Acer Ferrari 1100, One Large Disappointment 189
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."
Pffft.... (Score:3, Insightful)
My cheapie Gateway has that. I'm just sayin'...
Ok, this line says it all (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:I never got the ferrari (Score:-1, Insightful)
Re:I never got the ferrari (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 the the lower quality of VGA but at least it works everywehre without carrying additional bits everywhere I go?
Tough call. I can see the argument for VGA.
Re:at least it has a real video card unlike the $1 (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
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.
Re:I never got the ferrari (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:at least it has a real video card unlike the $1 (Score:3, Insightful)
This looks like a job for Eee [asus.com].
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.
Re:Ok, this line says it all (Score:0, Insightful)
For that kind of money, why not get a Mac?
Because these people aren't looking for laptops, they are looking for image. Ferrari is a vehicle, not a computer. It is a kick-ass vehicle, but it still has everything to do with image and nothing to do with the car itself. A person driving a Ferrari is saying "I have so much money and power that I can drop an insane amount of cash into an amazingly impractical vehicle and not give a flying fuck." How many Ferrari owners actually use the capabilities of their crazy vehicles? The vast majority of Ferrari owners obey the speed limit, drive very safely and leave their vehicle in the garrage, under a tarp under all but the best driving conditions.
The Ferrari laptop is a different animal from the car. A Ferrari laptop sends a similar message as the H2 Hummer: I got a pile of money and I think that buying this chunk of trash will make my penis seem larger. That's it. That's all. It's the lizard part of the brain [google.ca] at work.
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:12" screen? (Score:3, Insightful)
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 45% weight reduction. A minimum 0.3" thickness reduction doesn't mean much to you, but it packs essentially the same machine into half the volume. These things aren't worth another $700 to you the same way one of those monstrous 17" Dell laptops with two hard drives and desktop CPUs aren't worth another $1000 to you. To speak about footprint is again to miss the critical point--all folios and briefcases will accommodate a notebook--the footprint is similar to a sheet of paper. It's thickness and weight that they compete on.
If you want something with a smaller, more PDA-like footprint, you're also shopping in the wrong segment, though plenty of companies offer that, too. The OQO products are excellent examples of subnotebooks(note their price: ~$1800; you get "even less" than a MacBook Air).
Re:at least it has a real video card unlike the $1 (Score:2, Insightful)
A 5600? How old is that? How does that suggest a much more recent 8400 wouldn't be able to run it well?
I shudder to think how low you have to reduce details/draw distance and resolution to run Morrowind on your GMA 950 or the GPUs in those laptops.
Not at all, I run at max settings at 1024x768, though I miss a few features like reflections (probably due to older shader model, which isn't an issue on newer cards). And I know how well it works on a faster card, as I have an 8600GT in my desktop. But yes, I'd rather have something better than the GMA for playing games - which is why the NVIDIA laptops are preferred over the Mac.
If a game cannot achieve a minimum of 60fps at 1024x768 then it is thoroughly unplayable unless you like blocky slideshows.
For an FPS or other game where fast action is always needed, yes, but not for other types of games. Unless you think watching a TV is like a blocky slideshow.
Re:This shouldn't be at all surprising (Score:3, Insightful)