Talk:Acer Aspire One

AOD250 with HD screens

http://netbooked.net/blog/10.1-acer-d250-gets-1280-x-720-display-in-japan/ According to the above link, there exist Acer Aspire One D250 units with 1280 x 720 (vs 1024 x 600) screen resolution capability. Are these units available only in Japan? I can't see them at PC stores in Singapore at all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.117.33.24 (talk) 12:18, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Sorry for the late answer. I bought a 522 with a 1280x720 screen in Canada. They were fairly widely available from at least 2011 June. No longer, of course. DHR (talk) 14:40, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

AfD

This page was on the articles for deletion because a previous incarnation was blatant advertising. My opinion was to delete, and write later when there are more references to be found. That seems to have happened. Aronzak (talk) 14:13, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Locked OS?

From the wiki:

Other complaints rise from the default Linux OS being effectively locked from any modification. A special code must be entered in order for a customer to be allowed to access any advanced functions, but many are unaware of this.

This is not entirely accurate. This post explains how to get access to all the advanced features in 5 fairly simple steps. The OS isn't locked, and access to advanced features isn't even hidden.

Propose that the above paragraph be re-written to reflect this. Annafil (talk) 16:04, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

The os is only locked so far as that it required a linux command to unlock the applications menu. Before this is done all functionality of updating is there, it is just not readily accessaible.

Keyboard size

This article says that the keyboard size is 89% of a normal one, but the official announcement ([1]) says that it is 95% of a normal one. Where did the 89% figure come from? 62.234.63.144 (talk) 16:59, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Fixed. -Frazzydee|✍ 04:06, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

price comparison

The final sentence compares the computer in price to an Eee PC 900, despite the fact that it is, at least in terms of storage, closer to a 700 8G. I propose that this sentence be reworded or removed, as this is clearly biased (although, if a source can be found, reporting this as an opinion of some reviewer should be fine). 86.27.134.118 (talk) 20:45, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

• Aside from storage, the Aspire One is closer to the 901 - in fact it's a virtual copycat, except with a better keyboard and screen, but from what I've read the 901 has better battery life. Comparing the AA1 to a eee700 or even the eee900 is comical to say the least if you know anything about their respective hardware. 76.10.162.138 (talk) 04:13, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

i think the keyboard size is just fine, i use mine to play counter strike every night and it works like a champ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.102.51.166 (talk) 03:55, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

models/pricing

In the pricing section, aren't the second and fourth bulleted lines under Canada the same?

Jack Vermicelli 98.243.84.182 (talk) 06:40, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Bricking Issues Source

Hey guys, this is my first wiki edit that is substantial. Here is the source of my info. http://www.aspireoneuser.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=24&t=903&st=0&sk=t&sd=a&start=60 Syco54645 (talk) 05:05, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

From personal experience with one of these netbooks, I can vouch both for this issue and its resolution. This happened to me within the first 48 hours of my receiving it (mail order). I had already put Windows XP and Ubuntu Netbook Remix on it, but had not activated windows, and do not intend to until the 30 day activation period is almost up. Simon Spsmiler (talk) 10:15, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Pricing Section

I think the pricing section is not really appropriate for an article, and it should be removed... SF007 (talk) 03:57, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

While the prices are nice to have here, I am not sure if they are necessary. Though I have certainly seen pricing in other articles though (xbox 360 article). This section also shows more than just prices, it shows what each country has in the way of this machine.Syco54645 (talk) 05:05, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Sure, I am not against including the price, I even think it is good to include it, but I think this section may not be appropriate to an article, I mean, more than 50 lines just with prices and details of the computers being sold? that is the sort of thing that should be on Acer website or something like that, not here... SF007 (talk) 21:43, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Some discussion of pricing is worthwhile but I don't think there is any need to try to keep track of the lowest and latest retail prices in every market. That's a job for other kinds of websites, not an encyclopedia. That said, I think there is some information of value here (availability in different countries for example) but perhaps it would be conveyed better with a table to save space. There are only a few models available and their descriptions are repeated in each country's section. If it was a table there would only have to be one line per country.--Eloil (talk) 16:06, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I made up a table based on the information in the pricing section, with a line for each unique OS/storage/RAM configuration (I think there were 9 altogether). There is a column for pricing but I haven't added anything to it. The citations from the pricing section can be copied to the table but I have not got around to it yet, feel free if you are so inclined. I'm thinking we can just delete the original pricing section eventually if nobody objects.--18:19, 4 September 2008 (UTC)~

Thank you editor, for alerting others to the pricing discussion. To my knowledge, pricing information is not allowed in Wiki for a couple very good reasons, one of which Eloil articulates above. (It's hard to keep track of prices.) It's also not allowed because it's an invitation for companies to use Wiki as an advertising site, e.g., "Originally priced last year at $150, is drastically reduced for a limited time only, to qualified customers for just $120 (following rebate)." Notice what's pernicious about this announcement: practically every word is "necessary", because removing a word changes the meaning of the offer. This gives companies the opportunity to discuss almost anything they want about pricing, under the guise of it "being true and verifiable".

I don't have the Wiki guideline/policy/rule on this to hand. Could somebody please post it in this discussion? 24.130.12.229 (talk) 03:56, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_directory (section 4) SF007 (talk) 13:32, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Reception

Whoever wrote the "reception" section failed to include ANY references of citation, however they did write: "All the info I've added here is verifiable if you look it up. I'll add references at some later date if I can find the time, for now all I can write is what I've read at various news sites and Acer's own statements.", unfortunately, this does not qualify. Whoever wrote this section, PLEASE add references or it will simply get removed. Also, add further comments to the talk section, not the article. --Hm2k (talk) 13:08, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

price in intro

I put the price in the intro and it was removed. The intro should be about the most pertinent info and people definitely want to know the price. Yes the price varies per region but we can give the price for the most common region for our readers. What do you think? Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 18:53, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Due to the nature of pricing, it does not make sense to have it in the introduction, as it will be constantly updated. Instead, consider using the infobox. --Hm2k (talk) 10:59, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

The manufacturer's suggested retail price (MSRP) doesn't change often.   Would be good if you can get it in the infobox. There is a comment there that says it doesn't work.   Thanks, Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 16:12, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

The RRP is due to change very soon due to the introduction of a new model, plus your citation isn't that of the manufacturer. All that aside, "prices" generally aren't very encyclopedic, which is why the whole pricing section is already in dispute. Let's not complicate things anymore than they need to be. Let's keep the price in one place. --Hm2k (talk) 21:10, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Personally I think it is worth noting in the intro that these computers are quite inexpensive, since that is one of the main selling points. That doesn't have to mean quoting a specific price but I don't see anything wrong with quoting MSRP here (maybe the range of prices at launch?). A sourced statement that the computers are relatively cheap (say from a tech review magazine) would work too. Very small notebooks have been around for some time but I think the current crop of inexpensive lower-spec subnotebooks ("netbooks") is a pretty new development, and these ones in particular were introduced fairly early on in the game.--Eloil (talk) 15:26, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Sure mention that they are inexpensive, but provide citation to an article that says they are inexpensive, and tells you why they are inexpensive. Otherwise who are we to say they are inexpensive? The price should NOT be mentioned in the introduction, instead I suggest you use a reference that provides the release price as well. Choose a reliable news source, not just someone's blog or a forum. Hope this helps with your quest... --Hm2k (talk) 16:07, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Agreed re reliable news sources; here is one review from PC magazine (I think this is considered pretty mainstream): [2]. The 8gb linux version is described as "aggressively priced" and an "amazing bargain". I wouldn't suggest using these words in the article but I think they support the "inexpensive" point. As far as an official word from acer on price, the closest I've been able to find is an acer press release found on several sites [3] (but not acer's as far as I can tell). The quote there is "pricing beginning at US$379."

Also Hm2k, it would be helpful if you could clarify your position that "prices generally aren't very encyclopedic". As a counterexample, what about the featured article Macintosh Classic where prices are mentioned more than once in the introduction? I agree that the pricing section here is a mess though.--Eloil (talk) 23:15, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

You'll notice that the Mac article you refer to is a "retro" article, talking about the past. Modern articles (such as MacBook) do not contain such details. The fact that there's a whole section here disputing the pricing section suggests to me that prices aren't very encyclopedic, that and the fact that the infobox doesn't have a field for the price. I'm not convinced we need it in two places anyway, the list will suffice. --Hm2k (talk) 10:37, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm a bit confused Hm2k, in your comments at the talk for Template:Infobox Information appliance it seems like you are suggesting that price be added to the template, and now you are saying that its absence there is evidence that prices are unencyclopedic? That was a bit more than a week ago. In any case, the infobox in the macbook article does include base prices in several currencies, using the same infobox template as this article does. I can't figure out how this works but the field used is called "Baseprice".--Eloil (talk) 19:52, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

You'll notice that nobody has gotten back to me on that yet. I suspect they never will. This isn't a concern of mine. Go ahead and include the base price in the infobox, but it still doesn't belong in the introduction does it? --Hm2k (talk) 12:15, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

OK, I have now added the cheapest referenced USD price to the infobox.--Eloil (talk) 16:56, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Image Gallery

I found this gallery to have several photos of Aspire One, and components photos too: http://gallery.goukihq.org/index.php?album=Computers%2FTheOne —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.243.121.161 (talk) 18:21, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Migrate Pricing section into Regional availability

As per the above discussion I think we should migrate the details from the pricing section to the more appropriate regional availability section, which also includes the price. The table is a much better way to display the data. Doing this will make the article far more encyclopedic. As you can see, I have already done the UK, I'd recommend you to do the same for the country you are maintaining. Once you have achieved this, replace the entry in the pricing section with "See Regional_availability" so we know what is going on. --Hm2k (talk) 11:02, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Acer does not publish the prices in India. We don't get to know what the dealer is charging us. Is it fair? Most of the top brands give us a price range..... Surprising that Acer does not. I am wary of buying Acer products. I don't want to get cheated. Any business, if it has to survive and grow, it has to be profitable. I am just not comfortable dealers trying to be over ambitious and make a fool of the customer. That's one reason I don't buy Acer products.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.172.199.101 (talk) 11:06, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Regional availability and pricing

I have an additional model which is not in the table. My father brought me an A110L from the filippines. It had a total of 1024 Mb out of the box!

There was a Hynix 512 Mb in the slot already, in addition to the 512 Mb soldered onboard. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Olavxxx (talk • contribs) 07:36, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Without any references at all, the section should be removed.

Pricing information is advertising, so the pricing information should be removed.

Without any independent sources to demonstrate that the information is worthy of mention in an encyclopedia, the section should be removed. --Ronz (talk) 01:33, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I Agree the section needs references but Pricing does not mean advertising. The iPod Pages are full of pricing. Speer320 (talk) 09:44, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

There used to be references, but people kept removing them. The table needs to be added back, but people need to add references, and stop removing them. --Hm2k (talk) 16:47, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

The iPod pages need to be cleaned up.

Sourced from secondary sources, the table without the prices might have a chance. --Ronz (talk) 19:17, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Specs table

It appears the table of specifications was removed because of pricing concerns. Please re-add the table without the contentious column, as the rest of the data is quite helpful. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 170.37.224.2 (talk) 15:30, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree, it will be done.--Hm2k (talk) 09:27, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

I know of at least two models missing from the table, the 160/1.5/3-cell and the 16g ssd/1g/6-cell, both available with linux. I don't know of any non-commercial sites to use for sources though. It's unfortunate that the acer site seems to be so short on concrete info.--Eloil (talk) 20:26, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

I added the 16G SSD model and the latest 3G model. The A150X-3G is in shops of some mobile carriers available in Germany and Austria. Reference is a german news entry. This is not perfect (foreign language) but only local sources available for this moment. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.51.101.127 (talk) 20:45, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

I bought an aspireone last month not on the spec table. it was bought in Brazil but I dunno where it came from. It's labeled ZG5 it's linux/160/1/3-cell Eduardocereto (talk) 06:35, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Added 1.5GB as a RAM configuration. My AspireOne came from Acer thus configured. This is currently the maximum RAM possible. PhotoJim 18:33, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I just purchased a acer aspire one, ZG5 configured with a 80GB hard drive,XP,1gb mem and 3cell bat from walmart Canada. thought you guys whould like to post that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.161.160.169 (talk) 03:44, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

The 721 model will accept 4GB DDR3 SODIMM modules and 8GB capacity for the 721 model is very common now. It will also accept one 8GB DDR3 SODIMM module and one 4 GB DDR3 SODIMM module for a maximum total of 12GB. It will NOT accept two 8 GB DDR3 SODIMM modules. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aoresteen (talk • contribs) 15:46, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

Specification table is written like an advert?

Please can you outline the exact reasons you believe this is written like an advert. --Hm2k (talk) 17:41, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

See Talk:Aspire_One#Regional_availability_and_pricing

Because it still includes pricing. --Ronz (talk) 17:50, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

If pricing is the problem, then surly the issue is Wikipedia:NOPRICES#Wikipedia_is_not_a_directory. Further more "product prices should not be quoted in an article unless they can be sourced and there is a justified reason for their mention". Price is a major factor in these "small cheap computers" (or SCC) otherwise known as netbooks. Thus prices can remain so long as they are sourced correctly. --Hm2k (talk) 17:59, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, you've created a price sheet. Your justification is OR as well. It should be removed per NPOV, NOT, and OR. --Ronz (talk) 18:10, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Keep the prices. WP:NPOV: they only need reliable sources, i've already provided two. WP:NOT:The price is relevant to the subject. WP:OR: The reason why it is currently classed as original research is because somebody kept removing the references, if the references are recovered, then again, it's suitable. Your argument is clearly flawed. --Hm2k (talk) 18:16, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

You've created a price sheet. That is advertising. This is not a medium for advertising. I suggest choosing another way to come to an agreement through WP:DR - I don't think WP:THIRD is appropriate given how recently others have participated in the discussion. How about an RfC? --Ronz (talk) 18:22, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

You claim it's a price sheet, and claim it's advertisement, yet you provide nothing to back up your argument. Quit removing things for no good reason. Let's get something cleared up, is the dispute over the prices or over the whole thing? --Hm2k (talk) 19:25, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Specifications - cont

Maybe my previous comment was overlooked: --Ronz (talk) 18:19, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Sourced from secondary sources, the table without the prices might have a chance. --Ronz (talk) 19:17, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, they are secondary sources, they are reliable news sources, which is allowed. See WP:RS. --Hm2k (talk) 18:23, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

As I said, RfC would be a good next step. --Ronz (talk) 18:38, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

What are you waiting for then? --Hm2k (talk) 09:17, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Problems section

The section is poorly referenced and gives far to much weight to these issues. If no one comments, I'll trim it back to what's properly sourced. --Ronz (talk) 17:56, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

I say leave it, there's very little without references now. --Hm2k (talk) 12:33, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

I think the problem with the linpus recovery disk is worth a mention and I have found one source now (http://www.aspireoneuser.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=29&t=1784). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.43.52.89 (talk) 09:11, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Touchpad buttons ("left button stuck" syndrome)

There are users reporting "left button stuck" on AAO touchpad. Annoying issue. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.85.39.96 (talk) 20:06, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

POV / Issues Section

The article relies on few independent sources. Not enough to deserve a advert tag imo.

Also, I noticed that some of the references look like linkspam. --Ronz (talk) 20:24, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

What does linkspam look like? --Hm2k (talk) 17:54, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

See WP:SPAM. There are definitely improper sources that fail WP:RS. --Ronz (talk) 18:37, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

I see all proper sources now. POV tag will be removed. --Hm2k (talk) 10:34, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

I've restored the pov tag. Please do not remove it when the issues are still being discussed and under dispute. The newly named "Issues" section is a criticism section. Without secondary sources, it should be removed per WP:NPOV and WP:OR, especially WP:STRUCTURE and WP:UNDUE. --Ronz (talk) 18:18, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

It's neutral when you consider that almost every device has issues, on the other hand, trying to claim the device had no issues would be considered as not neutral. They aren't POV or OR issues, they are simply awaiting reliable sources. --Hm2k (talk) 19:25, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

And that brings us to the third of the Wikipedia's core content policies Wikipedia:V#Burden_of_evidence --Ronz (talk) 19:49, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

It's not "pseudo information", the ones that lack RS have been reported on forums and personal sites and obviously can't be used as RS, however, it's only a matter of time before it is covered by an RS, in fact I suspect, if you or someone else looked, you'd probably find one. Thus, {{fact}} is being used for it's purpose, and they should remain. --Hm2k (talk) 20:04, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

On the topic of the issues section, the part on the fan stands out for me as needing some work. The statement "The Aspire One has an irritatingly noisy fan" obviously has a subjective element to it (who finds it irritating?) Based on my experience with one of these machines and my reading of some online forums, the best I can tell is that some units have fans that are not especially noisy (like mine) while others have a fan that the user finds noisy to the point of irritation. The article suggests that all units have intolerably noisy fans, but I think the reality is that quality in this regard is variable.

Anyway, there seem to be a number of magazine reviews that do not report noise problems so it should be easy to source a statement that some users do not have this issue. I think all we really need is to find a review or other reliable source that does discuss fan noise, and then say that some reviewers report the problem while others don't.--Eloil (talk) 19:37, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

The fan noise is a recognised issue [4][5][6][http://www.amazon.com/Acer-Aspire-noisy-fan/forum/Fx3AYYGIIKP5I86/TxBX10TOJNQI00/1?_encoding=UTF8&asin=B001EYV9TM] however, some may not find it irritating. --Hm2k (talk) 20:56, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Not disagreeing that a problem has been identified but I'm not sure it's been established that all units are equally noisy. I find the sound of the computer in the youtube video to be annoying but to my ear my own aao sounds no louder/whinier than other computers. Your edit is an improvement over the earlier version but what about just saying that some users report noise issues?--Eloil (talk) 00:17, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

The fan noise is a recognised issue, there's no doubt of that. Some users care about it, some do not, others applied fixes. If there was no issue, there would be no fixes. Feel free to edit the statement to resemble this, but I'm happy with how it is. --Hm2k (talk) 10:06, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't think anyone has argued here that there is no issue with the fans of at least some units. If I understand correctly you are arguing that not just some but all units have loud fans. I haven't seen any evidence to support this myself, but a reference that shows that all units even use the same fan would be a start. Anyway, I have changed the wording of the first sentence to say that some users report issues with excessive fan noise. Hopefully this is agreeable to all.--Eloil (talk) 21:30, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

The point was to state the fact that the fan noise is an issue, and that there are fixes for it, while trying to avoid it being a POV. The logic is that if the issue exists, and fixes were issued, there clearly IS an issue on the models without these fixes. Thus it's not just "some" cases, but all or at least to that affect. I'm not concerned enough to adjust the wording, I wrote this comment just in case there is any future doubt. --Hm2k (talk) 22:04, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

I have made some edits to the ssd section to try to avoid pov language but keep the information intact. Personally I am satisfied with the neutrality of the issues section now and would agree with removing the pov tag.--Eloil (talk) 00:12, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL --Hm2k (talk) 11:24, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

The "issues" section seems to be NPOV now, as per the above talk, there seems to be no POV issues. If you disagree and wish to state your case, please respond with your justification. --Hm2k (talk) 20:53, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Ronz in this previous talk section, I'd like to see the Issues section trimmed back to issues reported by major sources, which might be as few as zero. It's not like they are about to recall this thing, or that any news source is going to call it a problem-riddled lemon. A section listing every single problem that gets posted on the internet, which is what it looks like to me, isn't appropriate for the encyclopedia article because it gives this undue weight. Can someone show me other articles that make negative lists like this? Also, if a reason for keeping it is article bulk, its just a laptop, it can and probably should have a small article in the grand scheme of things.

Here is a page about this issue: Wikipedia:Criticism_sections . I want that tag to stay there just to alert readers that the section is given undue weight. I think its fine to leave it that way, I'm not planning to edit the section. Maybe in the future a good source will give a summary of some issues that we can quote, so we can delete the section. Habanero-tan (talk) 03:35, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

If the issues are substantial enough for media coverage then it's clear that the product has issues, sure they don't constitute a recall, but they do exist. Readers should be made aware of recognised issues (and fixes) as all devices have their fair share of issues, and it would be ignorant to think this one is an exception to the rule. --Hm2k (talk) 13:03, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Renamed "Issues" to "User Improvements". Cause near every Computer had issues, the focus should go on additional features made by users (like a Tips&Tricks). Issues that got fixed by BIOS upgrades got deleted. The Section User Improvements contain community sources about workarounds and how-to's —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.51.101.127 (talk) 20:55, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

I have removed the known issues section (again). It has had two entries, neither of which are cited for some time. Not only this but as an Acer employee, I am able to confirm these are not on the known issues list

• As an acer employee, you sure won't acknowledge it. Acer will charge 125$ to reset/recover the BIOS or HDD password, so every time someone can unbrick it, Acer is out 125$, probably more than Acer earns on the sale of the netbook itself ...

I know a blog is usually not considered acceptable reference by Wikipedia, but people still have the issue, both with BIOS and HDDs.

http://christian.johannesen.dk/2008/11/acer-aspire-one-bios-password-bug/

http://answers.eyje.com/security-open-question-acer-aspire-one-password-to-logon-how-do-i-set-one-up/

Then there is a BIOS revision history posted on that Italian website :

http://www.aspireone.it/forum/bios-3310-aoa110-t-3999.html#pid22675

The issue was solved in version v0.3115, so, unless you dispute the validity of this BIOS revision table, it's a confirmed bug. People don't routinely upgrade BIOS, and here is ACER's warning statement on upgrading BIOS :

"Acer recommends that you should only upgrade your firmware/drivers if you have been instructed to do so by an Acer Customer Care representative. By using these firmware/drivers you agree to accept the possibility of product failure."

People are instructed to *not* upgrade unless they have a problem, and when the problem happens, instead of genuinely helping the customer and giving a straight answer, Acer pretends the issue does not exist and charge users for it.

Not all Acer ones have the problem, but denying it exists is clearly a lie. It would be more constructive if you could give a link to the official BIOS revision history. FWIW, mine is a AOA150/1813 Mfg date:0809

Regarding the screen issue, I can't vouch for it, but put it back as it was removed by the same Acer employee.

The same unfair techniques from Acer support seem at work here too :

http://netbookmag.com/2008/07/05/acer-aspire-one-hands-on/#comment-170

Also, please sign your comments (add 4 ~ signs at the end of it) 64.235.206.144 (talk) 17:20, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Forums are not WP:Reliable sources. Any information on Wikipedia must be verifiable; that is a core policy. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 17:32, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

RfC - Pricing

Dispute over inclusion of pricing information in the article.

Related discussions

• Talk:Aspire_One#Pricing_Section
• Talk:Aspire_One#price_in_intro
• Talk:Aspire_One#Regional_availability_and_pricing
• Talk:Aspire_One#Specification_table_is_written_like_an_advert.3F

--Ronz (talk) 16:20, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Netbooks are commonly referred to as "Small, Cheap Computers"[7] thus the price of the device is an important factor to this article and others like it. --Hm2k (talk) 17:25, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree with the above in that the relatively low cost of these computers and others like them is a significant part of their appeal. I'm not sure that the pricing in the table is needed to convey this point though, and it's always going to be incomplete or out of date given the huge variability in price across different markets.--Eloil (talk) 19:59, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

My vote is keep the pricing there. It is commonplace to list MSRP on a product article. Habanero-tan (talk) 00:27, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Does anyone actually have a problem with the prices? If so could they kindly and clearly state what that issue is. I re-read the above mentioned sections and could not find a single clear issue that is specific to the prices. Please could someone explain why we even need an RFC is the comments are all in agreement in the first place. --Hm2k (talk) 22:10, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

My impression is that Ronz felt that including prices in an article was too close to advertising, and is checking if anyone supports that opinion. Habanero-tan (talk) 00:14, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

One thing I did have a problem with before was the use of retail sites as references for prices, which is basically free advertising for those businesses. Personally I could take or leave the prices on the table (as long as the refs are kosher), but consider this quote from Wikipedia:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_a_directory: "Wikipedia is not a price guide to be used to compare the prices of competing products, or the prices of a single product across different countries or regions."--Eloil (talk) 01:12, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

It's clear that we should be using press releases and reliable sources for the prices and so long as this is maintained the prices should remain. Does anybody disagree? --Hm2k (talk) 11:16, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Please respect others' opinions, Wikipedia policies, and this RfC. Thanks! --Ronz (talk) 14:58, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Nobody disrespected your opinions; you put out a request for comment and people commented. And there isn't even an opinion to disrespect, the RFC doesn't have any elaboration, just vague links to some threads about pricing. Habanero-tan (talk) 20:00, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Summaries at this point are disrespectful. So far, the RfC has yet to even attract any new editors to weigh-in. --Ronz (talk) 20:09, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

The article already mentions in the intro it is a sub 400USD item no real need for the actual retail prices in the lower table. This is in encyclopedia not a comparison site so a mention of the sale price when the item was launched is probably encyclopedic. The retail prices are propably meaningless unless you update it regularly which is not the role of an encyclopedia. MilborneOne (talk) 21:31, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

PRICES DO NOT MAKE IT AUTOMATICALLY MAKE IT A COMPARISON SITE, neither is it trying to be. As long as you use prices from press releases, they never need to be updated and it's not advertising. --Hm2k (talk) 12:02, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

• The pricing table is blatant advertising and should be removed. Martin Hogbin (talk) 21:52, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Please can you explain the criteria for "blatant advertising", and why you believe this. Without factual evidence, it's only an opinion. My counter-opinion is that it is not advertising at all, my factual evidence is that the prices are in the context of the topic of "small, cheap, computers". --Hm2k (talk) 15:47, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
    • Of course it is an opinion, that does not make it wrong , comments do not have to be verifiable. Encyclopedias do not have lists of prices. Martin Hogbin (talk) 23:29, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

• Does anyone think the article would suffer if the pricing was removed from the models table? I would be fine with this personally, as more current information is available elsewhere.--Eloil (talk) 22:13, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

• Habanero-tan seems to have removed the prices [8] before a conclusion has been made from this RfC. Further more, the specification table now lacks any kind of WP:RS, which were included with the prices, as they were the most appropriate part. If price cannot be displayed, perhaps availability by country should be used instead, with press releases/news sources. --Hm2k (talk) 15:47, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

• Okay, I put a ref. I think we should move on from this RfC, MilborneOne explained it all well. I think everyone following Wikipedia:Be bold in a polite, compromising way works better than waiting for consensuses that may never come. Habanero-tan (talk) 02:52, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

• No Pricing - I have come here from the RfC. I do not think that the article should include pricing data. I realise that the relative "cheapness" theses types of computers are relevant, however, I think that the appropriate way to show this is to get a secondary source stating this fact. Ie, some notable source that states that for instance that the Aspire One is cheap, or expensive, or whatever when compared to other computers. That is a better option than maintaining pricing which is different all over the world, will change constantly (what do you do when there is a special on) and will look like advertising if cited to retailer. Up to the day pricing is NOT important for an encyclopedia article. As stated above, a better option is to get a secondary source stating their view on the pricing of these machines. Guitar Man Blues (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 08:20, 28 October 2008 (UTC).
  • A price listed on a press release in 2008 is always the same price, it never changes. You don't list retailer prices, that WOULD be advertising. I think lack of understanding plays a major role here, and this is why the prices cannot be included. However, I have instead offered country availability with (some) references. The references contain the price anyway. --Hm2k (talk) 12:02, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

• Acer didn't really set an exact price point for these. I know things like Playstation 3 and iPods tend to set a common price across all of the stores, but the Aspire one has a different price at newegg, amazon, walmart, etc, so people will get the wrong impression if they see exact price points in the encyclopedia article. If you worked some official press release starting-price points/range into the text I would support that. Habanero-tan (talk) 16:26, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

• When Acer issued press releases stating they were releasing laptops for £200 in the UK, that is an exact price. We're not talking about retailers, but press releases. --Hm2k (talk) 19:54, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Yea, go ahead and add that. Habanero-tan (talk) 03:07, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Such press releases fall under WP:SELFPUB. Alone, press releases are useless. --Ronz (talk) 03:27, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

The media use said press releases, this is what we should use. --Hm2k (talk) 11:47, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Doesn't that say that its okay to use them? Seems to pass that list of criteria. Habanero-tan (talk) 03:43, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to suggest that this article should just provide a neutral, objective description of Aspire One. The price is always local and constantly changes, and it's trivial to obtain it from other sources (unlike an unbiased overview, for example); furthermore, in the real world, the MSRP price is irrelevant - if everyone sells the device for 50% of MSRP, mentioning it here could only mislead. MaxVT (talk) 17:34, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

What is the hidden SIM card slot for?

Take off the battery, there a SIM card slot back there. I assume its just built into the case so they dont have to change their case manufacturing when they start putting modems in new models. Or is there a modem already in there? I can't find any sources other than speculation. Habanero-tan (talk) 04:16, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

This is not a forum, but since you asked so nicely it relates to the 3G WWAN card. Consult the manual. --Hm2k (talk) 11:45, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, theres also a removable compartment there. I added some info to the article. Habanero-tan (talk) 17:36, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

A new model is out (Europe) called A150X-3G that comes with a build in 3G-Modem. Same Case as the earlier models, but more filling. I added it too. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.51.101.127 (talk) 20:59, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Well...... I opened up the back slot on my AA1 160GB Version (USA) and it had that slot as well however in the bios revision, it seemed to have that slot disabled. The only version of this computer that had the slot enabled was the RadioShack promo that offered this netbook. JasonHockeyGuy (talk) 05:16, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Missing configurations

The linux 1.5/160/3-cell version of the aao has been around for some time (in Canada at least) but is not mentioned in the article. Are there others not mentioned in the table? I could add this model to the table but I don't know of any non-retail sites to use as references.--Eloil (talk) 00:23, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

You need to provide a reliable source such as a news article with the configuration before it should be added to the table really. --Hm2k (talk) 15:44, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Issues section - NPOV - again

Simply, if controversial information isn't supported by independent, reliable sources, then it doesn't belong. Blogs and forums are definitely not appropriate sources. We're writing an encyclopedia article here, not a tabloid. --Ronz (talk) 18:12, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

There doesn't appear to be any references to forums, and surly blogs are fine so long as they are RS, so long as they have multiple editors and an editorial policy. Further more tabloids are RS, so not sure I get your point. --Hm2k (talk) 10:42, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. You're free to go to WP:RSN before I do. Again, this is not a tabloid. --Ronz (talk) 15:48, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

You can disagree all you like, but it doesn't change the facts I mentioned above. --Hm2k (talk) 10:11, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

It is, however, the responsibility of the editors wanting to restore the information to take on the burden of proof per WP:V. --Ronz (talk) 16:16, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Sure, but this is not the issue here. --Hm2k (talk) 16:20, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

I've removed the section because the sources were not reliable, and because there were no secondary sources to demonstrate that it is not original research and undue weight. If anyone wants to add any of it back, I'm expecting that they'll address my concerns, starting first at WP:RSN. --Ronz (talk) 16:36, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

How pathetic. Most of the issues already have at least two reliable sources. You should not just remove the whole block, that is not constructive. Consider handling each issue separately. --Hm2k (talk) 20:31, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand. You find Wikipedia policies and guidelines to be pathetic? Or just that it's the responsibility of the editor adding the material to justify it? Either way, this doesn't address any of my concerns. --Ronz (talk) 20:38, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

I find you pathetic. You're not even following any policies or guidelines any more. It's just vandalism. --Hm2k (talk) 22:47, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Fan noise issue

I have just bought an Acer Aspire 150 model, and there is virtually no problem with fan noise as the fan is already very silent. I wonder if there may have been a problem with the 110 model (I'm using a 150) and this update has not been reflected in the article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.86.75.13 (talk) 19:01, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

The issue was fixed in newer models with a BIOS update issued by acer. Models with previous BIOS versions may still experience this issue. So, you see, it is a recognised, which has since been fixed. --Hm2k (talk) 19:12, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Which models and which version of Bios, exactly? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.42.166.215 (talk) 19:57, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

revert

Hey, why did you revert my edit here[9]? 16x9 (talk) 00:36, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

You deleted all the links! Habanero-tan (talk) 02:55, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually I left the link to the official product page and removed the links that do not meet WP:EL and are WP:LINKSPAM. Also see WP:NOTLINK. 16x9 (talk) 17:05, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

WP:LINKSPAM Adding external links to an article or user page for the purpose of promoting a website or a product is not allowed, and is considered to be spam.

Nobody is trying to promote anything.

WP:EL What should be linked

Sites that contain neutral and accurate material that cannot be integrated into the Wikipedia article due to copyright issues.

Sites with other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article, such as reviews and interviews.

Thats what they are.

WP:NOTLINK There is nothing wrong with adding one or more useful content-relevant links to an article; however, excessive lists can dwarf articles and detract from the purpose of Wikipedia.

They aren't dwarfing the article.

Habanero-tan (talk) 09:38, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually I think that at least one of them is 'promoting something'; you cannot see inside the initial contributors head, so you cannot comment on who is trying what. The fact that it is a 'popular forum' with no reliability or notability, however (and 'popular' is completely subjective) means that it is inappropriate and raises a lot of red flags. The official forum would be a valid link; some fan-based thing is not.

They are neither meaningful nor relevant; reviews and interviews, fine, but links to the driver software? We are not a tech support forum, nor a manual.

They may not dwarf the article but they detract from the purpose of Wikipedia, which is to provide a neutral and informative encyclopedia. Wikipedia is not a Linkfarm or a Directory. I 'Support removal of these links.Ironholds (talk) 13:40, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

ಠ_ಠ

And that means what, exactly? Ironholds (talk) 07:22, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

I removed the remaining links to a forum and a wiki per WP:ELNO #10 and #12. --Ronz (talk) 16:27, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Goodgood; that was my intent when I commented on the article, I assume that was the intent of 16x9 as well. Habanero: does this clarify what is/is not acceptable linking to you? Ironholds (talk) 16:28, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

The forum has tens of thousands of posts about the aspire one about everything imaginable. Deleting it hardly helps anyone. I'll ask at WP:ELNO. Habanero-tan (talk) 23:33, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

what about the new aspire one?

theres no information about the upcoming new aspire one

One site here: http://macles.blogspot.com.

The other spot : http://www.aspireoneuser.com

Both these sites seem to have reliable news and other info about it JasonHockeyGuy (talk) 04:17, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Okay, heres the official manual to the AA1 10"

http://macles.blogspot.com/2009/02/aspire-one-101-documentation.html JasonHockeyGuy (talk) 05:12, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Cite on "No Returns":

This mainly applies to online retailers, and not so much in the stores which charge the 15% restocking fee. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JasonHockeyGuy (talk • contribs) 21:27, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Where do we stand on this article.

Could someone point out some of the issues with the recent 2009 issues tags posted to parts of the article JasonHockeyGuy (talk) 05:20, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Ronz, please provide a concise explanation of ALL of the problems. I know you have said things in the past, but there is too much text and arguments to sort through to piece it together, so please re-state. I'm going to delete the tags until then. Habanero-tan (talk) 06:03, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Im going to add a few more things in the article in the next few days to make it more worth while to read. 67.174.59.28 (talk) 06:36, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

I've restored the tags. The article still has sections that are completely unreferenced. What references we have are too often self-published articles. Basically, the article is too much a fan and hacker page rather than an encyclopedia article. --Ronz (talk) 00:18, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

With all due respect, you don't answer the question, merely repeat the assertion. I am removing the tags. 68.149.127.192 (talk) 06:42, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

"The article still has sections that are completely unreferenced. What references we have are too often self-published articles. Basically, the article is too much a fan and hacker page rather than an encyclopedia article." I believe that's an answer. If not, please explain why or ask questions seeking clarification or further understanding. --Ronz (talk) 18:57, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

That is too vague; please list the sentences (paste them) you have issue with, and precisely name the policy they breach and exactly how you'd like it fixed. There can be no discussion if you give no actual topic points to discuss. Habanero-tan (talk) 21:14, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Ronz felt I was being too demanding. It's just that he won't fix the article, so I figured he wanted to tell someone else how to. What else can we do? Habanero-tan (talk) 08:22, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

The "issues" section is really about the 8.9" model (and some of the sources there probably do not qualify as reliable. The 10" model, released in February, has significant changes. Some of the pov has been trimmed (I removed some unsourced sections last week). OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 15:20, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Linux Source Code

Acer have not released the complete source code of the Linus Lite installed on the Aspite One, so I removed the following sentence from the page:

"In accordance with the GPL Acer has released the source code for Linpus Linux Lite and their modified Linux operating system".

Facts:

• The sources published do not match the installed versions
• Sources for some important packages like the Thunar file manager are missing
• The source rpm of xfdesktop-acer-lp (the simplified UI) contains precompiled binaries instead of code
• The Linux kernel sources do not contain the source code of the madwifi stack needed for wifi
• The entry for the r8108 module is missing from the kernel config, so it's not possible to build the driver for the included ethernet card.

When all these issues are fixed, the sentence I removed can be inserted again, but until then it's wrong. --80.143.235.160 (talk) 01:50, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Specifications Table

Not sure how the table's indexed, but it seems to be missing the version I recently purchased.

• Model number seems to be "AOA110-AC Q1", though the chassis also refers to "ZG5".
• OS: Linux
• Display: 8.9 in (22.6 cm), 1024×600 TFT LCD
• Storage: 16GB SSD
• RAM: 1GiB
• Battery: Seems to be 3-cell, 2200mAh
• Webcam: Seems to be 0.3MP
• Bluetooth: No
• Availability: Purchased in the UK, [[10]]

One other thing: has it been confirmed that the ZG5 "model" is actually separate from the rest of the Ones? Just from simple observations, it seems to me that that's actually a product code for all of them... Anyone able to check this?

Also, ((Forgot to sign, this last paragraph left empty because the point was moot.)) Tr00st (talk) 15:07, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

ZG5 is not the computer model, it is the model of the case. Zharmad (talk) 17:28, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

In that case, why's it got its own entry in the Specs table? Tr00st (talk) 23:54, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

11.5" Notebook had debuted on HSN yesterday...

Not trying to sound promotional , but when doing a search for that laptop size, my search results came up empty. Are they so exclusive youll only find it there? JasonHockeyGuy (talk) 06:47, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Dual Core CPU

Just thought I'd add that at least some of these feature 'dual core' processors. I've noticed this when looking in the Windows 'task manager' under the 'performance' tab where there are two 'cpu usage' displays. SimonSpsmiler (talk) 01:11, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

That's likely to just be Hyper-threading, as the Atom N270 and N280 support that... Tr00st (talk) 10:41, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

"AO751h (751h)" section

I was going to just tag this for issues but decided there was nothing worth recovering, so I've deleted it. It was totally unsourced, required clean up, not written in a neutral point of view, seems to be the rantings of a disgruntled owner. Rehevkor ✉ 20:06, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

eMachines em250 similar to AOD250

Anyone want to chime in on this? I own one and its the same damn thing as the AOD 250 model with just the emachines branding. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JasonHockeyGuy (talk • contribs) 09:15, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

532G needs adding to the article & list

122.148.41.172 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 08:18, 6 March 2010 (UTC).

Size and weight

is really a must know specification for netbooks, but not mentioned? --Mongreilf (talk) 11:17, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Distinguish between D255 and D260

Both from the table and from the description on Amazon I cannot find any difference between the D255 and the D260. Can anyone make clear the difference? 77.180.211.149 (talk) 22:05, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

File:Acer Chromebook.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Acer Chromebook.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests January 2012 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 13:50, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Aspire One 522 versions

There's a version in the UK with a model number of AO522-C5Dkk that comes with a 1024 x 600 display and a 3 cell battery. Could somebody add this to the table? I tried to do it myself but couldn't figure out how to do it - I kept breaking the table. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.34.111.74 (talk) 15:12, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Need to find a new screen for Acer-aspire one D260

This is a grandma new to technology. My granddaughter broke the screen on her Aspire. It's her 15th birthday soon and I would like to have it fixed. Where do I go on the internet to find a replacement screen and to order the part.--98.247.14.71 (talk) 18:15, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

The AO 756 is the same as the AO V5-131

New name, same chassis: http://www.notebookcheck.net/Review-Acer-Aspire-V5-131-10172G50akk-Notebook.102564.0.html --217.82.146.198 (talk) 17:13, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

522-C5Dkk maximum ram

mine came with 1GB installed and there is very little documentation online. 2GB, 4GB and 8GB were tested, 2 and 4GB function fine, 8GB does not. good luck finding citations on the internet, this may be an example of the knowledge being there but failing inclusion due to wp:nor

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Acer Aspire One. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://macles.blogspot.com/2010/04/acer-aspire-one-521.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130107023146/http://news.yahoo.com:80/acer-asus-stop-making-netbooks-180300299.html to http://news.yahoo.com/acer-asus-stop-making-netbooks-180300299.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110112020736/http://www.jolicloud.com:80/product/compatibility to http://www.jolicloud.com/product/compatibility
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081030063224/http://www.hitachigst.com/tech/techlib.nsf/techdocs/C51A283F52498251862573FA005A3C98/$file/Travelstar_5K320_DS.pdf to http://www.hitachigst.com/tech/techlib.nsf/techdocs/C51A283F52498251862573FA005A3C98/$file/Travelstar_5K320_DS.pdf
• Added tag to http://forum.notebookreview.com/showthread.php?t=366487
• Corrected formatting/usage for https://www.bulkrevise.com/acer-aspire-one-reviews/
• Added tag to http://mycomp.su/x/files/category/23-aspire-one/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:55, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on Acer Aspire One. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for https://news.yahoo.com/acer-asus-stop-making-netbooks-180300299.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090317024953/http://www.laptopmag.com/advice/how-to/aspire-one-apps.aspx to http://www.laptopmag.com/advice/how-to/aspire-one-apps.aspx
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.jolicloud.com/product/compatibility
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090523105441/http://ark.intel.com/system.aspx?groupID=36331&configID=27616&chipsetID=36550 to http://ark.intel.com/system.aspx?groupID=36331&configID=27616&chipsetID=36550
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090312064346/http://ark.intel.com/cpu.aspx?groupId=36331 to http://ark.intel.com/cpu.aspx?groupId=36331
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081030063224/http://www.gblcd.com/datacenter/au/B089AW01_V0.pdf to http://www.gblcd.com/datacenter/au/B089AW01_V0.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080915050510/http://www.wdc.com/de/products/products.asp?driveid=200 to http://www.wdc.com/de/products/products.asp?driveid=200
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.hitachigst.com/tech/techlib.nsf/techdocs/C51A283F52498251862573FA005A3C98/%24file/Travelstar_5K320_DS.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:15, 25 June 2017 (UTC)