Talk:Acer Aspire One

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComputingWikipedia:WikiProject ComputingTemplate:WikiProject ComputingComputing
???	This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

See Talk:Aspire_One#Regional_availability_and_pricing

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Specificiations - cont

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

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)[reply]

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

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

POV

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)[reply]

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

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

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

The fan noise is a recognised issue [4][5][6][7] however, some may not find it irritating. --Hm2k (talk) 20:56, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

RfC - Pricing

Template:RFCecon Dispute over inclusion of pricing information in the article.

Related discussions

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

Netbooks are commonly referred to as "Small, Cheap Computers"[8] 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]