vista acer aspire

Just thought I would do a little report on how the install (version 5342) has gone on an Acer Aspire 3610 laptop.
Specs are as follows... 1.5ghz Celeron M 512mb ram 80Gb hard drive 64mb graphics (shared bringing system ram down to 448mb)
This system does not advertise as Vista Ready (not sure if any do yet?), but I checked up on the intel website and the processor and chipsets say Vista ready. Now the install was absolutely flawless. I was amazed at not only how quick it was (about 90mins) but also the lack of user intervention required, but I am sure you all know that already. Still it was nice to see the install simplified as much as possible.
Upon starting the desktop I found that all drivers except for sound and modem had installed. Graphics widescreen display was set correctly, wireless had set up correctly. I managed to install the modem drivers from the XP disc but the sound was not found. A quick visit to the Acer website got me the audio driver I needed - not a vista one, just the standard one worked okay.
In the first few hours I had quite a few freezes and the system hanging up. I guess this was down to insufficient ram. Everything seemed fast but switching between programs caused hangups and Windows Mail was one of the worst offenders took about 2 minutes to load. I have reduced the graphical enhancements down to barebones and using the classical interface and everything seems fine now. I am sure if I had more ram and increased the graphics shared ram in the process then it would fix the problems. In the meantime its okay.
I have to say I am impressed with the new interface (even if it is on classic). I think the rearrangement of things I am used to in XP will take a little getting used to and some things (like device manager) have been hard to find. Also it seems it takes more clicks to get to things now, something I will have to get used to.
I will definitely buy this when it is released properly.

I think its for the entire computer - kinda embarassing. -- -- Andre Windows Connected | http://www.windowsconnected.com Extended64 | http://www.extended64.com Blog | http://www.extended64.com/blogs/andre http://spaces.msn.com/members/adacosta
"Travis King" wrote in message

Is that the actual rating for the processor or the whole computer? I can't believe it would get a 1. "Andre Da Costa [Extended64]" wrote in message I got a 1. -- -- Andre Windows Connected | http://www.windowsconnected.com Extended64 | http://www.extended64.com Blog | http://www.extended64.com/blogs/andre http://spaces.msn.com/members/adacosta
"Travis King" wrote in message What does that Sempron rate, Andre? 3? 4? I just got one for my computer and I suspect it's the same one. It's a Sempron 64 2800+ 1.6GHz socket 754 CPU. Mine's running in the upper 20's to 32 celcius with my huge Zalman I got for it. It's got more power than my Athlon XP 2400+ had and it outdoes my brother's Barton (Athlon XP) 3000+ also. I wanted an Athlon 64 but I didn't have the money. I bought an Asus K8N motherboard. "Andre Da Costa [Extended64]" wrote in message Ok, then Plastics for you. :) -- -- Andre Windows Connected | http://www.windowsconnected.com Extended64 | http://www.extended64.com Blog | http://www.extended64.com/blogs/andre http://spaces.msn.com/members/adacosta
"Cheesy Wotsits" wrote in message
"Andre Da Costa [Extended64]" wrote in message No its not a "minimum required" its a minimum recommended. I have Windows Vista x64 5342 running on a Sempron 1.6 GHz, 448 MBs of RAM, 64 MBs for shared graphics and its not slow, just ugly.
LOL who wants fancy glass anyway? Give me a glass and I usually break it anyway ;-)

Is that the actual rating for the processor or the whole computer? I can't believe it would get a 1. "Andre Da Costa [Extended64]" wrote in message

I got a 1. -- -- Andre Windows Connected | http://www.windowsconnected.com Extended64 | http://www.extended64.com Blog | http://www.extended64.com/blogs/andre http://spaces.msn.com/members/adacosta
"Travis King" wrote in message What does that Sempron rate, Andre? 3? 4? I just got one for my computer and I suspect it's the same one. It's a Sempron 64 2800+ 1.6GHz socket 754 CPU. Mine's running in the upper 20's to 32 celcius with my huge Zalman I got for it. It's got more power than my Athlon XP 2400+ had and it outdoes my brother's Barton (Athlon XP) 3000+ also. I wanted an Athlon 64 but I didn't have the money. I bought an Asus K8N motherboard. "Andre Da Costa [Extended64]" wrote in message Ok, then Plastics for you. :) -- -- Andre Windows Connected | http://www.windowsconnected.com Extended64 | http://www.extended64.com Blog | http://www.extended64.com/blogs/andre http://spaces.msn.com/members/adacosta
"Cheesy Wotsits" wrote in message
"Andre Da Costa [Extended64]" wrote in message No its not a "minimum required" its a minimum recommended. I have Windows Vista x64 5342 running on a Sempron 1.6 GHz, 448 MBs of RAM, 64 MBs for shared graphics and its not slow, just ugly.
LOL who wants fancy glass anyway? Give me a glass and I usually break it anyway ;-)

I got a 1. -- -- Andre Windows Connected | http://www.windowsconnected.com Extended64 | http://www.extended64.com Blog | http://www.extended64.com/blogs/andre http://spaces.msn.com/members/adacosta
"Travis King" wrote in message

What does that Sempron rate, Andre? 3? 4? I just got one for my computer and I suspect it's the same one. It's a Sempron 64 2800+ 1.6GHz socket 754 CPU. Mine's running in the upper 20's to 32 celcius with my huge Zalman I got for it. It's got more power than my Athlon XP 2400+ had and it outdoes my brother's Barton (Athlon XP) 3000+ also. I wanted an Athlon 64 but I didn't have the money. I bought an Asus K8N motherboard. "Andre Da Costa [Extended64]" wrote in message Ok, then Plastics for you. :) -- -- Andre Windows Connected | http://www.windowsconnected.com Extended64 | http://www.extended64.com Blog | http://www.extended64.com/blogs/andre http://spaces.msn.com/members/adacosta
"Cheesy Wotsits" wrote in message
"Andre Da Costa [Extended64]" wrote in message No its not a "minimum required" its a minimum recommended. I have Windows Vista x64 5342 running on a Sempron 1.6 GHz, 448 MBs of RAM, 64 MBs for shared graphics and its not slow, just ugly.
LOL who wants fancy glass anyway? Give me a glass and I usually break it anyway ;-)

What does that Sempron rate, Andre? 3? 4? I just got one for my computer and I suspect it's the same one. It's a Sempron 64 2800+ 1.6GHz socket 754 CPU. Mine's running in the upper 20's to 32 celcius with my huge Zalman I got for it. It's got more power than my Athlon XP 2400+ had and it outdoes my brother's Barton (Athlon XP) 3000+ also. I wanted an Athlon 64 but I didn't have the money. I bought an Asus K8N motherboard. "Andre Da Costa [Extended64]" wrote in message

Ok, then Plastics for you. :) -- -- Andre Windows Connected | http://www.windowsconnected.com Extended64 | http://www.extended64.com Blog | http://www.extended64.com/blogs/andre http://spaces.msn.com/members/adacosta
"Cheesy Wotsits" wrote in message
"Andre Da Costa [Extended64]" wrote in message No its not a "minimum required" its a minimum recommended. I have Windows Vista x64 5342 running on a Sempron 1.6 GHz, 448 MBs of RAM, 64 MBs for shared graphics and its not slow, just ugly.
LOL who wants fancy glass anyway? Give me a glass and I usually break it anyway ;-)

I guess we'll just have to use "Aero Plastic" then or "Aero Metal" or "Aero Aluminum" or... you get the point. lol ; ) "Zack Whittaker" wrote in message

I daren't turn on Glass half the time... if I break it, I don't need another 7 years bad luck :-o http://www.vistabase.co.uk/welcome.php?subcats/graphics/breakglass
-- Zack Whittaker » ZackNET Enterprises: www.zacknet.co.uk » MSBlog on ResDev: www.msblog.org » Vista Knowledge Base: www.vistabase.co.uk » This mailing is provided "as is" with no warranties, and confers no rights. All opinions expressed are those of myself unless stated so, and not of my employer, best friend, Ghandi, my mother or my cat. Glad we cleared that up!
--: Original message follows :-- "Cheesy Wotsits" wrote in message
"Andre Da Costa [Extended64]" wrote in message Ok, then Plastics for you. :)
Thankyou kind Andre :-)

I daren't turn on Glass half the time... if I break it, I don't need another 7 years bad luck :-o http://www.vistabase.co.uk/welcome.php?subcats/graphics/breakglass
-- Zack Whittaker » ZackNET Enterprises: www.zacknet.co.uk » MSBlog on ResDev: www.msblog.org » Vista Knowledge Base: www.vistabase.co.uk » This mailing is provided "as is" with no warranties, and confers no rights. All opinions expressed are those of myself unless stated so, and not of my employer, best friend, Ghandi, my mother or my cat. Glad we cleared that up!
--: Original message follows :-- "Cheesy Wotsits" wrote in message

"Andre Da Costa [Extended64]" wrote in message Ok, then Plastics for you. :)
Thankyou kind Andre :-)

"Andre Da Costa [Extended64]" wrote in message

Ok, then Plastics for you. :)

Thankyou kind Andre :-)

Ok, then Plastics for you. :) -- -- Andre Windows Connected | http://www.windowsconnected.com Extended64 | http://www.extended64.com Blog | http://www.extended64.com/blogs/andre http://spaces.msn.com/members/adacosta
"Cheesy Wotsits" wrote in message

"Andre Da Costa [Extended64]" wrote in message No its not a "minimum required" its a minimum recommended. I have Windows Vista x64 5342 running on a Sempron 1.6 GHz, 448 MBs of RAM, 64 MBs for shared graphics and its not slow, just ugly.
LOL who wants fancy glass anyway? Give me a glass and I usually break it anyway ;-)

No its not a "minimum required" its a minimum recommended. I have Windows Vista x64 5342 running on a Sempron 1.6 GHz, 448 MBs of RAM, 64 MBs for shared graphics and its not slow, just ugly. -- -- Andre Windows Connected | http://www.windowsconnected.com Extended64 | http://www.extended64.com Blog | http://www.extended64.com/blogs/andre http://spaces.msn.com/members/adacosta
"Zack Whittaker" wrote in message

512MB is the "minimum required" as yet... but 1GB is definately recommended.
-- Zack Whittaker » ZackNET Enterprises: www.zacknet.co.uk » MSBlog on ResDev: www.msblog.org » Vista Knowledge Base: www.vistabase.co.uk » This mailing is provided "as is" with no warranties, and confers no rights. All opinions expressed are those of myself unless stated so, and not of my employer, best friend, Ghandi, my mother or my cat. Glad we cleared that up!
--: Original message follows :-- "Travis King" wrote in message You may want 1GB of RAM or more to improve performance especially since you use onboard graphics, and I also wouldn't recommend onboard graphics with Vista. What onboard graphics is it? Maybe it will be okay, but I'd really recommend investing money into an actual video card if your motherboard supports AGP or PCI-Express x16. I would also recommend 128MB of video RAM, with 256MB of video RAM being even more highly recommended. Other than the few minor things, your system should be fine, and apparently you already think so. My version of fast for me may be slow to others and the reverse, so it may be fine for you. I don't think any computers come as 'Vista-ready' yet and just come as 'Vista-compatible'. "Cheesy Wotsits" wrote in message Just thought I would do a little report on how the install (version 5342) has gone on an Acer Aspire 3610 laptop.
Specs are as follows... 1.5ghz Celeron M 512mb ram 80Gb hard drive 64mb graphics (shared bringing system ram down to 448mb)
This system does not advertise as Vista Ready (not sure if any do yet?), but I checked up on the intel website and the processor and chipsets say Vista ready. Now the install was absolutely flawless. I was amazed at not only how quick it was (about 90mins) but also the lack of user intervention required, but I am sure you all know that already. Still it was nice to see the install simplified as much as possible.
Upon starting the desktop I found that all drivers except for sound and modem had installed. Graphics widescreen display was set correctly, wireless had set up correctly. I managed to install the modem drivers from the XP disc but the sound was not found. A quick visit to the Acer website got me the audio driver I needed - not a vista one, just the standard one worked okay.
In the first few hours I had quite a few freezes and the system hanging up. I guess this was down to insufficient ram. Everything seemed fast but switching between programs caused hangups and Windows Mail was one of the worst offenders took about 2 minutes to load. I have reduced the graphical enhancements down to barebones and using the classical interface and everything seems fine now. I am sure if I had more ram and increased the graphics shared ram in the process then it would fix the problems. In the meantime its okay.
I have to say I am impressed with the new interface (even if it is on classic). I think the rearrangement of things I am used to in XP will take a little getting used to and some things (like device manager) have been hard to find. Also it seems it takes more clicks to get to things now, something I will have to get used to.
I will definitely buy this when it is released properly.

512MB is the "minimum required" as yet... but 1GB is definately recommended.
-- Zack Whittaker » ZackNET Enterprises: www.zacknet.co.uk » MSBlog on ResDev: www.msblog.org » Vista Knowledge Base: www.vistabase.co.uk » This mailing is provided "as is" with no warranties, and confers no rights. All opinions expressed are those of myself unless stated so, and not of my employer, best friend, Ghandi, my mother or my cat. Glad we cleared that up!
--: Original message follows :-- "Travis King" wrote in message

You may want 1GB of RAM or more to improve performance especially since you use onboard graphics, and I also wouldn't recommend onboard graphics with Vista. What onboard graphics is it? Maybe it will be okay, but I'd really recommend investing money into an actual video card if your motherboard supports AGP or PCI-Express x16. I would also recommend 128MB of video RAM, with 256MB of video RAM being even more highly recommended. Other than the few minor things, your system should be fine, and apparently you already think so. My version of fast for me may be slow to others and the reverse, so it may be fine for you. I don't think any computers come as 'Vista-ready' yet and just come as 'Vista-compatible'. "Cheesy Wotsits" wrote in message Just thought I would do a little report on how the install (version 5342) has gone on an Acer Aspire 3610 laptop.
Specs are as follows... 1.5ghz Celeron M 512mb ram 80Gb hard drive 64mb graphics (shared bringing system ram down to 448mb)
This system does not advertise as Vista Ready (not sure if any do yet?), but I checked up on the intel website and the processor and chipsets say Vista ready. Now the install was absolutely flawless. I was amazed at not only how quick it was (about 90mins) but also the lack of user intervention required, but I am sure you all know that already. Still it was nice to see the install simplified as much as possible.
Upon starting the desktop I found that all drivers except for sound and modem had installed. Graphics widescreen display was set correctly, wireless had set up correctly. I managed to install the modem drivers from the XP disc but the sound was not found. A quick visit to the Acer website got me the audio driver I needed - not a vista one, just the standard one worked okay.
In the first few hours I had quite a few freezes and the system hanging up. I guess this was down to insufficient ram. Everything seemed fast but switching between programs caused hangups and Windows Mail was one of the worst offenders took about 2 minutes to load. I have reduced the graphical enhancements down to barebones and using the classical interface and everything seems fine now. I am sure if I had more ram and increased the graphics shared ram in the process then it would fix the problems. In the meantime its okay.
I have to say I am impressed with the new interface (even if it is on classic). I think the rearrangement of things I am used to in XP will take a little getting used to and some things (like device manager) have been hard to find. Also it seems it takes more clicks to get to things now, something I will have to get used to.
I will definitely buy this when it is released properly.

You may want 1GB of RAM or more to improve performance especially since you use onboard graphics, and I also wouldn't recommend onboard graphics with Vista. What onboard graphics is it? Maybe it will be okay, but I'd really recommend investing money into an actual video card if your motherboard supports AGP or PCI-Express x16. I would also recommend 128MB of video RAM, with 256MB of video RAM being even more highly recommended. Other than the few minor things, your system should be fine, and apparently you already think so. My version of fast for me may be slow to others and the reverse, so it may be fine for you. I don't think any computers come as 'Vista-ready' yet and just come as 'Vista-compatible'. "Cheesy Wotsits" wrote in message

Just thought I would do a little report on how the install (version 5342) has gone on an Acer Aspire 3610 laptop.
Specs are as follows... 1.5ghz Celeron M 512mb ram 80Gb hard drive 64mb graphics (shared bringing system ram down to 448mb)
This system does not advertise as Vista Ready (not sure if any do yet?), but I checked up on the intel website and the processor and chipsets say Vista ready. Now the install was absolutely flawless. I was amazed at not only how quick it was (about 90mins) but also the lack of user intervention required, but I am sure you all know that already. Still it was nice to see the install simplified as much as possible.
Upon starting the desktop I found that all drivers except for sound and modem had installed. Graphics widescreen display was set correctly, wireless had set up correctly. I managed to install the modem drivers from the XP disc but the sound was not found. A quick visit to the Acer website got me the audio driver I needed - not a vista one, just the standard one worked okay.
In the first few hours I had quite a few freezes and the system hanging up. I guess this was down to insufficient ram. Everything seemed fast but switching between programs caused hangups and Windows Mail was one of the worst offenders took about 2 minutes to load. I have reduced the graphical enhancements down to barebones and using the classical interface and everything seems fine now. I am sure if I had more ram and increased the graphics shared ram in the process then it would fix the problems. In the meantime its okay.
I have to say I am impressed with the new interface (even if it is on classic). I think the rearrangement of things I am used to in XP will take a little getting used to and some things (like device manager) have been hard to find. Also it seems it takes more clicks to get to things now, something I will have to get used to.
I will definitely buy this when it is released properly.

"Andre Da Costa [Extended64]" wrote in message

No its not a "minimum required" its a minimum recommended. I have Windows Vista x64 5342 running on a Sempron 1.6 GHz, 448 MBs of RAM, 64 MBs for shared graphics and its not slow, just ugly.

LOL who wants fancy glass anyway? Give me a glass and I usually break it anyway ;-)

"Travis King" wrote in message

You may want 1GB of RAM or more to improve performance especially since you use onboard graphics, and I also wouldn't recommend onboard graphics with Vista. What onboard graphics is it? Maybe it will be okay, but I'd really recommend investing money into an actual video card if your motherboard supports AGP or PCI-Express x16. I would also recommend 128MB of video RAM, with 256MB of video RAM being even more highly recommended. Other than the few minor things, your system should be fine, and apparently you already think so. My version of fast for me may be slow to others and the reverse, so it may be fine for you. I don't think any computers come as 'Vista-ready' yet and just come as 'Vista-compatible'.

Hi there, can't use a dedicated graphics card as its a laptop so I have to accept what I have in it. It has a Mobile Intel 915GM Express graphics card which will take up to 128mb ram. I have it set to 64mb at the moment as 128mb would take too much from the system ram. Windows Mail is still quite slow and glitchy but I reckon that is down more to code bugs than by specs as the rest of the machine works okay. I will buy some ram when I can afford it but I am weighing up my options at the moment - do I buy more ram or a new XP Home oem - turns out the restore cd that came with the Acer is a POS that does not even work.

It probably does with that onboard video, I'll bet. "Andre Da Costa [Extended64]" wrote in message

I think its for the entire computer - kinda embarassing. -- -- Andre Windows Connected | http://www.windowsconnected.com Extended64 | http://www.extended64.com Blog | http://www.extended64.com/blogs/andre http://spaces.msn.com/members/adacosta
"Travis King" wrote in message Is that the actual rating for the processor or the whole computer? I can't believe it would get a 1. "Andre Da Costa [Extended64]" wrote in message I got a 1. -- -- Andre Windows Connected | http://www.windowsconnected.com Extended64 | http://www.extended64.com Blog | http://www.extended64.com/blogs/andre http://spaces.msn.com/members/adacosta
"Travis King" wrote in message What does that Sempron rate, Andre? 3? 4? I just got one for my computer and I suspect it's the same one. It's a Sempron 64 2800+ 1.6GHz socket 754 CPU. Mine's running in the upper 20's to 32 celcius with my huge Zalman I got for it. It's got more power than my Athlon XP 2400+ had and it outdoes my brother's Barton (Athlon XP) 3000+ also. I wanted an Athlon 64 but I didn't have the money. I bought an Asus K8N motherboard. "Andre Da Costa [Extended64]" wrote in message Ok, then Plastics for you. :) -- -- Andre Windows Connected | http://www.windowsconnected.com Extended64 | http://www.extended64.com Blog | http://www.extended64.com/blogs/andre http://spaces.msn.com/members/adacosta
"Cheesy Wotsits" wrote in message
"Andre Da Costa [Extended64]" wrote in message No its not a "minimum required" its a minimum recommended. I have Windows Vista x64 5342 running on a Sempron 1.6 GHz, 448 MBs of RAM, 64 MBs for shared graphics and its not slow, just ugly.
LOL who wants fancy glass anyway? Give me a glass and I usually break it anyway ;-)

I have Windows Vista Build 5308 CTP installed on a Dell Dimension 8400 with the Following:
Intel 3 Giga Hertz Pentium 4 Processor with both HT and EM64T. 1.5 Giga Bytes 400 MHZ DDR-2 SDRAM (PC2-3200). 256 MB NVIDIA GeForce 6800. 250 GB Sea Gate Barracuda 7200.8 Hard Disk Drive. Sound Blaster Audigy ZS 2 Sound Card (doesn't work just yet). Linksys LNE100TX V5.0 Ethernet Card (doesn't work just yet). Integrated Sound Max Sound (works just fine). Integrated Broadcom Net Extreme 57XX Ethernet Controller (works just fine). Intel 537FP Data Fax Modem (doesn't work yet, but it doesn't matter, because I have a Broadband Internet Connection).
My System is currently rated as a 4 with Build 5308 CTP.
"Cheesy Wotsits" wrote in message

Just thought I would do a little report on how the install (version 5342) has gone on an Acer Aspire 3610 laptop.
Specs are as follows... 1.5ghz Celeron M 512mb ram 80Gb hard drive 64mb graphics (shared bringing system ram down to 448mb)
This system does not advertise as Vista Ready (not sure if any do yet?), but I checked up on the intel website and the processor and chipsets say Vista ready. Now the install was absolutely flawless. I was amazed at not only how quick it was (about 90mins) but also the lack of user intervention required, but I am sure you all know that already. Still it was nice to see the install simplified as much as possible.
Upon starting the desktop I found that all drivers except for sound and modem had installed. Graphics widescreen display was set correctly, wireless had set up correctly. I managed to install the modem drivers from the XP disc but the sound was not found. A quick visit to the Acer website got me the audio driver I needed - not a vista one, just the standard one worked okay.
In the first few hours I had quite a few freezes and the system hanging up. I guess this was down to insufficient ram. Everything seemed fast but switching between programs caused hangups and Windows Mail was one of the worst offenders took about 2 minutes to load. I have reduced the graphical enhancements down to barebones and using the classical interface and everything seems fine now. I am sure if I had more ram and increased the graphics shared ram in the process then it would fix the problems. In the meantime its okay.
I have to say I am impressed with the new interface (even if it is on classic). I think the rearrangement of things I am used to in XP will take a little getting used to and some things (like device manager) have been hard to find. Also it seems it takes more clicks to get to things now, something I will have to get used to.
I will definitely buy this when it is released properly.