Talk:Acer Inc./Archives/2014

Proposed merger of Acer Computer Australia into this article
On October 28, 2006, 01:34 UTC user JonHarder proposed the merger of article Acer Computer Australia into Acer (company). No discussion was opened formally on the Discussion page for either article so it is being opened here. thewinchester 14:03, 11 December 2006 (UTC)


 * (creator of article here) Makes sense I suppose. I created the article cos it was a dead link, I was hoping there would be enough information to constitue an article but if others don't agree then fair enough. 81.101.3.9 (talk)SantaHul —Preceding comment was added at 22:20, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Missing
Some of the Aspire series are missing. UPDATE IT!

-G

I spy copyvio!

http://www.acer-euro.com/vi/page74.jsp.htm = Acer North america.
 * I don't see the copyright violations on a cursory check, and this is old anyway. Does anyone else see it? Quentin mcalmott 20:44, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Listing of all the products
This part seems pointless. All the different model numbers do not need to be listed here. The different product lines certainly could be, but not each individual model. Quentin mcalmott 20:44, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
 * It's made worse by the vast sea of red links, but I would agree that it doesn't belong here. A List of Acer products page, perhaps, but not on this page.  The Alienware article's handling of this has its warts, but the way it lists product lines rather than individual products is much easier to digest. —  Aluvus  t/ c  14:50, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I've been bold and deleted the extra products, leaving only the name of each product line. It reads better this way, in my opinion. Quentin mcalmott 03:42, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Acer Computer Explorer
Anyone want to include a tidbit about this in the topic?

Old Acer Logo
Why don't we include the old logo?

---210.213.163.186 15:11, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Why would we want it? It seems to me we should have the new one, and having two logos would be superfluous. Quentin mcalmott 16:20, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

What are the top 5 PC manufacturers???
The article mentions that Acer is one of the top 5 PC Manufacturers but does not say what they are. Can someone write them in? I'm curious myself to know what the top 5 are. -- AS Artimour 01:51, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Acer is one of the top 5 vendors. The top five manufacturers is a difficult question.  Acer spun off their core manufacturing operations, but still designs and markets the machines.  This practice is followed by HP, Dell and others to varying degrees.  If one calls these companies manufacturers, they're on the list.  If what you have in mind is the actual physical transformation of materials and parts into a working product, they're not.  The top 5 manufacturers by this stricter definition would probably be the major contract manufacturers -- Hon Hai, Flextronics, and the big Taiwan ODM operations.
 * By the looser definition of manufacturing, the list would be HP, Acer, Dell, Lenovo, Toshiba in terms of units for 2009. See http://www.idc.com/getdoc.jsp?sessionId=&containerId=prUS22161710&sessionId=H2HAM4ANBFUYCCQJAFDCFFAKBEAVAIWD for the IDC press release.  It could be included in this article, but probably a better solution is to have a page showing the annual top five lists for as much of history as possible.  One could do this based on IDC press releases back to 1994, I believe.  Cc68 (talk) 05:14, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Competitors
I can't see that this section adds anything worthy to the article, other than an arbitrary list of other computer manufacturers. I propose its removal. Halsteadk 18:47, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Well, tentatively agreed. I have two suggestions:
 * A merge List of computer hardware manufacturers or
 * Creating a new page for List of Computer System Manufacturers and then adding a link on the bottom of the Acer (company) page in the "See Also" section directing the user to the newly created page. -- Bboyskidz 05:52, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I'd tend to agree with the second suggestion. Whatever, the list doesn't belong in this article as it should then be reproduced in every other manufacturer's respective article (which is clearly unmaintainable).  The list probably needs to quote the markets that the companies operate in (US, UK, etc) so that competitors can be identified. Halsteadk 19:15, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Done. I've created a new page (see link and done what I suggested on the second point -- Bboyskidz 22:39, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Nice work, much more useful and objective. I could see there might be an argument that as it doesn't say where each company markets its products it doesn't cover who is in competition, so it doesn't really replace the original content. However, I'd argue that the original content was fairly meaningless anyway - naturally all the big names are in competition with each other and this doesn't need to be stated. Halsteadk 23:57, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Acer America Corp info not correct
I have never edited a page, so I am not sure I want to, but there are some incorrect things in the second paragraph of this section. First the corporate headquarters are in San Jose, Califonia. Second, Acer bought out the Texas Instruments laptop/notebook division. This divison of TI was in Temple TX and Acer decided to keep it there. Also the Temple, Tx facility employs about 200 and that is with significant growth over the past few years (and more to come). Temple handles the repairs and is the only repair center in the US (another is in Missisauga, somewhere in canada). Any comments on this or advice about making the change would be appreciated. Mfergason 17:58, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
 * -If you feel the article is incorrect, by all means, fix it. that is what wiki is all about!  Seems like you know a bit about this article, I say go for it. -- Bboyskidz 21:55, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I will get some sources and make the changes. I used to work for them, that is how I know all of this.  Mfergason 16:51, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Acer based on Taiwan or the Republic of China
I think Taiwan is treated as a geographic term in Wikipedia. So it would be better use its official name the "Republic of China" in non-geography-involved description. --Morphi 18:51, 12 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I believe that this is not a political article, ROC should only be used in political articles, see Naming conventions (Chinese). Whether ROC is the official name or not, we should always use the common name, see WP:NC (common names). So in this case, we should use Taiwan. It is also confusing to use ROC.--Jerrypp772000 19:08, 12 March 2007 (UTC)


 * In Naming conventions (Chinese), it says "Taiwan should not be described either as an independent nation or as a part of the People's Republic of China." Use "Republic of China" as the country name is correct.--Morphi 20:47, 12 March 2007 (UTC)


 * As I noted below, that document was never accepted by consensus. Don't bother referring to it.  And don't insert all those extra blank lines.  --Ideogram 20:57, 12 March 2007 (UTC)


 * There actually is no agreement on a standard here. --Ideogram 19:09, 12 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Sorry, what do you mean?--Jerrypp772000 19:20, 12 March 2007 (UTC)


 * That's what the naming convention discussion is for. There is no Wikipedia-wide agreement on when to use "Taiwan" and when to use "ROC".  --Ideogram 19:24, 12 March 2007 (UTC)


 * That's only partially true. We should use "Taiwan" in all non-political contexts, I don't think there is any question about that.--Jerrypp772000 19:28, 12 March 2007 (UTC)


 * No, there is no standard. If there was, we wouldn't be having that discussion.  Go ahead and look at all the Taiwan-related articles we have.  I guarantee you you will find many exceptions, and if you try to fix them, there will be edit-warring.  There is no policy you can point to to back up your opinion.  --Ideogram 19:55, 12 March 2007 (UTC)


 * So you mean there are people who put ROC instead of Taiwan for "non-political" context? Well then they should be wrong. There are naming conventions for common names, and the Naming conventions (Chinese) only state the "political" NPOV. The poll you started is to amend the current conventions.--Jerrypp772000 20:09, 12 March 2007 (UTC)


 * That document was never accepted by consensus, and leaves important details unspecified besides. --Ideogram 20:29, 12 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Which articles, can you be more specific, because I want to check them out?--Jerrypp772000 20:15, 12 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Did you already forget the controversy over the names Economy of Taiwan and Demographics of Taiwan? Believe me, I have looked at more articles than you have.  If you want to assert there is a standard, do your own homework.  Be sure to look at Category:Taiwan and Category:Republic of China as well.  --Ideogram 20:29, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

OK, gentlemans, I think we got a consensus. Use of the official name is a NPOV way.--Morphi 20:54, 12 March 2007 (UTC)


 * You can't assert a consensus by yourself. The proper phrasing is, "Do we have a consensus to use the official name?"  And then you can find out if Jerrypp772000 agrees with you.  --Ideogram 20:57, 12 March 2007 (UTC)


 * You know the rules. Though I don't know where the rules comes from, it can do devil things. Hope this can make people to think twice before making a decision. haha --Morphi 21:00, 12 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I know the rules better than you do. And if you are looking for trouble you will get it.  --Ideogram 21:01, 12 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't think we should use ROC. Ideogram, so you mean the poll you started is suppose to set like a boundary between political and non-political articles? I don't think it really matters in this article, this is obviously not political.--Jerrypp772000 21:21, 12 March 2007 (UTC)


 * The poll I started is to establish consensus for an official policy. There are currently three proposals, one to leave everything as it is (no policy), one that tries to rationalize something close to what we have now (which has no support), and one to replace ROC with Taiwan almost everywhere (except in official titles).  As I noted there is no official policy right now.  --Ideogram 21:27, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Consensus
Do we have a consensus to use the official name of the Republic of China? (especially Jerrypp77200)

In Naming conventions (Chinese). it says "Wikipedia treats the Republic of China as a sovereign state with equal status with the People's Republic of China, yet does not address whether they are considered separate nations. Taiwan should not be described either as an independent nation or as a part of the People's Republic of China." and one should write "one must be an ROC citizen to vote in the ROC presidential election" as opposed to "one must be a Taiwanese citizen to vote in the Taiwanese presidential election." —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Morphi (talk • contribs).


 * Note the big POV tag at the top of that page. That might give you a clue as to why I say you should not refer to it.  --Ideogram 21:31, 12 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Do we really need a consensus here? For the original version has violated the Political NPOV in Naming conventions (Chinese). --Morphi 21:39, 12 March 2007 (UTC)


 * How many times do I have to say this? That document was never accepted by consensus.  Right now every single article has to arrive at its own consensus.  --Ideogram 21:58, 12 March 2007 (UTC)


 * And also, this is not a political article.--Jerrypp772000 22:08, 12 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Jerrypp772000 looks poor. In fact, I am replacing Taiwan with ROC to show how ridiculous it is. Maybe I stop here & move on to the ROC page...--Morphi 22:35, 12 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Is that an insult? Also, this is an encyclopedia, not a place where you can edit just to show people something, that's actually called vandalism.--Jerrypp772000 22:45, 12 March 2007 (UTC)


 * No, I follow the Wikipedia rules & policies. It is that there's something wrong with the policy to allow evil people doing so. Maybe my intention is evil, but my action is legal. --Morphi 22:49, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

(outdent) It is also legal to block you for your actions, which will happen shortly. --Ideogram 22:52, 12 March 2007 (UTC)


 * You aren't necessarily following the rules since they are also disputed. You are simply making things more confusing. Common usage is important in Wikipedia, that's why there are naming conventions for common names also.--Jerrypp772000 22:52, 12 March 2007 (UTC)


 * We still need a consensus here. So I think we should use Taiwan in this article, because Taiwan is the common name of the ROC. We don't need to use the official name everywhere in Wikipedia, and it wouldn't matter if ROC doesn't confuse people, but it does. People that don't know the Chinese history wouldn't know any difference between ROC and PRC. ROC is usually used only in political contexts anyways.--Jerrypp772000 00:19, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Does anyone think it matters that Acer repeatedly uses "Taiwan" on their website? I think we might want to go with what they use. Mfergason 21:36, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

i think it's quite simple really, all the products from Taiwan, say made in Taiwan, therefore i believe this solves the argument. Or we could go to the UN website and find out what the official name is, i believe it's Chinese Taipei Ian Burnip


 * 1. The China/ROC/PRC/Taiwan page is in effect, even if it is disputed, it is the best we have.
 * 2. Geographically we can say it is headquartered in Taiwan, but in terms of nationality it is from the Republic of China
 * 3. WhisperToMe (talk) 04:51, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree with the use of Taiwan instead of ROC for the reasons Jerrypp772000 indicated in 00:19, 19 March 2007 (UTC). ROC/PRC are more confusing for people with limited understand of Asian history. Taiwan/china on the other hand would be more clear. Not to mention the information Mfergason provided in 21:36, 3 April 2007 (UTC). -98.197.17.70 (talk) 21:04, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Extensa Series?
Can someone make a page about the extensa series of laptops? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.149.130.124 (talk) 17:47, 4 May 2007 (UTC).

Acer Aspire picture
Currently there is an Acer Aspire 3680 notebook picture displayed in this article, but it's rather blurry and of bad quality. I have made a picture of this laptop myself (because I own one), and was wondering if it would be OK if I would replace it with mine? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Special:Contributions/ (talk)
 * I don't see why not, doesn't seem to violate the Image use policy. –Pomte 03:11, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Meaning of "Acer"
What's the origin of this word? Does it mean something in Korean? --24.249.108.133 02:00, 28 August 2007 (UTC)


 * It means "lively" and "keen" in Latin and its word root is "ace."-- Jerry 04:06, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Laptop series
The different series of laptop seemed a bit disorganised so I've done my best to sort it. I've based the naming on the same system as in the Dell article with each title just being 'Acer' followed by the series name and removing the word 'series' where it had been used. I've moved the TravelMate article to fit and stuck in a bunch of redirects to make them easier to find. The articles are only stubs though and I don't really know anything about the laptops so if anybody who does could start developing them that would be cool. Also, I couldn't find any information on the Extensa series so I've had to leave it blank. Hopefully somebody here has a better idea than I do.--Santahul (talk) 00:49, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

....replacement? am I seeing the new look of the Aspire series?
...without turning this into a discussion (cause I realize this isn't a discussion forum), are the Aspire Notebooks with the off-white keys serving as replacements to the other, more conventional looking ones? To be more specific, I'll use two in particular for an example: Is the 5520 (off-white keys, gloss finished case) a replacement of sorts of the 5100? Is this type styling the direction that the line-up is headed? Jon the dodgeboy (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 05:10, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Products?
link the products area has a link to Tablet_PC and the way its formatted it makes it look like acer is the creator of tablet pc even thought, when you click to go to that page..."A Tablet PC is a notebook or slate-shaped mobile computer, first introduced by Pen Computing in the early 90s with their PenGo Tablet Computer and popularized by Microsoft. "

either way, i think we should incorporate a link to User:AndyCook/Acer_Models or move it to a more public location. --AndyCookPowered By 00:47, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Controversy and criticisms
Is this section really needed? There are only two sentences, briefly describing HP's lawsuit with them over technology patents. It really feels tacked on, and I don't see the point of even having the section if nothing else of value can be added. PlaguedKiller (talk) 11:34, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree! This section does seem a little odd and does not provide much substance or value. I support the removal of this section. -- Xagit —Preceding unsigned comment added by Xagit (talk • contribs) 09:51, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Cleanup.
The history section needs cleanup as it contradicts itself. Other parts of this article may eventually need cleanup too. Thanks Jordsta (talk) 08:09, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Why does 'Destinator' link to this page?
Doing a search for 'Destinator', redirects you to the article on Acer. I think this doesn't make any sense. The only reference to 'Destinator' in the present article is that the 'e300 series' had Destinator software installed. Furthermore, if you click on the link for the e300 series, you again are redirected back to the Acer page, which doesn't make any more sense either. If somebody knows anything about the e300 series, or Destinator, they could write something about them. In any case though, they shouldn't link back to Acer. A red-link would be better, though I'm not sure as to how to do it myself, sorry. Steloukos (talk) 14:53, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

History/Racing
Hi - the Racing subsection under History is out of date, with lots of "recently"s and something that was going to happen till 2008. Can some knowledgeable person please have a look? Cheers, DBaK (talk) 11:51, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Controversy and Criticisms again
This section should really be removed. The article claims that there are customer reports of complaints but the inline citation points to a BBB page with an "A" rating. If it is re added it should be cited more clearly, maybe with links to actual complaints or better yet a news article addressing the issue.

The second part of the criticism section claims that one complaint is "notable" however the citations point back to a personal website. In fact it's the website of the person who submitted the claim. Can we get better sources? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.7.3.223 (talk) 08:39, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Public Numbers
Since this is a public traded company, how about adding a new section on quick numbers like revenue per year, average number of computers sold per year, etc. King Ruby (talk) 20:47, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Reduced laptop
It would be cool if Acer would make sort-of a reduced laptop -- almost the same construction and form, but without display, battery, keyboard and trackpad -- basically just a box with connections, so you can more easily take your work everywhere - just connect it to a decent monitor, keyboard, mouse and plug it into power, instead of paying a lot of money for a laptop which works - what - 5 hours tops on battery so you must plug it into wall anyway (and you know - then you think: while you're there let's plug USB mouse in it... oh and a full keyboard instead of this improvisation... and then - wait - why shouldn't I plug monitor into it as well for greater comfort -- I mean - you get the point...).

It would be much more affordable and smaller and lighter. (I know there are micro-ATX and mini-ITX, but it simply isn't as practical, portable and well-packed (and priced) as laptop.) It would be nice if someone would contact them with this suggestion cause I can't find a usable contact link... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.2.112.107 (talk) 18:21, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Easystore
Under products Creating new section for Acer easystore Windows Home Servers. It seems very silly to include the easystore in Acer Aspire Desktop section. 1.) Acer own website refers to the Easystore as a seperate line of desktops from the Aspires 2.) The easystore are purely headless machines operating as a server platform using Windows Home Server. 3.) Acer considers the Easystore linux version a regular server. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.48.212.114 (talk) 20:46, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

English names for company people
Regarding English names for company personnel, while they may have Chinese names (and thus romanizations), many of them have chosen and use a different English name. As such, there is no reason to include a Chinese romanization next to (or replacing) each and every one of their English names because it serves no purpose and crowds up the page. Thanks! -Multivariable (talk) 17:56, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Acer Inc. vs Acer Group
All the economic data on this page is for Acer Group, that is including Packar Bell for example. Acer Inc is just a part of Acer Group. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.181.125.48 (talk) 10:27, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Is Multitech Multi-Tech?
I recall using Multi-Tech modems in the past. I see that Acer used to be Multitech. Is one a spinoff of the other? Maury Markowitz (talk) 14:56, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Possible copyright problem
This article has been revised as part of a large-scale clean-up project of multiple article copyright infringement. (See the investigation subpage) Earlier text must not be restored, unless it can be verified to be free of infringement. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept https://bits.wikimedia.org/static-1.24wmf16/skins/common/images/button_sig.pngcopyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions must be deleted. Contributors may use sources as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously. Mkativerata (talk) 12:03, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I recognise that I've just wiped about 10KB from the article. In most cases I could not find the original source from which the material was copied. It may be an offline source (or sources) or a website (or websites) that have been archived or are behind paywalls. The content was added by an editor who has a confirmed history of copyright violations. In accordance with copyright policy of Wikipedia, it is to be presumed that all his contributions are copyright violations. Please let me know if you have any questions about this. --Mkativerata (talk) 12:13, 18 August 2014 (UTC)