# Comparing to 11.6" laptops

Category: Geeks r Us

## Post 1 by Polka dots and Moonbeams (I've now got the bronze prolific poster award! now going for the silver award!) on Sunday, 30-May-2010 0:46:36

Hello all,
I'm currently comparing 2 11.6" laptops. There is a Dell option, but I don't have
the specs here.
Could you guys give me your input and explain in plain english the differences between
these 2 machines? *Smile,* I'd appreciate it. I'm wondering if a 11.6" more powerful
laptop may be a better option than a netbook.
Thank you so much,
Polka Dot
BTW, let me know, if you want more info. Oh, the Acer is about $150-$200 more.
Toshiba Satellite T115D-S1125 Notebook
AMD Athlon Neo X2, Dual-Core L325 processor, a mobile CPU running at 1.5GHz for optimum efficiency and data processing power. The PC has 2GB of DDR2
memory (expandable up to 4GB) and also features an ATI Radeon HD 3200 graphics solution
with between 128MB and 828MB dynamically allocated shared graphics memory.
Acer Aspire Timeline AS1810T-8459
Intel Core 2 Duo ULV SU7300 1.3GHz processor, 4GB of DDR2 memory.
Intel Graphics Media Accelerator 4500MHD, up to 1695MB Total Available Graphics Memory.

## Post 2 by LeoGuardian (You mean there is something outside of this room with my computer in it?) on Sunday, 30-May-2010 3:21:57

Your second may be the better option. Why you as a person with limited but some usable vision wants a 11.6" screen I don't know I think you will be frustrated with that when trying to look at anything for very long.
The Acer's video memory is dedicated, rather than dynamically allocated, which means no process is used to allocate it. Vid memory means faster processing / usage, in that vid code is pretty expensive, and I don't mean even fancy graphics just Windows out of the box. While I used to be an AMD man, I find the Intel boards are often better at keeping cool and their latest on dual / quad core (is better. I have for quite a few years now been a Dell consumer because their hardware (including case and power supply) are really sturdy. Just my thoughts.

## Post 3 by Polka dots and Moonbeams (I've now got the bronze prolific poster award! now going for the silver award!) on Sunday, 30-May-2010 11:27:06

Thank you for your thoughts. Maybe I'll gather up the Dell specs so you can comment on those.
I want the 11.6" screen size for the portability. My current laptop is 4-years old with a 14" screen. Even that is too small for most things. It is better for me in the long run to not use the screen much. I tend to turn down the brightness most of the way. *smile*

## Post 4 by forereel (Just posting.) on Sunday, 30-May-2010 19:12:47

No need to post more specs. I agree the second is the best machine. I'm also an Intel man. If you don't have to look at the screen, and I assume you don't size doesn't matter to you.

## Post 5 by Polka dots and Moonbeams (I've now got the bronze prolific poster award! now going for the silver award!) on Sunday, 30-May-2010 21:21:07

Well, just for comparison sake., here is the Dell specs.
Dell 11z
PROCESSOR
Intel® Pentium™ SU4100 (1.3GHz/800MHz FSB/2MB cache)
VIDEO CARD
Intel® GS45 Integrated Graphics, WLAN
MEMORY
4GB,DDR2,800MHZ,1 DIMM
So, the one you all are leaning towards, is the Acer. Does anyone have experience with that company?
And how about the price, we are talking right around the $600 mark, worth it? I'm thinking yes, because it sounds like I'd be buying a pretty powerful little machine.
Thanks everybody, I appreciate this. *smile*

## Post 6 by b3n (I'm going for the prolific poster awards!) on Sunday, 30-May-2010 21:58:01

Just to be clear on something, neither of these computers are that good.
Whilst I know for a fact that the 1.33ghz ulv out performs the atom which is found on netbooks, that still doesn't change the fact that it is a slow processer. Infact, unless your old laptop was a celeron or something like that, I would be willing to put money on the fact that it would perform faster than these 2 computers would do.
Don't fall for the large amounts of ram. 4gb is way too much for this type of computer, if you really need 4gb which you don't, then you shouldn't be looking at one of these.
Sure, they should do everything that you want them to, but don't expect them to cope overly well at anything - your not really getting an overly powerfull computer.
Perhaps you could have a look around to see if there are any sales? The core 2 duo line of cpu's are largely being discontinued in favour of the i5 and i7's, but they are still going to be much more powerfull than the computers that you are asking about here.
Remember, just because it's yesterdays technology, it doesn't mean that it's bad. I'm not saying that you should build yourself a vintige laptop and install enhanced doctor dos on it or anything, just that the latest thing isn't always required.
Just my thoughts. Your never really going to get a conclusive opinion here really.
Ben.

## Post 7 by Polka dots and Moonbeams (I've now got the bronze prolific poster award! now going for the silver award!) on Monday, 31-May-2010 0:42:10

Ben thanks for your thoughts, and you have given me the following idea.
Here is my current laptop specs. This'll give you guys an idea of what I am coming from. I'd be upset, if I bought one of these machines and it was equal or slower than my current system. Lol!
1.6 GHz Intel® Centrino™ Mobile Technology featuring Intel® Pentium® M Processor
725A
Microprocessor Cache, 2MB L2 Cache
Memory, 512MB 333MHz DDR System Memory (1 Dimm)
I've upgraded to 1gb.
Video Graphics
Intel Graphics Media Accelerator 900
Video Memory
up to 128mb (shared)
Hard Drive
80GB (4200RPM) Hard Drive
Thanks again all!
Polka Dot

## Post 8 by LeoGuardian (You mean there is something outside of this room with my computer in it?) on Monday, 31-May-2010 2:20:30

I was hoping the Debl would have a dual or quad core in it, but I see they don't. I'm with Ben on this, though if the CPU has substantial cache onboard that just means less time transferring temporary data and instructions to and from the RAM or swap space via the bus. Based on your machine, I rather concur with Ben's findings.

## Post 9 by Polka dots and Moonbeams (I've now got the bronze prolific poster award! now going for the silver award!) on Monday, 31-May-2010 13:49:52

Lol, how disappointing. So, it sounds like the above 11.6" machines really aren't much faster than a standard atom netbook. What is that new atom processor? Pine trail?
Hmmm, back to the drawingboard.
I appreciate your guys input, all the processor numbers and frontside bus, get confusing, though I do make an effert to read and understand this stuff. *smile*

## Post 10 by The Lil Dark Piggy (This site is so "educational") on Monday, 31-May-2010 14:37:29

If I were you, I'd get a bigger HDD, 80GB is offally small. Take this into account: What OS will you be installing on that laptop?