Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Question Re: Size of Desktop Computers

Last response: in Laptops & Notebooks
Share
Anonymous
a b D Laptop
March 10, 2005 7:50:58 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.laptops (More info?)

I sit here typing on my brand new Dell laptop purchased for $1200. It
is very compact and weighs about 7lbs. Quick specs: 1.6ghz Centrino,
512meg DDR2 Ram, 60gig HD, 15" widescreen display.

If computer makers can make a powerful computer slightly larger than
the size of a typical notebook around $1000 why don't they just make
all computers this small?

The size of my laptop belies the small size required to make the
computer hidden underneath. Part of the laptop space is used for the
keyboard, the mousepad, the speakers, the volume/play interface
buttons, etc. If you take out the keyboard, the mousepad, the speakers,
etc, and just include the most important components (i.e. cpu, hard
drive, mobo) the size required for the actual computer is even smaller
yet!!!

Given the above scenario, it is incomprehensible to me how we still
have these gargantuan desktop cases housing our computer components. I
do realize that desktops have the ability for greater expansion,
however, if computer manufacturers would devote their resources to
laptops, then it is conceivable that laptop computers could someday be
afforded the same type of expansion options enjoyed by traditional
desktops today.

The price of laptops is coming down every day. Even now you can (with
coupons and a bit of good timing) buy a brand new Dell (well equipped)
for under $700 shipped. IBM G40's with Pentium 4 processors can be had
on the used market in the $500 range. Outside the argument of
expandability (and perhaps durability) it makes little sense to buy a
desktop computer.
Anonymous
a b D Laptop
March 10, 2005 12:49:52 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.laptops (More info?)

pokemonn2@hotmail.com wrote:
> I sit here typing on my brand new Dell laptop purchased for $1200. It
> is very compact and weighs about 7lbs. Quick specs: 1.6ghz Centrino,
> 512meg DDR2 Ram, 60gig HD, 15" widescreen display.
>
> If computer makers can make a powerful computer slightly larger than
> the size of a typical notebook around $1000 why don't they just make
> all computers this small?
>
> The size of my laptop belies the small size required to make the
> computer hidden underneath. Part of the laptop space is used for the
> keyboard, the mousepad, the speakers, the volume/play interface
> buttons, etc. If you take out the keyboard, the mousepad, the
> speakers, etc, and just include the most important components (i.e.
> cpu, hard drive, mobo) the size required for the actual computer is
> even smaller yet!!!
>
> Given the above scenario, it is incomprehensible to me how we still
> have these gargantuan desktop cases housing our computer components. I
> do realize that desktops have the ability for greater expansion,
> however, if computer manufacturers would devote their resources to
> laptops, then it is conceivable that laptop computers could someday be
> afforded the same type of expansion options enjoyed by traditional
> desktops today.
>
> The price of laptops is coming down every day. Even now you can (with
> coupons and a bit of good timing) buy a brand new Dell (well equipped)
> for under $700 shipped. IBM G40's with Pentium 4 processors can be had
> on the used market in the $500 range. Outside the argument of
> expandability (and perhaps durability) it makes little sense to buy a
> desktop computer.

Small form factor (SFF or barebones systems) are somewhat popular for
their small size that will support standard desktop components. The Mac
Mini is an SFF box, for example. Some of the benefits of laptop
portability with superior performance due to using standard components
(except for the mainboards which are specific to SFF boxes). SFF are
limited in the number and type of expansion slots but for an option to a
laptop offer more capability and are not dead end for upgrades.

Q
Anonymous
a b D Laptop
March 10, 2005 3:28:50 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.laptops (More info?)

On 10 Mar 2005 04:50:58 -0800, pokemonn2@hotmail.com wrote:

>then it is conceivable that laptop computers could someday be
>afforded the same type of expansion options enjoyed by traditional
>desktops today.

So you mean more pieces, bigger. All of a sudden your notebook (can't
call them slaps laptops anymore) will look like a desktop.


>The price of laptops is coming down every day. Even now you can (with
>coupons and a bit of good timing) buy a brand new Dell (well equipped)
>for under $700 shipped. IBM G40's with Pentium 4 processors can be had
>on the used market in the $500 range.

So you assume that while notebooks components get cheaper (they are)
desktop components are standing still?


>Outside the argument of
>expandability (and perhaps durability) it makes little sense to buy a
>desktop computer.

Yer right, more purchases are toward the notebook arena, but the
demise of desktops are prematurely exagerated.

One emerging application is of the HomeTheater PC. Today, it would be
very ugly to adapt a notebook for an HTPC application. The Mac Mini
has got the right idea, but things are evolving. Meantime, while you
may wait and wait and wait, plenty of people have built HTPCs with
desktop components at reasonable prices.
Related resources
Anonymous
a b D Laptop
March 10, 2005 3:43:09 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.laptops (More info?)

pokemonn2@hotmail.com wrote:

> I sit here typing on my brand new Dell laptop purchased for $1200. It
> is very compact and weighs about 7lbs. Quick specs: 1.6ghz Centrino,
> 512meg DDR2 Ram, 60gig HD, 15" widescreen display.
>
> If computer makers can make a powerful computer slightly larger than
> the size of a typical notebook around $1000 why don't they just make
> all computers this small?

Mainly because most buyers don't want to compromise capability to get a
machine that small. There is a market for small machines and all the major
players have machines that fit in that niche, but it is not the mainstream.

> The size of my laptop belies the small size required to make the
> computer hidden underneath. Part of the laptop space is used for the
> keyboard, the mousepad, the speakers, the volume/play interface
> buttons, etc. If you take out the keyboard, the mousepad, the speakers,
> etc, and just include the most important components (i.e. cpu, hard
> drive, mobo) the size required for the actual computer is even smaller
> yet!!!

So? You also have one drive bay for a 2-1/2" hard disk, another for a
reduced form factor CD/DVD drive, generally no diskette drive, and
expansion only through one or two PCCard slots and maybe a little extra
RAM.

> Given the above scenario, it is incomprehensible to me how we still
> have these gargantuan desktop cases housing our computer components.

Because we want them.

> I
> do realize that desktops have the ability for greater expansion,
> however, if computer manufacturers would devote their resources to
> laptops, then it is conceivable that laptop computers could someday be
> afforded the same type of expansion options enjoyed by traditional
> desktops today.

How? Where would you put extra expansion slots? If not slots, then how
would you expand?

> The price of laptops is coming down every day. Even now you can (with
> coupons and a bit of good timing) buy a brand new Dell (well equipped)
> for under $700 shipped. IBM G40's with Pentium 4 processors can be had
> on the used market in the $500 range. Outside the argument of
> expandability (and perhaps durability) it makes little sense to buy a
> desktop computer.

The question is not "how we still have these gargantuan desktop cases
housing our computer components" but why you are unaware of the many
available small-form-factor desktop machines.

You might want to froogle "biostar ideq", "aopen cube", "shuttle xpc",
"thinkcenter s50", "hp sff", look up the Dell Optiplex SX280, the Gateway
e2300, and the Mac Mini, check out <http://www.simplifiedinnovation.com/&gt;,
<http://www.smallpc.com/&gt;, and if those aren't small enough for you then
you might want to take a look through the projects list at
<http://www.mini-itx.com&gt;.

If you want a small machine they are readily available. It's just that most
people don't want them.

--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
Anonymous
a b D Laptop
March 10, 2005 4:47:03 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.laptops (More info?)

pokemonn2@hotmail.com wrote:
>If computer makers can make a powerful computer slightly larger than
>the size of a typical notebook around $1000 why don't they just make
>all computers this small?

Because they can make significantly more powerful computers for half
the price, with (as others have pointed out) more expandability,
upgradability, and better reliability due to better heat rejection.

You haven't lived till you've built your own computer! [Actually, you
haven't lived till you've wire-wrapped your own Z-80, assembled a
bootloader by hand, burned an EPROM manually, and written your own
BIOS, but nobody goes that far any more. 8*]
Anonymous
a b D Laptop
March 10, 2005 5:23:43 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.laptops (More info?)

William P.N. Smith wrote:

> pokemonn2@hotmail.com wrote:
>>If computer makers can make a powerful computer slightly larger than
>>the size of a typical notebook around $1000 why don't they just make
>>all computers this small?
>
> Because they can make significantly more powerful computers for half
> the price, with (as others have pointed out) more expandability,
> upgradability, and better reliability due to better heat rejection.
>
> You haven't lived till you've built your own computer! [Actually, you
> haven't lived till you've wire-wrapped your own Z-80, assembled a
> bootloader by hand, burned an EPROM manually, and written your own
> BIOS, but nobody goes that far any more. 8*]

Those were they days . . .

Kids today don't know the joy of having a device driver delivered as a
notebook full of assembler code to be keyed in by hand.

Would I go back to that era if I could? I don't think so. Am I glad to
have been there? You bet.

--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
Anonymous
a b D Laptop
March 10, 2005 5:32:59 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.laptops (More info?)

Quaoar wrote:

> pokemonn2@hotmail.com wrote:
>> I sit here typing on my brand new Dell laptop purchased for $1200. It
>> is very compact and weighs about 7lbs. Quick specs: 1.6ghz Centrino,
>> 512meg DDR2 Ram, 60gig HD, 15" widescreen display.
>>
>> If computer makers can make a powerful computer slightly larger than
>> the size of a typical notebook around $1000 why don't they just make
>> all computers this small?
>>
>> The size of my laptop belies the small size required to make the
>> computer hidden underneath. Part of the laptop space is used for the
>> keyboard, the mousepad, the speakers, the volume/play interface
>> buttons, etc. If you take out the keyboard, the mousepad, the
>> speakers, etc, and just include the most important components (i.e.
>> cpu, hard drive, mobo) the size required for the actual computer is
>> even smaller yet!!!
>>
>> Given the above scenario, it is incomprehensible to me how we still
>> have these gargantuan desktop cases housing our computer components. I
>> do realize that desktops have the ability for greater expansion,
>> however, if computer manufacturers would devote their resources to
>> laptops, then it is conceivable that laptop computers could someday be
>> afforded the same type of expansion options enjoyed by traditional
>> desktops today.
>>
>> The price of laptops is coming down every day. Even now you can (with
>> coupons and a bit of good timing) buy a brand new Dell (well equipped)
>> for under $700 shipped. IBM G40's with Pentium 4 processors can be had
>> on the used market in the $500 range. Outside the argument of
>> expandability (and perhaps durability) it makes little sense to buy a
>> desktop computer.
>
> Small form factor (SFF or barebones systems) are somewhat popular for
> their small size that will support standard desktop components. The Mac
> Mini is an SFF box, for example. Some of the benefits of laptop
> portability with superior performance due to using standard components
> (except for the mainboards which are specific to SFF boxes).

For some SFF boxes. Mini-ITX allows very small boxen, and that's a standard
form factor with boards from a variety of vendors and with a variety of
capabilities. There's a significant hobbyist market around building them
into odd enclosures.

> SFF are
> limited in the number and type of expansion slots but for an option to a
> laptop offer more capability and are not dead end for upgrades.
>
> Q

--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
Anonymous
a b D Laptop
March 10, 2005 8:19:34 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.laptops (More info?)

On 10 Mar 2005 04:50:58 -0800, pokemonn2@hotmail.com wrote:

>I sit here typing on my brand new Dell laptop purchased for $1200. It
>is very compact and weighs about 7lbs. Quick specs: 1.6ghz Centrino,
>512meg DDR2 Ram, 60gig HD, 15" widescreen display.
>
>If computer makers can make a powerful computer slightly larger than
>the size of a typical notebook around $1000 why don't they just make
>all computers this small?

Reliability, upgradability and ease of maintenance are three good
reasons. Laptops can bee fairly reliable, but it is still hard to get
rid of all the heat they generate, probably not all that good for
long-term 24-7 use. The largest laptop hd is like 80gb; you can buy a
10k rpm desktop drive with 300gb capacity, and it'll be really fast.
You can also stick in a lot of pci cards in a desktop which will allow
it to have many capabilities laptops won't have without usb
bottlenecks. Have you ever had to open a laptop? It wasn't easy or a
lot of fun was it? Desktops are much easier to maintain.
Anonymous
a b D Laptop
March 10, 2005 8:19:35 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.laptops (More info?)

Chris Hill wrote:

> On 10 Mar 2005 04:50:58 -0800, pokemonn2@hotmail.com wrote:
>
>>I sit here typing on my brand new Dell laptop purchased for $1200. It
>>is very compact and weighs about 7lbs. Quick specs: 1.6ghz Centrino,
>>512meg DDR2 Ram, 60gig HD, 15" widescreen display.
>>
>>If computer makers can make a powerful computer slightly larger than
>>the size of a typical notebook around $1000 why don't they just make
>>all computers this small?
>
> Reliability, upgradability and ease of maintenance are three good
> reasons. Laptops can bee fairly reliable, but it is still hard to get
> rid of all the heat they generate, probably not all that good for
> long-term 24-7 use. The largest laptop hd is like 80gb;

100 GB is readily available--Best Buy usually has them in stock.

> you can buy a
> 10k rpm desktop drive with 300gb capacity,

Interesting-didn't know the 300 gig SCSIs were out yet.

> and it'll be really fast.
> You can also stick in a lot of pci cards in a desktop which will allow
> it to have many capabilities laptops won't have without usb
> bottlenecks. Have you ever had to open a laptop? It wasn't easy or a
> lot of fun was it? Desktops are much easier to maintain.

--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
Anonymous
a b D Laptop
March 10, 2005 9:24:32 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.laptops (More info?)

If you do some research on the net, you'll find sales of laptops (and other
mobile/portable device) will outstrip the sales of desktops very shortly and
will continue to climb as the power increases. Personally, I like both, but
my power is on my floor at home :) 

--
Thanks,
TheBurgerMan@gmail.com
--
<pokemonn2@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1110459058.568645.239610@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>I sit here typing on my brand new Dell laptop purchased for $1200. It
> is very compact and weighs about 7lbs. Quick specs: 1.6ghz Centrino,
> 512meg DDR2 Ram, 60gig HD, 15" widescreen display.
>
> If computer makers can make a powerful computer slightly larger than
> the size of a typical notebook around $1000 why don't they just make
> all computers this small?
>
> The size of my laptop belies the small size required to make the
> computer hidden underneath. Part of the laptop space is used for the
> keyboard, the mousepad, the speakers, the volume/play interface
> buttons, etc. If you take out the keyboard, the mousepad, the speakers,
> etc, and just include the most important components (i.e. cpu, hard
> drive, mobo) the size required for the actual computer is even smaller
> yet!!!
>
> Given the above scenario, it is incomprehensible to me how we still
> have these gargantuan desktop cases housing our computer components. I
> do realize that desktops have the ability for greater expansion,
> however, if computer manufacturers would devote their resources to
> laptops, then it is conceivable that laptop computers could someday be
> afforded the same type of expansion options enjoyed by traditional
> desktops today.
>
> The price of laptops is coming down every day. Even now you can (with
> coupons and a bit of good timing) buy a brand new Dell (well equipped)
> for under $700 shipped. IBM G40's with Pentium 4 processors can be had
> on the used market in the $500 range. Outside the argument of
> expandability (and perhaps durability) it makes little sense to buy a
> desktop computer.
>
Anonymous
a b D Laptop
March 11, 2005 12:06:58 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.laptops (More info?)

Ok, 100 gig notebook drives are available. But 200, 250 and 300 gig
drives are not. Nor are Raid arrays, or SCSI drives with 15,000 rpm
rotational speeds. And beleive me, if you take a 7200 rpm 80 gig
desktop drive and a 7200 rpm 80 gig laptop drive, they are NOT equally
fast from a performance perspective. The desktop drive is significnatly
faster.

And that's just one example. There are huge differences in CPU, video
card, optical drives, hard drives, sound cards.


J. Clarke wrote:

> Chris Hill wrote:
>
>
>>On 10 Mar 2005 04:50:58 -0800, pokemonn2@hotmail.com wrote:
>>
>>
>>>I sit here typing on my brand new Dell laptop purchased for $1200. It
>>>is very compact and weighs about 7lbs. Quick specs: 1.6ghz Centrino,
>>>512meg DDR2 Ram, 60gig HD, 15" widescreen display.
>>>
>>>If computer makers can make a powerful computer slightly larger than
>>>the size of a typical notebook around $1000 why don't they just make
>>>all computers this small?
>>
>>Reliability, upgradability and ease of maintenance are three good
>>reasons. Laptops can bee fairly reliable, but it is still hard to get
>>rid of all the heat they generate, probably not all that good for
>>long-term 24-7 use. The largest laptop hd is like 80gb;
>
>
> 100 GB is readily available--Best Buy usually has them in stock.
>
>
>>you can buy a
>>10k rpm desktop drive with 300gb capacity,
>
>
> Interesting-didn't know the 300 gig SCSIs were out yet.
>
>
>>and it'll be really fast.
>>You can also stick in a lot of pci cards in a desktop which will allow
>>it to have many capabilities laptops won't have without usb
>>bottlenecks. Have you ever had to open a laptop? It wasn't easy or a
>>lot of fun was it? Desktops are much easier to maintain.
>
>
Anonymous
a b D Laptop
March 11, 2005 12:06:59 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.laptops (More info?)

Barry Watzman wrote:

> Ok, 100 gig notebook drives are available. But 200, 250 and 300 gig
> drives are not. Nor are Raid arrays,

Actually, they are. Toshiba has a couple and there are others.

> or SCSI drives with 15,000 rpm
> rotational speeds. And beleive me, if you take a 7200 rpm 80 gig
> desktop drive and a 7200 rpm 80 gig laptop drive, they are NOT equally
> fast from a performance perspective. The desktop drive is significnatly
> faster.
>
> And that's just one example. There are huge differences in CPU, video
> card, optical drives, hard drives, sound cards.

Barry, I'm not arguing with you. Just pointing out some details.

> J. Clarke wrote:
>
>> Chris Hill wrote:
>>
>>
>>>On 10 Mar 2005 04:50:58 -0800, pokemonn2@hotmail.com wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>I sit here typing on my brand new Dell laptop purchased for $1200. It
>>>>is very compact and weighs about 7lbs. Quick specs: 1.6ghz Centrino,
>>>>512meg DDR2 Ram, 60gig HD, 15" widescreen display.
>>>>
>>>>If computer makers can make a powerful computer slightly larger than
>>>>the size of a typical notebook around $1000 why don't they just make
>>>>all computers this small?
>>>
>>>Reliability, upgradability and ease of maintenance are three good
>>>reasons. Laptops can bee fairly reliable, but it is still hard to get
>>>rid of all the heat they generate, probably not all that good for
>>>long-term 24-7 use. The largest laptop hd is like 80gb;
>>
>>
>> 100 GB is readily available--Best Buy usually has them in stock.
>>
>>
>>>you can buy a
>>>10k rpm desktop drive with 300gb capacity,
>>
>>
>> Interesting-didn't know the 300 gig SCSIs were out yet.
>>
>>
>>>and it'll be really fast.
>>>You can also stick in a lot of pci cards in a desktop which will allow
>>>it to have many capabilities laptops won't have without usb
>>>bottlenecks. Have you ever had to open a laptop? It wasn't easy or a
>>>lot of fun was it? Desktops are much easier to maintain.
>>
>>

--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
Anonymous
a b D Laptop
March 12, 2005 1:19:47 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.laptops (More info?)

Sorry Barry Watzman but your entire post is based on incorrect
assumption. If you would actually take the time to read my original
post CLOSELY you will see that I NEVER said that laptops were the equal
of and could do everthing that a desktop can do.

What I'm trying to say is, if they can make laptop computers with the
power and functionality of today's powerful computers (that being
Pentium 4 3.0gigahertz processors and 100 megabyte hard drives which is
way more than the average person needs by the way), why is it that
desktop computers are being made so big and clunky and use up so much
power?

I don't have the stats for power consumption of my new Dell laptop
which uses the latest Sonoma chipset, but I would gander that the power
consumption is probably considerably less than that of a traditional
desktop and runs just as fast as a desktop with similar specs.

The question I pose to computer manufacturers is that why can't they
make an effort to produce desktop computers that use less energy
(perhaps incorporate the new Sonoma chipset in every desktop
computer?!?), that take up far less space, and run quieter and much
more efficient. It's obvious the technology is here. All it takes is
for one company to take the backbones of a laptop and make a few
changes to afford this backbone the same expandability options as a
traditional desktop. And no Barry, you won't have to give up your 10
optical drives, your "live drive" sound blaster card, and 100 terabyte
hard disk drives and no your new computer won't require a 500 watt
power supply, but perhaps a 200 watt power supply!!! This is a win win
for the consumer and the environment.
Anonymous
a b D Laptop
March 12, 2005 1:57:03 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.laptops (More info?)

First off I am very aware of smaller form factors available. Every
single one of you guys has completely missed the point of my original
post which is: the technology exists today to make desktop computers
much smaller (and I am talking MUCH MUCH smaller!!!) and run much much
more efficiently than today's traditional desktop. My hope is that
computer companies will eventually see this and start making computers
that offer the expandability of a traditional desktop with the
efficiency of a laptop. These computers don't have to be laptop
computers. They can resemble something more along the lines of the
smaller form factors available today.

Taking on the argument of performance, models from Hitachi Travel star
5400rpm hard drives as well as Toshiba's laptop drives all average 12ms
seek time which is on par with Seagate and Samsung's desktop hard
drives (and I'd guess most other manufacturer's) 12ms average seek
time. Regarding performance, there have been performance tests
comparing the Centrino with the Pentium 4. Depending on the type of
test being rendered, sometimes the Centrino looks better, sometimes the
Pentium 4 wins out.

http://216.239.63.104/search?q=cache:E3Zxj2BbM3kJ:www.w...

The fact that you could argue it either way implies that there isn't a
whole helluva lot of difference between the two. Based on the little
research I have done, I would say there is little to no difference in
performance and that you are splitting hairs.
Anonymous
a b D Laptop
March 12, 2005 2:02:51 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.laptops (More info?)

On 12 Mar 2005 10:19:47 -0800, pokemonn2@hotmail.com wrote:

>Pentium 4 3.0gigahertz processors and 100 megabyte hard drives which is
>way more than the average person needs by the way),

That sounds reasonable enough, but unfortunately that's not what
drives the market.

Do u feel like starting a "whay do everybody need a SVU" thread? (lets
not)


>I don't have the stats for power consumption of my new Dell laptop
>which uses the latest Sonoma chipset, but I would gander that the power
>consumption is probably considerably less than that of a traditional
>desktop and runs just as fast as a desktop with similar specs.

Technically, yer right.


>The question I pose to computer manufacturers is that why can't they
>make an effort to produce desktop computers that use less energy
>(perhaps incorporate the new Sonoma chipset in every desktop
>computer?!?), that take up far less space, and run quieter and much
>more efficient. It's obvious the technology is here.

You are looking at things from a Ben&Jerry point of view, and not from
people who run businesses, which unfortunately, have different
priorities than the ones u mentioned.


>hard disk drives and no your new computer won't require a 500 watt
>power supply, but perhaps a 200 watt power supply!!! This is a win win
>for the consumer and the environment.

If eveybody thinks like you, we would be all driving sensible cars,
Jimmy Carter (the first Pres. who had the gall to preach us
conservation) would had 2 very successfull terms. And Al Gore would
had won in a landslide, but NOOOoooooooo.
Anonymous
a b D Laptop
March 12, 2005 2:47:55 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.laptops (More info?)

Hi,

> as possible. As long as computers aren't pushing the limits of
> residential electrical circuits, and as long as they're still small
> enough to fit under a typical desk, there is absolutely no compelling

> reason to make them any smaller or more energy efficient than they

Sure there's a compelling reason - the cost of running a 250W desktop
is 1/5th the cost of running a 50W laptop. Why should we make all our
computers space heaters? This isn't the 1950s. Small computers use less
material. Energy-efficient computers are cheaper to own and less
wasteful.
Anonymous
a b D Laptop
March 12, 2005 4:04:19 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.laptops (More info?)

> > Sure there's a compelling reason - the cost of running a 250W
desktop
> > is 1/5th the cost of running a 50W laptop. Why should we make all
our
> >
>
> That's hardly compelling when most light bulbs still consume 60-100W,

You're missing the point. The energy and pollution costs can be saved.
Why not save them? Do you also drive a twelve-foot-wide V8 Cadillac?
Anonymous
a b D Laptop
March 12, 2005 4:17:11 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.laptops (More info?)

its like cellphones taking over landlines, in a couple of years or less
laptops will become the norm of the day.
Anonymous
a b D Laptop
March 12, 2005 4:23:58 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.laptops (More info?)

asdf
Anonymous
a b D Laptop
March 12, 2005 4:35:19 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.laptops (More info?)

iam trying to reply to bobb, so that i can see em right within his
message.
bobb wrote:
> On 10 Mar 2005 04:50:58 -0800, pokemonn2@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> >then it is conceivable that laptop computers could someday be
> >afforded the same type of expansion options enjoyed by traditional
> >desktops today.
>
> So you mean more pieces, bigger. All of a sudden your notebook (can't
> call them slaps laptops anymore) will look like a desktop.
>
>
> >The price of laptops is coming down every day. Even now you can
(with
> >coupons and a bit of good timing) buy a brand new Dell (well
equipped)
> >for under $700 shipped. IBM G40's with Pentium 4 processors can be
had
> >on the used market in the $500 range.
>
> So you assume that while notebooks components get cheaper (they are)
> desktop components are standing still?
>
>
> >Outside the argument of
> >expandability (and perhaps durability) it makes little sense to buy
a
> >desktop computer.
>
> Yer right, more purchases are toward the notebook arena, but the
> demise of desktops are prematurely exagerated.
>
> One emerging application is of the HomeTheater PC. Today, it would be
> very ugly to adapt a notebook for an HTPC application. The Mac Mini
> has got the right idea, but things are evolving. Meantime, while you
> may wait and wait and wait, plenty of people have built HTPCs with
> desktop components at reasonable prices.
Anonymous
a b D Laptop
March 12, 2005 4:37:12 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.laptops (More info?)

i really dont know wat iam doing, but yet tryin something to get
somewhre. sorry guys....
bobb wrote:
> On 10 Mar 2005 04:50:58 -0800, pokemonn2@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> >then it is conceivable that laptop computers could someday be
> >afforded the same type of expansion options enjoyed by traditional
> >desktops today.
>
> So you mean more pieces, bigger. All of a sudden your notebook (can't
> call them slaps laptops anymore) will look like a desktop.
>
>
> >The price of laptops is coming down every day. Even now you can
(with
> >coupons and a bit of good timing) buy a brand new Dell (well
equipped)
> >for under $700 shipped. IBM G40's with Pentium 4 processors can be
had
> >on the used market in the $500 range.
>
> So you assume that while notebooks components get cheaper (they are)
> desktop components are standing still?
>
>
> >Outside the argument of
> >expandability (and perhaps durability) it makes little sense to buy
a
> >desktop computer.
>
> Yer right, more purchases are toward the notebook arena, but the
> demise of desktops are prematurely exagerated.
>
> One emerging application is of the HomeTheater PC. Today, it would be
> very ugly to adapt a notebook for an HTPC application. The Mac Mini
> has got the right idea, but things are evolving. Meantime, while you
> may wait and wait and wait, plenty of people have built HTPCs with
> desktop components at reasonable prices.
Anonymous
a b D Laptop
March 12, 2005 6:19:38 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.laptops (More info?)

pokemonn2@hotmail.com wrote:

> First off I am very aware of smaller form factors available. Every
> single one of you guys has completely missed the point of my original
> post which is: the technology exists today to make desktop computers
> much smaller (and I am talking MUCH MUCH smaller!!!)

Smaller than a mini-Mac? So how do you make a machine smaller than that
with an internal power supply and a DVD drive?

> and run much much
> more efficiently than today's traditional desktop.

Please provide some actual _numbers_ to support your contention that laptops
"run much more efficiently than today's traditional desktop". Not just
your assumptions or some arm-waving. It's possible to plug a computer into
a watt-hour meter and determine its power consumption over the course of a
month. Try that with a desktop computer and a laptop computer configured
to have similar capabilities and show us that there is a significant
difference or find someone else who has.

> My hope is that
> computer companies will eventually see this and start making computers
> that offer the expandability of a traditional desktop with the
> efficiency of a laptop.

How are they going to do that? Don't just say "rah rah laptop technology".
How many expansion attachments of whatever kind are you going to provide?
How much power will have to be available for each? Are these devices to
all be powered by the same power supply that powers the computer or will
each have its own wall-wart like many devices that one attaches to a
laptop? What will these devices look like?

> These computers don't have to be laptop
> computers. They can resemble something more along the lines of the
> smaller form factors available today.

And how then is your proposed machine different from the small form factor
machines available today?
>
> Taking on the argument of performance, models from Hitachi Travel star
> 5400rpm hard drives as well as Toshiba's laptop drives all average 12ms
> seek time which is on par with Seagate and Samsung's desktop hard
> drives (and I'd guess most other manufacturer's) 12ms average seek
> time.

The access time on a 5400 RPM Travelstar is 17.5 ms (note that access
contains other elements than seek time) and its maximum transfer rate is
493 Mb/sec. The same manufacturer's 7K80 desktop drive ($46 from
Directron.com) has an access time of 12.9 ms and a maximum transfer rate of
757 Mb/sec. Their 15K147 has an access time of 5.3ms and a maximum
transfer rate of 1129 Mb/sec.

So much for your argument of equivalent disk performance.

> Regarding performance, there have been performance tests
> comparing the Centrino with the Pentium 4. Depending on the type of
> test being rendered, sometimes the Centrino looks better, sometimes the
> Pentium 4 wins out.

http://216.239.63.104/search?q=cache:E3Zxj2BbM3kJ:www.w...

And how often does the Centrino beat an Athlon64? How about a dual Opteron?

> The fact that you could argue it either way implies that there isn't a
> whole helluva lot of difference between the two. Based on the little
> research I have done, I would say there is little to no difference in
> performance and that you are splitting hairs.

Perhaps you should conduct more research then rather than assuming that
you're smarter than all the engineers and all the marketing guys at all the
computer manufacturers in the world.

--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
Anonymous
a b D Laptop
March 12, 2005 6:45:02 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.laptops (More info?)

larwe@larwe.com wrote:

> Hi,
>
>> as possible. As long as computers aren't pushing the limits of
>> residential electrical circuits, and as long as they're still small
>> enough to fit under a typical desk, there is absolutely no compelling
>
>> reason to make them any smaller or more energy efficient than they
>
> Sure there's a compelling reason - the cost of running a 250W desktop
> is 1/5th the cost of running a 50W laptop.

How many desktops actually consume 250 watts during normal operation? And
what are they doing that is consuming that power? You're assuming that
desktop machine _always_ consumes the full rated output of its power
supply.

> Why should we make all our
> computers space heaters? This isn't the 1950s. Small computers use less
> material. Energy-efficient computers are cheaper to own and less
> wasteful.

So run the numbers for me. Tell me how much cheaper a laptop-technology
machine is to own than small form factor desktop.

--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
Anonymous
a b D Laptop
March 12, 2005 9:25:26 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.laptops (More info?)

larwe@larwe.com wrote:

>
>> > Sure there's a compelling reason - the cost of running a 250W
> desktop
>> > is 1/5th the cost of running a 50W laptop. Why should we make all
> our
>> >
>>
>> That's hardly compelling when most light bulbs still consume 60-100W,
>
> You're missing the point. The energy and pollution costs can be saved.

There's a life policy that someone once described as "major in the majors
and minor in the minors". Fix the _big_ pollution and energy consumption
problems, then worry about little minor nitpicky things like making
computers a little more efficient.

> Why not save them? Do you also drive a twelve-foot-wide V8 Cadillac?

When did Cadillac start making mining trucks?

--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
Anonymous
a b D Laptop
March 12, 2005 9:26:25 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.laptops (More info?)

kiss_my_ass wrote:

> its like cellphones taking over landlines, in a couple of years or less
> laptops will become the norm of the day.

In what universe have cellphones taken over landlines? I'm sorry, but one
cannot get broadband on a cellphone.

--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
Anonymous
a b D Laptop
March 12, 2005 10:41:01 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.laptops (More info?)

pokemonn2@hotmail.com wrote:
> First off I am very aware of smaller form factors available. Every
> single one of you guys has completely missed the point of my original
> post which is: the technology exists today to make desktop computers
> much smaller (and I am talking MUCH MUCH smaller!!!) and run much much
> more efficiently than today's traditional desktop. My hope is that
> computer companies will eventually see this and start making computers
> that offer the expandability of a traditional desktop with the
> efficiency of a laptop. These computers don't have to be laptop
> computers. They can resemble something more along the lines of the
> smaller form factors available today.
>
> Taking on the argument of performance, models from Hitachi Travel star
> 5400rpm hard drives as well as Toshiba's laptop drives all average 12ms
> seek time which is on par with Seagate and Samsung's desktop hard
> drives (and I'd guess most other manufacturer's) 12ms average seek
> time. Regarding performance, there have been performance tests
> comparing the Centrino with the Pentium 4. Depending on the type of
> test being rendered, sometimes the Centrino looks better, sometimes the
> Pentium 4 wins out.
>
> http://216.239.63.104/search?q=cache:E3Zxj2BbM3kJ:www.w...
>
> The fact that you could argue it either way implies that there isn't a
> whole helluva lot of difference between the two. Based on the little
> research I have done, I would say there is little to no difference in
> performance and that you are splitting hairs.
>

When it comes down to it, the biggest question here is "What's
the point?". Let me tell you a little story. Here in Lubbock,
Texas, the land is pretty much perfectly flat, and it's barely
usable for farming. Land is the one commodity that we have in
spades. That's why you hardly ever see multistory parking
garages. We have HUGE parking lots. Why? Because there simply
is no need to go to the extra expense when land is so readily
available. We couldn't run out of empty land in a thousand years.
In a place like Manhattan where there's a limited amount of land,
it'd be positively criminal to waste space like we do here in West
Texas.

My point here is that electricity and desk space are rarely at such
a premium that there's a real point to making computers as tiny
as possible. As long as computers aren't pushing the limits of
residential electrical circuits, and as long as they're still small
enough to fit under a typical desk, there is absolutely no compelling
reason to make them any smaller or more energy efficient than they
already are. In situations where desk space and electricity ARE at
a premium -- say, on an airplane -- we have developed solutions to
meet that problem -- laptops.
Anonymous
a b D Laptop
March 12, 2005 11:13:32 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.laptops (More info?)

<larwe@larwe.com> wrote in message
news:1110656875.069435.42290@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

> Sure there's a compelling reason - the cost of running a 250W desktop
> is 1/5th the cost of running a 50W laptop. Why should we make all our
> computers space heaters? This isn't the 1950s. Small computers use less
> material. Energy-efficient computers are cheaper to own and less
> wasteful.

It's also been stated that 5% (IIRC) of USA power is used by all the PCs
(etc?) that people do not bother to turn off at night. That is worthwhile
saving, hence industry was encouraged to make energy-saving PCs.

IIRC, buildings often found that offices full of PC equipment generated more
heat than the air-con could handle, so they had to overcool in the morning
to avoid overheating when the PCs were switched on.

I suspect most personal PCs spend most of their time in the Idle process.
e.g. when I am typing e-mails or reading stuff.
I'd like the CPU to switch the clock down during this time, to reduce the
heat and therefore the fan noise.

K.
Anonymous
a b D Laptop
March 12, 2005 11:13:33 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.laptops (More info?)

Kryten wrote:

>
> <larwe@larwe.com> wrote in message
> news:1110656875.069435.42290@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
>> Sure there's a compelling reason - the cost of running a 250W desktop
>> is 1/5th the cost of running a 50W laptop. Why should we make all our
>> computers space heaters? This isn't the 1950s. Small computers use less
>> material. Energy-efficient computers are cheaper to own and less
>> wasteful.
>
> It's also been stated that 5% (IIRC) of USA power is used by all the PCs
> (etc?) that people do not bother to turn off at night. That is worthwhile
> saving, hence industry was encouraged to make energy-saving PCs.
>
> IIRC, buildings often found that offices full of PC equipment generated
> more heat than the air-con could handle, so they had to overcool in the
> morning to avoid overheating when the PCs were switched on.
>
> I suspect most personal PCs spend most of their time in the Idle process.
> e.g. when I am typing e-mails or reading stuff.
> I'd like the CPU to switch the clock down during this time, to reduce the
> heat and therefore the fan noise.

How much will "switching the clock down" save vs simply running at idle like
they do anyway? The clock speed reduction on laptops is mainly to reduce
power consumption when the processor is actually doing something and not
just idling.

> K.

--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
Anonymous
a b D Laptop
March 12, 2005 11:33:25 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.laptops (More info?)

larwe@larwe.com wrote:
> Hi,
> Sure there's a compelling reason - the cost of running a 250W desktop
> is 1/5th the cost of running a 50W laptop. Why should we make all our
> computers space heaters? This isn't the 1950s. Small computers use less
> material. Energy-efficient computers are cheaper to own and less
> wasteful.
>

That's hardly compelling when most light bulbs still consume 60-100W,
and refrigerators around 500W, and a central air conditioner 3500W .
(Figures taken from a site I googled -- not necessarily canonical,
but you get the idea.) If you're concerned about energy consumption,
there are many things to optimize before you get to your computer.
In the average residence, a desktop computer takes up an almost
negligible amount of power.

Of course, there are other applications where computers take up a
larger percentage of the electricity bill -- businesses, for example.
And there are relatively energy-efficient desktops and thin clients
available, but the energy savings always have to be weighed against the
purchase and transition costs of a new system. So for some businesses
it makes sense, for others it doesn't. Of course, even for relatively
computer-heavy businesses, heating/cooling costs will still easily
trump computer usage. Granted, some of the costs of cooling are
directly attributable to the heat given off by inefficient computers,
but considering the human body gives off over 100W when sitting still
(http://ergo.human.cornell.edu/studentdownloads/DEA350no...)
and as much as 1600W when active
(http://www.nanomedicine.com/NMIIA/15.3.8.htm), and how much the sun
can heat a building, I still doubt that a typical business with a
computer-to-human ratio of approx. 1:1 would have the majority of its
energy costs come from computers. Especially considering that the
computers actually reduce heating costs in the winter. Of course,
this is all off the top of my head -- if you have different figures,
let's hear 'em.

Furthermore, in spaces like server racks, there are many products available
to make computing more efficient, such as distributed DC wiring which
saves approx. 30% in heat output and electrical consumption. High-density
computing is a space -- like the laptop space -- where there are compelling
reasons to develop higher-efficiency computers, and such work is being done.
Anonymous
a b D Laptop
March 12, 2005 11:54:46 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.laptops (More info?)

Kryten <kryten_droid_obfusticator@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>
> It's also been stated that 5% (IIRC) of USA power is used by all the PCs
> (etc?) that people do not bother to turn off at night. That is worthwhile
> saving, hence industry was encouraged to make energy-saving PCs.

Well, in this case it'd be easy enough to just turn off the computers. But
I doubt the "5% of all USA power" figure. Even if the figure is correct,
it just proves my point -- electrical costs are currently not high enough
that people even worry about turning off their computers at night. It's a
commodity which, by and large, is in abundant supply. Yes I know that
there are blackouts and the like, and of course I fully support whatever
efforts people make to save energy in whatever way possible. However, the
economics clearly state that there is not a compelling demand for more
efficient computers. They'd be nice, sure, but lots of things would be nice.

> IIRC, buildings often found that offices full of PC equipment generated more
> heat than the air-con could handle, so they had to overcool in the morning
> to avoid overheating when the PCs were switched on.

Well, as you tell it, this is a clear case of confounded variables. As I
mentioned earlier, the human body gives off a minimum of 100W of heat. Add
in the 900W coffee maker, the 300W of lighting per room, a 1000W+ copy machine,
-- all of which are turned on at the same time as the desktop PCs -- and
you've got a lot of work to show that the PC is the big problem here.

> I suspect most personal PCs spend most of their time in the Idle process.
> e.g. when I am typing e-mails or reading stuff.
> I'd like the CPU to switch the clock down during this time, to reduce the
> heat and therefore the fan noise.

Already done. Your 350W computer doesn't consume 350W all the time, if ever.
All modern CPU's have low-power states. A 2.2GHz A64 system with a GeForce
6800GT video card, 1GB DDR RAM, and a 10kRPM Raptor hard drive, with a
600W power supply (basically a monster of a desktop machine), still took up
only 200W at full load, and under 120W when the CPU was throttled down and
running idle:

http://www.gamepc.com/labs/view_content.asp?id=lpcpuso&...

Note that this is power consumption *at the AC outlet*. Also, as you can
see, the Dothan-core Pentium-M based machine used even less electricity,
peaking at 135W.
Anonymous
a b D Laptop
March 12, 2005 11:54:47 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.laptops (More info?)

wbw wrote:

> Kryten <kryten_droid_obfusticator@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>>
>> It's also been stated that 5% (IIRC) of USA power is used by all the PCs
>> (etc?) that people do not bother to turn off at night. That is worthwhile
>> saving, hence industry was encouraged to make energy-saving PCs.
>
> Well, in this case it'd be easy enough to just turn off the computers.
> But
> I doubt the "5% of all USA power" figure. Even if the figure is correct,
> it just proves my point -- electrical costs are currently not high enough
> that people even worry about turning off their computers at night. It's a
> commodity which, by and large, is in abundant supply. Yes I know that
> there are blackouts and the like, and of course I fully support whatever
> efforts people make to save energy in whatever way possible. However, the
> economics clearly state that there is not a compelling demand for more
> efficient computers. They'd be nice, sure, but lots of things would be
> nice.
>
>> IIRC, buildings often found that offices full of PC equipment generated
>> more heat than the air-con could handle, so they had to overcool in the
>> morning to avoid overheating when the PCs were switched on.
>
> Well, as you tell it, this is a clear case of confounded variables. As I
> mentioned earlier, the human body gives off a minimum of 100W of heat.
> Add in the 900W coffee maker, the 300W of lighting per room, a 1000W+ copy
> machine, -- all of which are turned on at the same time as the desktop PCs
> -- and you've got a lot of work to show that the PC is the big problem
> here.
>
>> I suspect most personal PCs spend most of their time in the Idle process.
>> e.g. when I am typing e-mails or reading stuff.
>> I'd like the CPU to switch the clock down during this time, to reduce the
>> heat and therefore the fan noise.
>
> Already done. Your 350W computer doesn't consume 350W all the time, if
> ever.
> All modern CPU's have low-power states. A 2.2GHz A64 system with a
> GeForce 6800GT video card, 1GB DDR RAM, and a 10kRPM Raptor hard drive,
> with a 600W power supply (basically a monster of a desktop machine), still
> took up only 200W at full load, and under 120W when the CPU was throttled
> down and running idle:
>
>
http://www.gamepc.com/labs/view_content.asp?id=lpcpuso&...
>
> Note that this is power consumption *at the AC outlet*. Also, as you can
> see, the Dothan-core Pentium-M based machine used even less electricity,
> peaking at 135W.

While Anand tried the latest generation of Athlon 64 3500+ and found that
the machine drew 114 watts at full power--so we have the most powerful
processor on the market actually drawing less power than a pitiful little
Pentium M.

--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
Anonymous
a b D Laptop
March 13, 2005 12:00:40 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.laptops (More info?)

J. Clarke <jclarke.usenet@snet.net.invalid> wrote:
>
> Smaller than a mini-Mac? So how do you make a machine smaller than that
> with an internal power supply and a DVD drive?
>

Just FYI, the Mac mini has an external 85W power supply.
Anonymous
a b D Laptop
March 13, 2005 12:36:05 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.laptops (More info?)

larwe@larwe.com wrote:
>
> You're missing the point. The energy and pollution costs can be saved.
> Why not save them? Do you also drive a twelve-foot-wide V8 Cadillac?
>

Because there are plenty of BETTER PLACES to conserve that same -- or
more -- energy. I'm not going to stop anybody from making a more
efficient computer. In fact, I welcome it. However, if you look on
a broader scale, there are MANY places in our society where far more
energy is wasted far more blatantly than our desktop computers. You
mentioned one of them -- cars. A 1% gain in efficiency at producing
electricity from more-or-less raw materials -- at electrical plants,
in cars and generators and solar panels and windmills -- is a far
better way to spend our time, energy, thoughts and money, than
worrying about the energy consumption of various consumer gadgets with
a definite and relatively short obsolescence horizon. There are
always new and better ideas which will make current technology -- as
well as any efficiency improvements to that technology -- obselete.

I'm glad as hell that Sony or some other place didn't waste hundreds
of millions of dollars finding ways to make their CRT monitors more
energy-efficient, because that money probably found its way into
improving LCD-manufacturing processes, and LCDs completely blow CRTs
out of the water when it comes to energy efficiency. There is no
way to incrementally improve the efficiency of CRTs to make them
consume the same amount of electricity as a comparable LCD. Any
energies in that direction would have been thoroughly wasted. In
10 years, almost all of those old CRTs will be out of use.

Similarly, in 10 years, almost all of the processors we're currently
using will be out of use. And who knows what will replace them?
There are plenty of ideas out there that might make the idea of a
standalone desktop "computer" obsolete. IBM's new "Cell" processor,
for example, has that potential -- the potential that you could have
one Cell in your computer, and when you need more computing power,
you can seamlessly hook it up to the Cells in your PlayStation, cable
box, and PDA. I'd rather have our smartest people working on that
kind of problem, than on incremental improvements to today's technology.
Anonymous
a b D Laptop
March 13, 2005 12:49:24 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.laptops (More info?)

Hear hear! Finally...2 people who "get it"!!! Yes there are many
reasons to make desktop computers more energy efficient and more
compact along the way as well.

Steven
Anonymous
a b D Laptop
March 13, 2005 1:36:29 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.laptops (More info?)

On 12 Mar 2005 13:04:19 -0800, larwe@larwe.com wrote:


>> That's hardly compelling when most light bulbs still consume 60-100W,

>You're missing the point. The energy and pollution costs can be saved.
>Why not save them? Do you also drive a twelve-foot-wide V8 Cadillac?


YOU ARE IGNORING the points made (or not able to understand). Your
view is one-dimensional. Your argument goes, if life is precious, it's
beyond value, then it makes sense to spend every effort/money to save
just one life - Not.

When you grow up, and when you get to a position where you have to
make tough selections based on limited resources, and when you are
educated enough to work with priorities, and when u understand the
80/20 rule, then u will remember how one-dimensional your current view
is.
Anonymous
a b D Laptop
March 13, 2005 2:57:36 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.laptops (More info?)

wbw wrote:

> Well, in this case it'd be easy enough to just turn off the computers.


True, but as we know people often can't be bothered.

> I doubt the "5% of all USA power" figure.

It may have been domestic power only.

> I doubt the "5% of all USA power" figure. Even if the figure is correct,
> it just proves my point -- electrical costs are currently not high enough
> that people even worry about turning off their computers at night.

True. I can see there is no point asking people to do something they don't
care about.

It's up to us engineers to make the devices more frugal than their users.

> Well, as you tell it, this is a clear case of confounded variables.

No, the particular building HVAC systems were designed at a point in time
where there were fewer computers using less power each. Ee, I remember when
CPUs had to make do with a fanless heatsink!

> you've got a lot of work to show that the PC is the big problem

The story was the buildings were okay at one point in time, and post PCs
they were not.
Unfortunately I can't recall the source.

> Your 350W computer doesn't consume 350W all the time, if ever.

I'm just complaining that my laptop keeps the fan going even when I'm typing
a few characters per second. And doesn't turn it off until idle for a fair
while.

> a monster of a desktop machine), still
> took up only 200W at full load

And don't forget a monitor will take around 60W.

"J. Clarke" <jclarke.usenet@snet.net.invalid> wrote

> Athlon 64 3500+ drew 114 watts at full power
> so we have the most powerful processor on the market
> actually drawing less power than a pitiful little Pentium M.

Interesting.

Maybe we should make machines that can run in minimum or maximum mode.
The latter would be used for heavy duty apps like games and the like,
while the former would just be enough for typing in stuff and reading email.
Anonymous
a b D Laptop
March 13, 2005 2:57:37 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.laptops (More info?)

Kryten wrote:

> wbw wrote:
>
>> Well, in this case it'd be easy enough to just turn off the computers.
>
>
> True, but as we know people often can't be bothered.
>
>> I doubt the "5% of all USA power" figure.
>
> It may have been domestic power only.
>
>> I doubt the "5% of all USA power" figure. Even if the figure is correct,
>> it just proves my point -- electrical costs are currently not high enough
>> that people even worry about turning off their computers at night.
>
> True. I can see there is no point asking people to do something they don't
> care about.
>
> It's up to us engineers to make the devices more frugal than their users.

You mean that it's up to us to force something on people that they don't
want? Sorry, but I don't see the making of social policy as a job that is
within the scope of engineering nor do engineers have a particularly good
track record when put in positions in which it their job to make social
policy.

>> Well, as you tell it, this is a clear case of confounded variables.
>
> No, the particular building HVAC systems were designed at a point in time
> where there were fewer computers using less power each. Ee, I remember
> when CPUs had to make do with a fanless heatsink!

_I_ remember when CPUs had their own environmentally controlled with their
own dedicated air conditioning systems that sometimes drew 100KW or more.

If you think that the power consumption of PCs is excessive you've never
seen heavy iron.

>> you've got a lot of work to show that the PC is the big problem
>
> The story was the buildings were okay at one point in time, and post PCs
> they were not.
> Unfortunately I can't recall the source.
>
>> Your 350W computer doesn't consume 350W all the time, if ever.
>
> I'm just complaining that my laptop keeps the fan going even when I'm
> typing a few characters per second. And doesn't turn it off until idle for
> a fair while.

Since you're so concerned about energy maybe you should ditch that power
hungry laptop for Via-based desktop that doesn't need a fan for anything.

>> a monster of a desktop machine), still
>> took up only 200W at full load
>
> And don't forget a monitor will take around 60W.

I thought that you said that a laptop with the same monitor technology drew
less than that.

> "J. Clarke" <jclarke.usenet@snet.net.invalid> wrote
>
>> Athlon 64 3500+ drew 114 watts at full power
>> so we have the most powerful processor on the market
>> actually drawing less power than a pitiful little Pentium M.
>
> Interesting.
>
> Maybe we should make machines that can run in minimum or maximum mode.
> The latter would be used for heavy duty apps like games and the like,
> while the former would just be enough for typing in stuff and reading
> email.

Maybe we should just find more important things to worry about.

--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
Anonymous
a b D Laptop
March 13, 2005 4:26:10 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.laptops (More info?)

Kryten <kryten_droid_obfusticator@ntlworld.com> wrote:

> It may have been domestic power only.

By "domestic" you mean "household"? Even then I find it hard to believe,
and if you rated total household *energy* consumption (including gas heaters,
stoves, water heaters, etc.) it'd be even lower.

> True. I can see there is no point asking people to do something they don't
> care about.
>
> It's up to us engineers to make the devices more frugal than their users.

No, it's up to the engineers to give the users what they want. If there is
demand for low power and heat requirements -- as there is in the laptop
space -- do your best to do that. If there's not, but there is demand for
other things such as speed -- as there is in the desktop space -- do your
best to do that. The worst products are the ones that don't take into
account the desires of the consumer. Certainly there are some "eco"
consumers out there, and maybe that's a good niche for somebody to fill
and start marketing Pentium-M desktops.

Obviously there are attempts out there to conserve power in desktops.
Speedstep, PowerNow, and Cool 'n' Quiet all scale back CPU speeds, and
GPUs can turn off their 3D units when not in use. Pretty much all of this
is in an effort to keep things such that air cooling is sufficient and the
system fans are not so loud as to be overbearing -- not because lower
power consumption is the goal. Heatsinks and fans cannot get much larger
without having to make changes to the physical form factor of motherboards and
cases. Indeed, Intel's recent BTX spec rearranges things so that the CPU can
use a somewhat bigger heatsink assembly, and it gets cooler air from the front
of the case. However, the case volume and airflow capabilities are not
significantly changed.

> I'm just complaining that my laptop keeps the fan going even when I'm typing
> a few characters per second. And doesn't turn it off until idle for a fair
> while.

Well, that's an engineering problem. :)  Nobody wants a noisy laptop.

I love how this argument has morphed. My original statement was that
there is no compelling reason for making more-efficient desktop
computers. There are good reasons, maybe even many of them. However,
there is still no compelling reason, nor do the reasons presented thus
far add up to a compelling case. Anecdotal instances of office buildings
having to upgrade their HVAC systems aren't enough. The fact that a
computer produces heat on the order of that produced by the human body
tells me that there really isn't much of a problem here. Until the day
when incandescent light bulbs are a rarity in homes, there is no reason
to worry about the electrical consumption and heat output of desktop
computers.
Anonymous
a b D Laptop
March 13, 2005 6:25:43 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.laptops (More info?)

> YOU ARE IGNORING the points made (or not able to understand). Your
> view is one-dimensional. Your argument goes, if life is precious,
it's

I hope you're trolling. I work as a design engineer in the consumer
electronics industry, as it happens (not in computers). People want a
feature, you make it. It doesn't matter whether it makes sense
globally. A perfect example for you is McDonald's selling diet soda.

And people want computers that use less energy. We ask our suppliers,
for instance, when we're buying 5,000 PCs.

Personal computer sales to individuals are a relatively small market
next to sales to industry and business.
Anonymous
a b D Laptop
March 13, 2005 10:33:38 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.laptops (More info?)

stevenqrdh@gmail.com wrote:

> Hear hear! Finally...2 people who "get it"!!! Yes there are many
> reasons to make desktop computers more energy efficient and more
> compact along the way as well.

And another one who doesn't "get it". If you want a smaller, more energy
efficient desktop computer then just go buy one and quit complaining. If
you think they aren't available you're not looking very hard.

--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
Anonymous
a b D Laptop
March 13, 2005 10:43:06 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.laptops (More info?)

larwe@larwe.com wrote:

>
>> YOU ARE IGNORING the points made (or not able to understand). Your
>> view is one-dimensional. Your argument goes, if life is precious,
> it's
>
> I hope you're trolling. I work as a design engineer in the consumer
> electronics industry, as it happens (not in computers). People want a
> feature, you make it. It doesn't matter whether it makes sense
> globally. A perfect example for you is McDonald's selling diet soda.
>
> And people want computers that use less energy.

If that were the case then they would buy them.

> We ask our suppliers,
> for instance, when we're buying 5,000 PCs.

And so the only machines you buy are mini-ITX machines, which typically have
less power consumption than laptops.

> Personal computer sales to individuals are a relatively small market
> next to sales to industry and business.

Now let's see, you're saying that "industry and business" is the major
market and that "industry and business" sees small size and high energy
efficiency as the highest good in computing? So why are they not
exclusively then buying the smallest, most energy-efficient machines on the
market?

You're claiming that there is this unfilled need, and yet there are in fact
many machines on the market that fill that need, but those machines are not
selling in such profusion as to drive the others out of the market. So why
is that? Perhaps there is some other priority that you are overlooking?

--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
Anonymous
a b D Laptop
March 13, 2005 5:01:06 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.laptops (More info?)

J. Clarke wrote:

> larwe@larwe.com wrote:
>
>
>>>YOU ARE IGNORING the points made (or not able to understand). Your
>>>view is one-dimensional. Your argument goes, if life is precious,
>>
>>it's
>>
>>I hope you're trolling. I work as a design engineer in the consumer
>>electronics industry, as it happens (not in computers). People want a
>>feature, you make it. It doesn't matter whether it makes sense
>>globally. A perfect example for you is McDonald's selling diet soda.
>>
>>And people want computers that use less energy.
>
>
> If that were the case then they would buy them.
>
>
>>We ask our suppliers,
>>for instance, when we're buying 5,000 PCs.
>
>
> And so the only machines you buy are mini-ITX machines, which typically have
> less power consumption than laptops.
>
>
>>Personal computer sales to individuals are a relatively small market
>>next to sales to industry and business.
>
>
> Now let's see, you're saying that "industry and business" is the major
> market and that "industry and business" sees small size and high energy
> efficiency as the highest good in computing? So why are they not
> exclusively then buying the smallest, most energy-efficient machines on the
> market?
>
> You're claiming that there is this unfilled need, and yet there are in fact
> many machines on the market that fill that need, but those machines are not
> selling in such profusion as to drive the others out of the market. So why
> is that? Perhaps there is some other priority that you are overlooking?
>
Joining the thread a bit late, I would just say that, although I
perfectly see the point of the OP:

- some people buy SUV (which I hate because of the glare of their lights
and ,fog lights of course to in full sunshine, of course too - in my
mirror), other buy hybrids.
- many have mentioned the ease of maintaining and upgrading a desktop as
opposed to a laptop.
- I like to put my keyboard (which I chose) where I want, not where a
laptop tells me too. Same for the screen...
- Lastly, all things being equal (this is the key), building smaller
parts is almost always more expensive.
- The point of energy conservation is very valid but before computing
makes a dent in our waste, let us be more reasonable and drive cars
really matching our needs instead of buying the heavier and clumsier car
we can get with the worst possible mileage, to carry one, admittedly
heavier and heavier person ... Another form of waste, form factor I
might add!

At the end of the day, I have both a desktop and two laptops. The one I
use most : my desktop. But once I am on the move .... !

Opposing desktops to laptops makes no sense: as everybody or nearly
everybody pointed out, things constantly evolve and gaps tend to narrow.

Regards
-

--
John Doue
Anonymous
a b D Laptop
March 13, 2005 5:01:07 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.laptops (More info?)

John Doue wrote:

> J. Clarke wrote:
>
>> larwe@larwe.com wrote:
>>
>>
>>>>YOU ARE IGNORING the points made (or not able to understand). Your
>>>>view is one-dimensional. Your argument goes, if life is precious,
>>>
>>>it's
>>>
>>>I hope you're trolling. I work as a design engineer in the consumer
>>>electronics industry, as it happens (not in computers). People want a
>>>feature, you make it. It doesn't matter whether it makes sense
>>>globally. A perfect example for you is McDonald's selling diet soda.
>>>
>>>And people want computers that use less energy.
>>
>>
>> If that were the case then they would buy them.
>>
>>
>>>We ask our suppliers,
>>>for instance, when we're buying 5,000 PCs.
>>
>>
>> And so the only machines you buy are mini-ITX machines, which typically
>> have less power consumption than laptops.
>>
>>
>>>Personal computer sales to individuals are a relatively small market
>>>next to sales to industry and business.
>>
>>
>> Now let's see, you're saying that "industry and business" is the major
>> market and that "industry and business" sees small size and high energy
>> efficiency as the highest good in computing? So why are they not
>> exclusively then buying the smallest, most energy-efficient machines on
>> the market?
>>
>> You're claiming that there is this unfilled need, and yet there are in
>> fact many machines on the market that fill that need, but those machines
>> are not
>> selling in such profusion as to drive the others out of the market. So
>> why
>> is that? Perhaps there is some other priority that you are overlooking?
>>
> Joining the thread a bit late, I would just say that, although I
> perfectly see the point of the OP:
>
> - some people buy SUV (which I hate because of the glare of their lights
> and ,fog lights of course to in full sunshine, of course too - in my
> mirror), other buy hybrids.
> - many have mentioned the ease of maintaining and upgrading a desktop as
> opposed to a laptop.
> - I like to put my keyboard (which I chose) where I want, not where a
> laptop tells me too. Same for the screen...
> - Lastly, all things being equal (this is the key), building smaller
> parts is almost always more expensive.
> - The point of energy conservation is very valid but before computing
> makes a dent in our waste, let us be more reasonable and drive cars
> really matching our needs instead of buying the heavier and clumsier car
> we can get with the worst possible mileage, to carry one, admittedly
> heavier and heavier person ... Another form of waste, form factor I
> might add!
>
> At the end of the day, I have both a desktop and two laptops. The one I
> use most : my desktop. But once I am on the move .... !
>
> Opposing desktops to laptops makes no sense: as everybody or nearly
> everybody pointed out, things constantly evolve and gaps tend to narrow.

And personally I have a server that runs 24/7 and does various things at
various times (for example answering the phone and recording HD TV shows)
as well as a laptop.
>
> Regards
> -
>

--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
Anonymous
a b D Laptop
March 13, 2005 11:58:10 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.laptops (More info?)

pokemonn2@hotmail.com wrote:
>the technology exists today to make desktop computers
>much smaller (and I am talking MUCH MUCH smaller!!!) and run much much
>more efficiently than today's traditional desktop.

But that's not all there is to computers. What about people who like
to customize their machines? What about people who want or need more
memory, or a dozen hard drives, or quad-SLI graphics cards? I can get
replacement optical drives for my desktop from dozens of places within
a couple of miles of my house, but a replacement optical drive for my
laptop is pretty much only coming from Dell.

>Taking on the argument of performance

There's an awful lot more to performance than clock rate, including
front side bus speed, memory bandwidth, disk performance, etc, and in
general you're going to get more horsepower for your dollar with a
desktop than with a 'laptop reformulated to look like a tiny,
low-power desktop'.
Anonymous
a b D Laptop
March 14, 2005 12:46:14 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.laptops (More info?)

William P.N. Smith wrote:

> pokemonn2@hotmail.com wrote:
>>the technology exists today to make desktop computers
>>much smaller (and I am talking MUCH MUCH smaller!!!) and run much much
>>more efficiently than today's traditional desktop.
>
> But that's not all there is to computers. What about people who like
> to customize their machines? What about people who want or need more
> memory, or a dozen hard drives, or quad-SLI graphics cards? I can get
> replacement optical drives for my desktop from dozens of places within
> a couple of miles of my house, but a replacement optical drive for my
> laptop is pretty much only coming from Dell.
>
>>Taking on the argument of performance
>
> There's an awful lot more to performance than clock rate, including
> front side bus speed, memory bandwidth, disk performance, etc, and in
> general you're going to get more horsepower for your dollar with a
> desktop than with a 'laptop reformulated to look like a tiny,
> low-power desktop'.

And so far I have yet to see a quad processor laptop.

--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
Anonymous
a b D Laptop
March 14, 2005 3:31:32 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.laptops (More info?)

J. Clarke wrote:
> kiss_my_ass wrote:
>
>
>>its like cellphones taking over landlines, in a couple of years or less
>>laptops will become the norm of the day.
>
>
> In what universe have cellphones taken over landlines? I'm sorry, but one
> cannot get broadband on a cellphone.
>

broadband will be wireless in a few years (trust me, i'm working on it
right now!) and that'll be the end of telcos as they exist right now -
they won't have a (near) monopoly on the dominant way of getting
reliable data into your house or business. there'll be a hell of a
shake-out, the usual lobbying of congress/parliaments to preserve
monopolies by ridiculous anti-capitalist stealth (you ain't seen nothing
with the way the music industry is resisting technology change).

i reckon in 10-15 years the copper wires between your house and the
local telephone exchange will be unused.

-p
Anonymous
a b D Laptop
March 14, 2005 3:31:33 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.laptops (More info?)

plated metal wrote:

> J. Clarke wrote:
>> kiss_my_ass wrote:
>>
>>
>>>its like cellphones taking over landlines, in a couple of years or less
>>>laptops will become the norm of the day.
>>
>>
>> In what universe have cellphones taken over landlines? I'm sorry, but
>> one cannot get broadband on a cellphone.
>>
>
> broadband will be wireless in a few years (trust me, i'm working on it
> right now!)

And of course wired broadband will be standing still the whole time.

> and that'll be the end of telcos as they exist right now -
> they won't have a (near) monopoly on the dominant way of getting
> reliable data into your house or business.

Or so you told the venture capitalist.

> there'll be a hell of a
> shake-out, the usual lobbying of congress/parliaments to preserve
> monopolies by ridiculous anti-capitalist stealth (you ain't seen nothing
> with the way the music industry is resisting technology change).
>
> i reckon in 10-15 years the copper wires between your house and the
> local telephone exchange will be unused.

Or else it will be carrying 10-100 Mb/sec using the same technology you're
using to get T1 speed out of broadband.

> -p

--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
March 14, 2005 3:31:33 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.laptops (More info?)

>broadband will be wireless in a few years (trust me, i'm working on it
>right now!) and that'll be the end of telcos as they exist right now -

So you are saying that the wireless phones of the
future will just be small "computers" catching a
broadband signal off nearest tower?

And that ALL communications will occur with such a
device whether it be voice, email, data, etc?
Anonymous
a b D Laptop
March 14, 2005 6:30:00 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.laptops (More info?)

<pokemonn2@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1110651587.165667.201760@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Sorry Barry Watzman but your entire post is based on incorrect
> assumption. If you would actually take the time to read my original
> post CLOSELY you will see that I NEVER said that laptops were the equal
> of and could do everthing that a desktop can do.
>
> What I'm trying to say is, if they can make laptop computers with the
> power and functionality of today's powerful computers (that being
> Pentium 4 3.0gigahertz processors and 100 megabyte hard drives which is
> way more than the average person needs by the way), why is it that
> desktop computers are being made so big and clunky and use up so much
> power?

Actually, the laptop designer has to go to fairly extraordinary lengths to
fit that much computing power into such a small package. Things have to be
designed to much tighter tolerances, with much more complex engineering,
employing more expensive materials.

In the end, it all boils down to cost vs. benefit. In the server world,
what you suggest is already the norm; with multiple 'blade' server
packages--each a complete computer--mounted into a common, compact rack.

Given that smaller desktop form factors exist, if that is what you
want...buy one.

jak
>
Anonymous
a b D Laptop
March 15, 2005 1:22:21 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.laptops (More info?)

J. Clarke wrote:
> plated metal wrote:
>
>
>>J. Clarke wrote:
>>
>>>kiss_my_ass wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>its like cellphones taking over landlines, in a couple of years or less
>>>>laptops will become the norm of the day.
>>>
>>>
>>>In what universe have cellphones taken over landlines? I'm sorry, but
>>>one cannot get broadband on a cellphone.
>>>
>>
>>broadband will be wireless in a few years (trust me, i'm working on it
>>right now!)
>
>
> And of course wired broadband will be standing still the whole time.

you have a point, but it's fundamentally limited by the impedance of the
wires - the capacitance severely limits the max frequency signal you can
chug down them, and the more bits per hertz you try to stuff, the
tighter the signal to noise ratio. and so much of the copper is old old
old, and the connections to it decrepit. Plus, its far cheaper to put in
wireless infrastructure in china and india and the like. once a 20 buck
mmm-wave radio is possible, well, it's all over...

>>and that'll be the end of telcos as they exist right now -
>>they won't have a (near) monopoly on the dominant way of getting
>>reliable data into your house or business.
>
>
> Or so you told the venture capitalist.

shhhhhhhhhhhhhh! for crying out loud, whose side are you on?

>
>>there'll be a hell of a
>>shake-out, the usual lobbying of congress/parliaments to preserve
>>monopolies by ridiculous anti-capitalist stealth (you ain't seen nothing
>>with the way the music industry is resisting technology change).
>>
>>i reckon in 10-15 years the copper wires between your house and the
>>local telephone exchange will be unused.
>
>
> Or else it will be carrying 10-100 Mb/sec using the same technology you're
> using to get T1 speed out of broadband.

nup. dude, the wireless will be doing gigabits/sec.

-p
!