Slashdot Log In
Acer Ferrari 1100, One Large Disappointment
Posted by
ScuttleMonkey
on Sat Mar 01, 2008 04:43 PM
from the resounding-thud dept.
from the resounding-thud dept.
PC Magazine was finally able to get ahold of an Acer Ferrari 1100 to review, and the results are less than stellar. With complaints about the 12-inch screen that isn't even LED-back-lit, a large clunky design, and underwhelming performance, it seems that the only redeeming feature is the integrated, slot-loading DVD burner. "The Acer Ferrari 1100 would be more attractive if its price ($1,860) wasn't higher than that of the more aesthetically pleasing Apple MacBook Air ($1,799) or the ASUS U6S ($1,699). For those who passed on the first-edition Ferrari ultraportable because it lacked an optical drive, the 1100 now has one built in. But in a world consumed by miniaturization, it will have to shave off a bit of weight and improve its performance scores for it to compete with thoroughbreds like the Sony SZ791N, the Dell XPS M1330, and the Lenovo X61."
Related Stories
[+]
Apple: In-Depth Review of the MacBook Air With Photos 244 comments
Engadget has the first really in-depth review of the MacBook Air that I have seen with plenty of great photos and specifics. They do a great job of highlighting the highs and the lows with plenty of concrete examples to back their claims up. It seems that while the MacBook Air is a great step towards ultra-portable computing, overall the pricepoint is just too high. Which is not surprising from a new Apple gadget I guess.
[+]
Hardware: Mossberg Reviews the Lenovo X300 Vs. MacBook Air 362 comments
genji256 writes "Adding to his first impressions, Walt Mossberg has published a full review of the soon-to-come Lenovo X300. As a bottom line he 'recommends the X300 for road warriors without hesitation, provided they can live with its two biggest downsides: a relatively paltry file-storage capacity and a hefty price tag.' Gizmodo lists all the comparisons with the MacBook Air that Walt inevitably makes. Final score: it's a tie, though certain points are arguable ('Doesn't use Mac OS X Leopard. Winner: MacBook Air')."
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
Pffft.... (Score:3, Insightful)
My cheapie Gateway has that. I'm just sayin'...
Re: (Score:2)
12" screen? (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:12" screen? (Score:5, Informative)
I agree that $1800 is way too much to spend, but the fact of the matter is all the modern models that are under 3lbs cost around that range. Personally, when I needed a ultraportable, I bought a 2.6lb Portege 2000 for about $200 from eBay last year, and while it's by no means a powerful machine by today's standards, it has more than enough power for most people's ultraportable needs. It's a P3 750 w/ 256MB RAM, and it runs Fedora Core 6 with Fluxbox amazingly fast. The places I use this laptop, I wouldn't even consider bringing my 14.1" D610, and anything larger would be out of the question. At the same time, if I was doing CAD or art, or many other types of work, there'd be no point for a laptop this small or slow, and those larger models become really attractive.
Parent
Re:12" screen? (Score:4, Insightful)
Who says you're getting less? You'd have to be extremely one-dimensional to make that claim. A 50% weight reduction might easily be worth more than a 15" screen. A loss of 3/4" in thickness could very well make sense for a slower CPU and fewer ports. If you don't need or want something, it doesn't have any value to you.
You don't care about looks, size, or weight. So this isn't for you. A business traveler probably doesn't care about having a desktop on his shoulder. So your machine isn't for him. It's presumptuous to claim you're getting "less" in an ultraportable than in a flimsily built standard laptop.
Parent
Re:12" screen? (Score:5, Interesting)
Yes, and no. What if you don't have to make major compromises for the advantage of portability?
Apple's last generation of PowerBooks were essentially identical across screen sizes. The 12" model had virtually all of the important features of the 15" model, and the 17" didn't add all that much of value (apart from the big screen). It was no surprise, that the 12" model was one of the most popular and highly-regarded machines that Apple ever produced. Fast processor (for the time it was produced), a full range of ports (2x Usb, Firewire, Display, Ethernet, Modem, Audio), DVD Burner, decent graphics processor, and literally everything else you'd expect to find in a high-end notebook.
I own one such machine, and although the small screen does get annoying at times, the increased portability makes it 100% worthwhile. I've got a nice big screen at home, and at work that I can use if I need to, although a 12" screen is perfectly adequate for what you'd want to use a laptop for anyhow...... Serious photoshop work and marathon coding sessions do benefit from a big screen, although most tasks are perfectly fine on a smaller screen.
Not that this is an advertisement for Apple in any way..... Their recent machines have been somewhat of a letdown. The MacBook made numerous sacrifices in the name of affordability, and actually *increased* the size of the machine (albeit in the name of re-scaling the screen to a more practical aspect ratio). The MacBook Air, on the other end of the spectrum, made far too many sacrifices in the name of portability, and also costs a bloody fortune given how crippled it is.
Nobody needs a 15"+ 5+ pound laptop. The benefits of a small machine vastly outweigh those of a large one, and it's not all that difficult to build a full-featured machine into a small chassis without making too many compromises.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
it's not all that difficult to build a full-featured machine into a small chassis without making too many compromises.
And Apple did just that with the MacBook, just as Dell has done with some of its XPS line, Sony, HP, and Lenovo have several of those as well. You're welcome to buy one of those, but to suggest that it's adequate for everyone is simply not the case. A five-pound MacBook isn't what everyone wants.
None of them are ultraportables, though.
Again, you're presumptively mocking the situations where thin and light matters more than it does to you. Two and a half pounds doesn't sound like a lot to you, but it's a
Re:12" screen? (Score:4, Insightful)
It is no small feat (no pun intended) to reduce these machines. Whether it's a $2100 Vaio or an $1800 MacBook Air, every millimeter is a fight. Take the MacBook. It's one of the world's thinnest notebooks to begin with--barely over an inch thick overall. It is completely maximized for space as to "standard" notebook components.
Then look at the MBA. It is the same machine, only less than half the volume. It's 0.3" thinner at its very thickest, and averages about half an inch thick throughout. How do you do that? What makes it so that you can package a thinner machine? Keep in mind that most notebooks are 1.5" thick, and a notebook is already a complex miniaturization of a desktop system. The low-travel keyboard alone takes up about a third of the thickest part of the MBA and about a quarter of the thickness of a Vaio. How do you manage heat distribution when there is so little room for air circulation? How do you move heat away from components horizontally because radiating upward won't actually allow heat to escape? How do you further miniaturize an already-tiny CPU package (for the MBA, it involved new packaging--smaller and more expensive for the same thing)? How do you cram a whole motherboard into a space smaller than your typical PCI sound card? How do you make a battery small enough to fit in that height but last long enough (for the MBA, it's to remove all the bulky packaging and the space-wasting bay and put it directly in the case--it's not the first company to do so)?
Every millimeter is a fight. Removing the optical drive gets you maybe 1/3 of the way there for the MacBook Air. The rest of that makes a difference. There are plenty of people who would take the extra fifth of an inch back so they could keep the DVD drive. Sony makes a great Vaio for that, but it costs at least as much as the Air.
Is it really an extra $1000? The answer to that question is the same as the answer to "why is the very fastest CPU $500 more than the next best, and beats it by maybe 5%?" Because that's why they call it the bleeding edge. Early adopters pay the premium that makes things happen. The trickle-down effect takes over from there.
Parent
Ok, this line says it all (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
indeed, it's worth more (Score:2)
I never got the ferrari (Score:2, Funny)
Why in hell would one want to have a laptop that is branded after a car? I don't see the point... I wouldn't want to buy a Porsche, BMW, Mercedes or Audi branded laptop either.
Re:I never got the ferrari (Score:4, Funny)
Parent
Re:I never got the ferrari (Score:4, Interesting)
As for the case. Who needs carbon fiber on their laptop? Its use obviously didn't save any weight. The case weighs 4.4 lbs. You can also tell it uses cheap plastic that will discolor or crack easily. If I'm paying $1900 for a laptop, it better at least look and feel like a $1900 laptop (see a Lenovo Thinkpad or MacBook Pro). Ferrari has come a long way since the days when they were associated with flashy but brittle cars. I don't think it's in their best interest to rekindle that memory by putting their name on flashy yet brittle laptops.
Parent
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
VGA for projectors, and it's not a PS/2 Port (Score:5, Informative)
Lots of people need VGA out to hook up to projectors. Also, that's not a PS/2 port. Judging by the pin configuration, I'm guessing it's an S-Video out or something, for attaching to TVs, etc.
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Most people?
Connecting to large screens or projectors is a pretty common use for laptops.
Sure from a technical standpoint, I'd prefer DVI, with adapters to VGA, but VGA is probably more convenient. Most projectors I encounter are still VGA, as are a lot of budget screens, and the expensive ones at least support VGA too.
So for an ultra portable do I want the technically better DVI and the hassle of adapters everywhere I go... or just put up with
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
My big gripe is that for $1900 bucks it should come with a DVI Input. Sure we're still in a VGA populated world now, but what about in 3-4 years when DVI projectors become the norm? You'll need an adapter then, and then your video output is going to look horribly inferior to native DVI outputs.
Incidentally, for $2k I would expect a laptop to remain usable for 3-4 years, which is why I'm using that time frame. If its not
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
From the makers of the new improved "Humorously coincidental mis-spelling" game!
Far from a disappointment (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Jeez... (Score:2, Interesting)
This laptop seems like a real loser. I had a different product with far better features way back this summer, for $600 less: the Dell XPS m1330. Slot-loading DVD burner, discrete graphics card, backlit LCD screen, etc. Dell even sells it w/ Linux. The only "bad" things about it in relation to this laptop is that it has a 13 inch screen instead of a 12", and it weighs about 3.8 pounds. (Still very light.)
Battery life on it is great, too: 4 hours of normal "note-taking" use (I'm in school) with the 6 cell ba
Re: (Score:2)
When that's the biggest complaint, you know it's a good system.
Ferrari 4000 (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Good job. You just jinxed yourself.
Re: (Score:2)
Unfortunately, the backlight doesn't come on unless I use the driver supplied by Acer, and they haven't updated it since the subsequent model came out. So I have a decent graphics chip and crappy old drivers. Thanks Acer!
(The machine is great otherwise; at least once the "car starting" noise is turned off at bootup... Durable, cool to the touch, slot loading, thin, light...)
Re: (Score:2)
look at the bright side (Score:2)
Acers decline (Score:2, Funny)
Unsurprising... (Score:2)
...I've had experience with two Acer laptops, and in both cases I've been very disappointed. Certainly, they're very cheap, but you don't get anything more than you pay for. The build quality is very low -- hold up the laptop by one corner, and the whole thing flexes and creaks. Not a lot of thought has gone into important issues such as thermal and noise management, and I wouldn't recommend them to anyone.
As others have already remarked, it's unclear why a company with a strong brand like Ferrari would c
Horrible design (Score:4, Insightful)
Apart from the fact the Acer does not seem to convince on performance and sense, why in the name of god would Ferrari put its name on this ugly piece of junk?
Re: Lenovo X61 HAHAHAHA (Score:4, Informative)
The X61 has excellent [notebookreview.com] reviews [tabletpcreview.com], infact I own one myself. Under "light" use (and I'm sure that Excel falls under light use), I can get 7 hours out of the battery with wireless enabled, if I'm watching XViD with VLC I can get about 4 hours out of the battery.
The hard disk is not slow at all, I'm running Windows XP and boot time is under a minute on the machine and is sufficient for most tasks.
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:at least it has a real video card unlike the $1 (Score:2)
Re:at least it has a real video card unlike the $1 (Score:5, Insightful)
For a group of people supposedly more "in the know" about technology than most, you seem to miss the point at a frightening frequency. Your 4GB, 2.6GHz dual-core CPU laptop with a 300GB hard drive and a 17" screen might be exactly what you want: maximum raw power. It's not what everyone else wants, and it's not what the lower 80% of computer users would ever come close to needing. Some people would rather spend that money on other things: size, aesthetics, convenience, true portability. Ultraportables under an inch thick are slim enough to fit in soft folios that are half the thickness of a laptop bag. Thin has its place. Specs are not king.
PS- the MacBook is $1100, not $1500, and it's also not a desktop replacement.
Parent
Re:at least it has a real video card unlike the $1 (Score:4, Interesting)
I have had PDA phones for years, since it combined the 2 things I need most. 1) A Cell Phone, 2) An organizer and limited ability to run code and surf web pages.
I recently canceled my data plan since I have been 4 different PDA models, and I have come to the inescapable conclusion that they all SUCK. The interface is not what I need, I cannot run everything I need from Windows Mobile 5, or 6. Windows Mobile is buggy as hell. Always has been. A PDA Phone just does not get the job done, and it has not gotten any better in 4 years.
So your point is dead on. I need an ultraportable that has just enough specs to get my job done, while being able to fit into an pocket. I don't need to run Crysis on it, or even it have it replace all the abilities of my high end workstations. I just need to be able to have a full OS, like Windows XP Professional. That will allow me to run the exact same programs that I have developed on my workstations. I need this for work, not play. If I wanted to play remotely, I would use my PSP or DS.
I don't need all the "raw power". I just need the ability to manage my networks, run some web pages, access some databases remotely. That's it.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
This looks like a job for Eee [asus.com].
Might be a bit too big... (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Excuse me, but on MacOSX, we use openGL and fragment shaders. None of this DirectX stuff, thankyouverymuch.
Re: (Score:2)
The X3100 couldn't even run any of gaming benchmarks in the tests...
It doesn't really matter, you won't be playing games on any of those systems. Even the Nvidia 8400M would have a hard time running most games made within the past few years very well.
That misses the point - yes, they won't play the latest high-performance FPS games and so on, but people might still like to p
Re:This shouldn't be at all surprising (Score:4, Funny)
It's not backlit by an LED, but there probably is a florescent bulb behind the screen
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)