Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

EDN article on Pentium M living room PC

Last response: in CPUs
Share
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
May 13, 2004 7:40:13 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

I thought this was interesting: Brian Dipert's "upgrade" from a VIA C3 to a
Pentium M based living room PC for "entertainment" use. Mbrd made by
Lippert - first I've seen of an ITX mbrd.

Rgds, George Macdonald

"Just because they're paranoid doesn't mean you're not psychotic" - Who, me??
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
May 13, 2004 12:34:34 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

On Thu, 13 May 2004 03:40:13 -0400, George Macdonald
<fammacd=!SPAM^nothanks@tellurian.com> wrote:

>I thought this was interesting: Brian Dipert's "upgrade" from a VIA C3 to a
>Pentium M based living room PC for "entertainment" use. Mbrd made by
>Lippert - first I've seen of an ITX mbrd.

What I thought more interesting was the 512MB Warestheurl graphics
card in that system. :p pPpP

--
L.Angel: I'm looking for web design work.
If you need basic to med complexity webpages at affordable rates, email me :) 
Standard HTML, SHTML, MySQL + PHP or ASP, Javascript.
If you really want, FrontPage & DreamWeaver too.
But keep in mind you pay extra bandwidth for their bloated code
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
May 13, 2004 6:56:30 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

George Macdonald wrote:
> I thought this was interesting: Brian Dipert's "upgrade" from a VIA
> C3 to a Pentium M based living room PC for "entertainment" use. Mbrd
> made by Lippert - first I've seen of an ITX mbrd.
>
> Rgds, George Macdonald
>
> "Just because they're paranoid doesn't mean you're not psychotic" -
> Who, me??

Link?

--
Derek
Related resources
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
May 13, 2004 8:45:05 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

Derek Baker wrote:
> George Macdonald wrote:
>
>>I thought this was interesting: Brian Dipert's "upgrade" from a VIA
>>C3 to a Pentium M based living room PC for "entertainment" use. Mbrd
>>made by Lippert - first I've seen of an ITX mbrd.
>>
>>Rgds, George Macdonald
>>
>>"Just because they're paranoid doesn't mean you're not psychotic" -
>>Who, me??
>
>
> Link?
>

http://www.reed-electronics.com/ednmag/article/CA411162...

I'm puzzled at George's comment denigrating the upgrade as an "upgrade".


I'm also puzzled at what the author really did in his benchmarks with
the Pentium M running at 1GHz. The article doesn't make it clear if or
how the motherboard would allow underclocking the FSB while running RAM
at normal speed.

RM
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
May 13, 2004 8:45:06 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

Robert Myers <rmyers1400@comcast.net> wrote:
> I'm also puzzled at what the author really did in his benchmarks with
> the Pentium M running at 1GHz. The article doesn't make it clear if or
> how the motherboard would allow underclocking the FSB while running RAM
> at normal speed.

Speedstep?

--
Nate Edel http://www.nkedel.com/

"Elder Party 2004: Cthulhu for President -- this time WE'RE the lesser
evil."
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
May 14, 2004 6:15:11 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

On Thu, 13 May 2004 10:47:23 -0700, archmage@sfchat.org (Nate Edel) wrote:

>Robert Myers <rmyers1400@comcast.net> wrote:
>> I'm also puzzled at what the author really did in his benchmarks with
>> the Pentium M running at 1GHz. The article doesn't make it clear if or
>> how the motherboard would allow underclocking the FSB while running RAM
>> at normal speed.
>
>Speedstep?

Gesundheit!
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
May 14, 2004 6:15:12 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

In article <bsa8a0hi00h99br901arr0s32u6tsnip6s@4ax.com>,
day_trippr@REMOVEyahoo.com says...
> On Thu, 13 May 2004 10:47:23 -0700, archmage@sfchat.org (Nate Edel) wrote:
>
> >Robert Myers <rmyers1400@comcast.net> wrote:
> >> I'm also puzzled at what the author really did in his benchmarks with
> >> the Pentium M running at 1GHz. The article doesn't make it clear if or
> >> how the motherboard would allow underclocking the FSB while running RAM
> >> at normal speed.
> >
> >Speedstep?
>
> Gesundheit!

CHOKE! <spit> Damn, it's a good thing this monitor is to be
retired soon! ;-))

--
Keith
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
May 14, 2004 11:52:41 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

On Thu, 13 May 2004 16:45:05 GMT, Robert Myers <rmyers1400@comcast.net>
wrote:

>Derek Baker wrote:
>> George Macdonald wrote:
>>
>>>I thought this was interesting: Brian Dipert's "upgrade" from a VIA
>>>C3 to a Pentium M based living room PC for "entertainment" use. Mbrd
>>>made by Lippert - first I've seen of an ITX mbrd.

>>
>> Link?
>>
>
>http://www.reed-electronics.com/ednmag/article/CA411162...

<whacks brow>Thanks Robert - I got it here:
http://www.reed-electronics.com/ednmag/article/CA411162...
- apparently same article... different ads?

>I'm puzzled at George's comment denigrating the upgrade as an "upgrade".

No, no - nothing derisive was meant. Brian didn't actually use the term
upgrade in the main article but it was mentioned in a sidebar - his
"swappped" reflects better that it was a fairly major form of upgrade... I
thought.

>I'm also puzzled at what the author really did in his benchmarks with
>the Pentium M running at 1GHz. The article doesn't make it clear if or
>how the motherboard would allow underclocking the FSB while running RAM
>at normal speed.

It's never been clear to me how all that works. I know that I've seen some
weird things with recent Intel-based notebooks, e.g. run with no battery
and it slows down the CPU.

Rgds, George Macdonald

"Just because they're paranoid doesn't mean you're not psychotic" - Who, me??
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
May 15, 2004 4:06:30 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

George Macdonald wrote:
> On Thu, 13 May 2004 16:45:05 GMT, Robert Myers <rmyers1400@comcast.net>
> wrote:
>
>

<snip>

>>
>>http://www.reed-electronics.com/ednmag/article/CA411162...
>
>
> <whacks brow>Thanks Robert - I got it here:
> http://www.reed-electronics.com/ednmag/article/CA411162...
> - apparently same article... different ads?


Whose ads and who pays or gets credit for the click. That's
interesting. Totally off the topic of csiphc, but the internet ad
revenue bubble has quietly reinflated itself.


>>I'm puzzled at George's comment denigrating the upgrade as an "upgrade".
>
>
> No, no - nothing derisive was meant. Brian didn't actually use the term
> upgrade in the main article but it was mentioned in a sidebar - his
> "swappped" reflects better that it was a fairly major form of upgrade... I
> thought.
>

Oh, right. Motherboard+CPU=Upgrade. It is an odd use of language.

>
>>I'm also puzzled at what the author really did in his benchmarks with
>>the Pentium M running at 1GHz. The article doesn't make it clear if or
>>how the motherboard would allow underclocking the FSB while running RAM
>>at normal speed.
>
>
> It's never been clear to me how all that works. I know that I've seen some
> weird things with recent Intel-based notebooks, e.g. run with no battery
> and it slows down the CPU.
>

The benchmarks weren't quite what I had expected, and if I didn't really
understand how they were acquired, it didn't seem worth a whole lot
trouble to try to understand them.

RM
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
May 18, 2004 1:49:05 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

On Mon, 17 May 2004 03:01:25 -0400, George Macdonald
<fammacd=!SPAM^nothanks@tellurian.com> wrote:
>On Sun, 16 May 2004 17:53:25 -0400, Tony Hill <hilla_nospam_20@yahoo.ca>
>wrote:
>>Huh? Flash ads? I haven't seen any of those in months! Not since I
>>installed Firefox and the Flash Click-to-play extension! :>
>
>I'm still on Mozilla 1.4.1.

Time to get with the times there George! :>

>>Seriously though, Flash ads were a MAJOR pain in the ass, some were
>>getting even more annoying that pop-up ads. There were some that were
>>using 50% or more of my CPU time (on an AthlonXP 1700+) just to
>>display a small flash banner ad! That sort of thing was the final
>>straw.
>
>Yep, there's one HP Flash job in particular I keep coming across at Yahoo
>which pegs my poor old P3/500 to the point that just scrolling gets very
>jerky.

I think that ad might actually have been the final straw for me too.
I know it was an ad I used to come across on Yahoo that finally did
it. Ohh, that and a couple times I tried playing a game with a
browser window minimized in the background and was yanking my hair out
trying to figure out why my frame rates were abysmal all of a sudden,
only to find some stupid flash ad munching away CPU time.

>>I think the Flash-ad thing might be shooting itself in the foot in the
>>same way that pop-up/pop-under ads have. Already virtually every
>>browser in the world implements pop-up blocking. Only Internet
>>Explorer is still, but it's been on the distant trailing edge of
>>browser technology for 2 or 3 years now, and even that will implement
>>pop-up blocking as part of WinXP SP2. Flash blocking is just starting
>>to appear now, but with the way things are going I think most users
>>will be blocking the adds in a couple of years time.
>
>Pop-up blocking is nice but you have to also know which web sites you visit
>require it... like some of the banks' on-line banking services.

I've actually found extremely few sites that actually make use of
unrequested pop-ups for anything too useful. Most of the cases I have
encountered have been a sort of one-time deal, so I haven't really
worried too much. However there are a couple of extensions for
Firebird that do allow you to selectively enable pop-ups (eg I think
for one of them you will allow pop-ups any time your holding down the
shift key).

> I have the
>Mozilla Prefbar which has a "Kill Flash" but unfortunately it also kills
>copy/paste.

Hmm.. that's an odd one!

-------------
Tony Hill
hilla <underscore> 20 <at> yahoo <dot> ca
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
May 20, 2004 9:47:15 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

On Mon, 17 May 2004 21:49:05 -0400, Tony Hill <hilla_nospam_20@yahoo.ca>
wrote:

>On Mon, 17 May 2004 03:01:25 -0400, George Macdonald
><fammacd=!SPAM^nothanks@tellurian.com> wrote:
>>On Sun, 16 May 2004 17:53:25 -0400, Tony Hill <hilla_nospam_20@yahoo.ca>
>>wrote:
>>>Huh? Flash ads? I haven't seen any of those in months! Not since I
>>>installed Firefox and the Flash Click-to-play extension! :>
>>
>>I'm still on Mozilla 1.4.1.
>
>Time to get with the times there George! :>

Hey it works for me and is dated 20031008. After suffering with the GDI
resource leak bug, http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=204374 and
following its never-ending history, I'm not confident about moving umm,
forward

>>>Seriously though, Flash ads were a MAJOR pain in the ass, some were
>>>getting even more annoying that pop-up ads. There were some that were
>>>using 50% or more of my CPU time (on an AthlonXP 1700+) just to
>>>display a small flash banner ad! That sort of thing was the final
>>>straw.
>>
>>Yep, there's one HP Flash job in particular I keep coming across at Yahoo
>>which pegs my poor old P3/500 to the point that just scrolling gets very
>>jerky.
>
>I think that ad might actually have been the final straw for me too.
>I know it was an ad I used to come across on Yahoo that finally did
>it. Ohh, that and a couple times I tried playing a game with a
>browser window minimized in the background and was yanking my hair out
>trying to figure out why my frame rates were abysmal all of a sudden,
>only to find some stupid flash ad munching away CPU time.

IIRC the ad had a city dusk skyline - not much action but it bogged the
CPU.

>>>I think the Flash-ad thing might be shooting itself in the foot in the
>>>same way that pop-up/pop-under ads have. Already virtually every
>>>browser in the world implements pop-up blocking. Only Internet
>>>Explorer is still, but it's been on the distant trailing edge of
>>>browser technology for 2 or 3 years now, and even that will implement
>>>pop-up blocking as part of WinXP SP2. Flash blocking is just starting
>>>to appear now, but with the way things are going I think most users
>>>will be blocking the adds in a couple of years time.
>>
>>Pop-up blocking is nice but you have to also know which web sites you visit
>>require it... like some of the banks' on-line banking services.
>
>I've actually found extremely few sites that actually make use of
>unrequested pop-ups for anything too useful. Most of the cases I have
>encountered have been a sort of one-time deal, so I haven't really
>worried too much. However there are a couple of extensions for
>Firebird that do allow you to selectively enable pop-ups (eg I think
>for one of them you will allow pop-ups any time your holding down the
>shift key).

I find the Mozilla selective pop-up by Web site works fine and is easy to
manage.

>> I have the
>>Mozilla Prefbar which has a "Kill Flash" but unfortunately it also kills
>>copy/paste.
>
>Hmm.. that's an odd one!

Yes and not very glamorous, so nobody seems to be paying attention - still
marked as "Leave as New": http://bugzilla.mozdev.org/show_bug.cgi?id=4890.

Rgds, George Macdonald

"Just because they're paranoid doesn't mean you're not psychotic" - Who, me??
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
May 20, 2004 2:02:49 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

George Macdonald wrote:

> On Mon, 17 May 2004 21:49:05 -0400, Tony Hill <hilla_nospam_20@yahoo.ca>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>>> I have the
>>>Mozilla Prefbar which has a "Kill Flash" but unfortunately it also kills
>>>copy/paste.
>>
>>Hmm.. that's an odd one!
>

Rather than using Mozilla, I use TBird for mail/news and FBird
for browsing. For FBird I installed the FlashBlock extension
which seems to work as advertised. It replaces each bit of
FlashCrap with a "play" icon so I only see FlashCrap when I
have reason to suspect it has actual content - such as the
graphs at AnandTech.

Now if only someone would make an extension like that for
animated GIFs. In the mean time I use the "Nuke Anything"
extension - I can right click on any annoying animations
and select "Remove this Object". Presto - gone.
!