can surf the internet is the graphics card...

If that was the case, then my 360$ dell server with integrated graphics, and my dads 1.6ghz AMD XP with an nvidia tnt2 would not work good when many websites were opened. but there fine.

My main work station is a a 5 year old Dell 0.8GHZ p3 with ATI 9200. And my "web surfing" peformance has never decreased no matter how many windows i have open.
Web browsing is light on the GPU, its more ram and CPU specs that matter.

my friend at work has an athlon 64 3000 + 1GB ram + intel graphics, it also slows down to an unbareable state opening the same thread.
Click to expand...
Hm, """ UNBAREABLE """? Then that's called getting ripped off. He could have a 5 year old computer with a 0.8GHZ P3 and be fine ^_^. (experience tells me its not the hardware that's to blame). PS, i use IE6 not opera, so that might in itself make up for the diffrence in performance, who knows.
 
im talking LARGE threads with more than 15MB worth of 1600x1200 jpgs all being displayed at once and not linked. thats when his computer slows to a crawl, mine does not, my desktop won't even finish loading that page
 
15mb .... I'm missing something, i truely am. :confused:

What im saying is that, no matter how large the file size of a .gif .jpg .jpeg .tiff ............... its just a 2 dimension picture. what rendering needs to be done? No AA is applied... so to say.

The only big "demand" is on the CPU and the memory it takes up. i mean, if you have 20 pages, each with 15.05mb of images each... that's just 301mb, no biggy. No real major contribution from the graphic card... it just takes electrical signals from the CPU, does a quick computation on that data, and puts it through a few wires to the monitor...

Also, how is it possible to not "link" to a picture. The picture is hosted somewhere, and the webpage must "link" to it... or are we talking about diffrent types of "linking"? <img src="...........................

Anyway, on a personal note, like i said before, i guess all of my computers, with the exectpion of my computers older then 7 years old, are just lucky.

Does anyone else have trouble viewing web pages if you have over 512mb of ram and over a 0.5GHZ computer?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top