Laptops, History and comparrison to desktop counterparts.

[Guest]

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

This is a post relating to a school project i am currently doing on
Laptops compared to Desktops.

http/www.mochima.com/net/notebooks

The above link is a link to our paper, and concentrates, as indicated
in the subject, mainly on laptop history and desktop comparison. There
is a lot of dispute over what was the first true laptop, what is your
input? As well as what's truly better a laptop or a desktop?
Seriously pros and cons here people!

The first pro to using a laptop are of course portablity, i mean that's
why they were invented in the first place right? But is the price
really worth the ability to hvae a computer wherever you go?

And of course with a desktop we get more power and upgradability... and
of course we don't have to worry about heat nearly as much as with the
notebook systems.

Give us your input and experiences, we'd love to hear them.

-Cameron Ward
-Norman Nadeau

 

[Guest]

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

"Cameron Ward" <cameron_ward19@yahoo.ca> wrote:
>really worth the ability to hvae a computer wherever you go?

Well, isn't that kind of a #define? For some people it is, and the
sales of laptops would seem to indicate that quite a number of people
prize portability over other features...

In fact, laptops are a compromise between cost, size, battery life,
and horsepower. Any desktop of equivalent vintage will have far more
horsepower, a better display, and lower cost than a laptop, all other
things being equal.

Note, however, that horsepower is becoming less important, as even
low-end laptops can handle the usual tasks (Email, WWWeb browsing,
etc) that most peolle want a computer for, so for a lot of folks it's
a tradeoff between portability and cost, and with costs potentially
under $1K, the laptop frequently wins.

 

[Guest]

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

William P. N. Smith wrote:

> Note, however, that horsepower is becoming less important, as even
> low-end laptops can handle the usual tasks (Email, WWWeb browsing,
> etc) that most peolle want a computer for, so for a lot of folks it's
> a tradeoff between portability and cost, and with costs potentially
> under $1K, the laptop frequently wins.

Perhaps one issue that is often overlooked when talking about horsepower
is responsiveness.

Notebooks have had good speed for quite a while, but still a bit low
responsiveness (you run two applications at a time, and the things
slows down to a crawl).

Do we already have dual-core mobile CPUs? (I haven't checked lately)

If not, I guess we'll soon have them, and from that moment on, no
notebook will ever have insufficient horsepower (well, until people
decide that notebooks are now useful for number-crunching, local
weather prediction, etc. 🙂)

Carlos
--

 

[Guest]

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

Okay, but even without Dual Cores there are some laptops that are
viciously fast. And for people who only use their computer for
internet, office and email... well an old pIII 700 laptop would be more
than addequate. I think the major issue here is heat, and wouldn't
dual core chips produce ridiculous amounts of heat? As for laptop
sales, like i said, to do email and web browsing you dont' need
anything for a p3, so why now are laptop sales begining to surpass
desktop sales? why not years ago?

-Cameron

 

[norm]

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

Carlos Moreno <moreno_at_mochima_dot_com@xx.xxx> wrote in
news:WZYue.28473$rz.1042282@wagner.videotron.net:


> Do we already have dual-core mobile CPUs? (I haven't checked lately)
>
> If not, I guess we'll soon have them, and from that moment on, no
> notebook will ever have insufficient horsepower (well, until people
> decide that notebooks are now useful for number-crunching, local
> weather prediction, etc. 🙂)
>
> Carlos
> --
>

There aren't any dual-core mobile cCPUs out yet, but it's just a matter
of time. Google turned up the following... and it look's like Intel is
having to play catch-up. Should be interesting..

"Intel shed a little more light on its forthcoming dual-core mobile chip
Thursday in a briefing with reporters, confirming that the Yonah
processor's two cores will share a single bank of cache memory."

"Intel plans to aggressively introduce dual-core processors over the next
year. The company was forced to accelerate its dual-core processors after
realizing that it could no longer wring any more performance out of
single-core Pentium 4 chips without melting motherboards. Processor
analysts and chip enthusiasts have turned their noses up at Intel's
initial Pentium D design, labeling it inelegant compared to AMD's dual-
core chips."

Norm


----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http/www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

 

[Guest]

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

Carlos Moreno <moreno_at_mochima_dot_com@xx.xxx> wrote:
>Notebooks have had good speed for quite a while, but still a bit low
>responsiveness (you run two applications at a time, and the things
>slows down to a crawl).

You are confusing raw processor speed with computer performance, just
as all the computer companies have hoped you would. Other factors
(FSB speed, memory word size, disk {speed, interface, cache size})
have a much larger effect than most folks realize, and are typically
much lower in a laptop than in a desktop.

There's nothing magical about laptops as compared to desktops, they
are just optimized for different uses.

 

[norm]

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

"Cameron Ward" <cameron_ward19@yahoo.ca> wrote in
news:1119660687.572284.135700@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:

> I think the major issue here is heat, and wouldn't
> dual core chips produce ridiculous amounts of heat?

Intel new dual-core chips have reduced power consumption, reducing heat and
increasing use per battery charge.

As for laptop sales vs desktop sales, it got to be portability. After all,
it's their reason for being.

Norm

----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http/www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

 

[Guest]

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

William P. N. Smith wrote:
> Carlos Moreno <moreno_at_mochima_dot_com@xx.xxx> wrote:
>
>>Notebooks have had good speed for quite a while, but still a bit low
>>responsiveness (you run two applications at a time, and the things
>>slows down to a crawl).
>
> You are confusing raw processor speed with computer performance

I'm very curious as for how do you draw that conclusion from what I
said... I referred to the speed *of notebooks* (which would correspond
to what you refer to as computer performance), and not the speed of the
notebook's processor.

That performance (or lack thereof) is what makes them less responsive,
compared to desktops/workstations (which have higher performance, and
thus it takes more to make them slow down to a crawl).

Dual-CPU (or dual-core CPUs) will certainly alleviate that problem
almost to the point of making it disappear completely (assuming a
"normal" performance in the rest of the components).

> There's nothing magical about laptops as compared to desktops, they
> are just optimized for different uses.

Agreed. And as usual, the Laws of Physics are cruel enough to guarantee
that every optimisation always leads to trade-off and compromising
certain aspects in favor of another.

Carlos
--

 

[Guest]

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

Norm wrote:

> "Cameron Ward" <cameron_ward19@yahoo.ca> wrote in
> news:1119660687.572284.135700@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
>
>> I think the major issue here is heat, and wouldn't
>> dual core chips produce ridiculous amounts of heat?
>
> Intel new dual-core chips have reduced power consumption, reducing heat
> and increasing use per battery charge.

Or so says Intel. Believe it when you see it.

> As for laptop sales vs desktop sales, it got to be portability. After all,
> it's their reason for being.

Not necessarily. Size without regard to portability is also an issue--in a
typical dorm room for example a laptop takes up a lot less of the tiny
amount of desk space available than does a desktop, even though the
pilferability is a major negative.

> Norm
>
> ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet
> News==---- http/www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
> 120,000+ Newsgroups ----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy
> via Encryption =----

--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

 

[norm]

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

"J. Clarke" <jclarke.usenet@snet.net.invalid> wrote in
news:d9ihbq01i0r@news3.newsguy.com:

>
> Or so says Intel. Believe it when you see it.
>

Agreed..


----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http/www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

 

[Guest]

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

Norm wrote:
> "Cameron Ward" <cameron_ward19@yahoo.ca> wrote in
> news:1119660687.572284.135700@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
>
>
>>I think the major issue here is heat, and wouldn't
>>dual core chips produce ridiculous amounts of heat?

Even if they did, reducing clock speed (which would reduce heat) but
having two CPUs would offer a *much* higher overall performance.

Doing only one thing at a time twice as fast is not nearly as
good as being able to do two things at a time.

Carlos
--

 

[Guest]

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

Of course dual processors would work... sure there might be a
bottleneck with memory bandwidth but even if you were running with 64
MB of ram, dual processors would still make things run faster. It
won't be twice the speed mind you, but you'd deffinatly make things go
smoother.

how much memory bandwidth does a standard laptop have anyways?

-Cameron

 

[Guest]

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

Carlos Moreno <moreno_at_mochima_dot_com@xx.xxx> wrote:
>William P. N. Smith wrote:
>> Carlos Moreno <moreno_at_mochima_dot_com@xx.xxx> wrote:
>>
>>>Notebooks have had good speed for quite a while, but still a bit low
>>>responsiveness (you run two applications at a time, and the things
>>>slows down to a crawl).
>>
>> You are confusing raw processor speed with computer performance

>That performance (or lack thereof) is what makes them less responsive,
>compared to desktops/workstations (which have higher performance, and
>thus it takes more to make them slow down to a crawl).

Where do you think performance comes from? [Maybe I'm asking how you
define performance.]

>Dual-CPU (or dual-core CPUs) will certainly alleviate that problem
>almost to the point of making it disappear completely (assuming a
>"normal" performance in the rest of the components).

Why would you assume 'normal' (desktop) performance from the rest of
the components in a laptop? As I pointed out in my previous note,
that's where one of the tradeoffs happens.

How will dual-core processors help if the memory bandwidth is only 1/4
that of a modern desktop?

 

[Guest]

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

well of course it wouldn't be cheap, nothing in computers ever is at
first. But seriously now, for what people use them for, laptops are
more then effecient, even without dual processors or fast ram.
Desktops will always be better, and i think people who want to push
their computers to the limit will never look at a notebook as a viable
option... they will always look to a desktop.

-Cameron

 

[Guest]

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

Cameron Ward wrote:

> Of course dual processors would work... sure there might be a
> bottleneck with memory bandwidth but even if you were running with 64
> MB of ram, dual processors would still make things run faster. It
> won't be twice the speed mind you, but you'd deffinatly make things go
> smoother.

Depends on what you're doing. Some tasks are amenable to multiprocessing,
others aren't. The main benefit of duals IMO is the ability to handle two
interrupts at the same time. For general use there's no real difference in
performance, but sometimes there is a difference in responsiveness.

> how much memory bandwidth does a standard laptop have anyways?
>
> -Cameron

--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

 

[norm]

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

"J. Clarke" <jclarke.usenet@snet.net.invalid> wrote in
news:d9k7rf1uks@news4.newsguy.com:

> Cameron Ward wrote:
>
>> Of course dual processors would work... sure there might be a
>> bottleneck with memory bandwidth but even if you were running with 64
>> MB of ram, dual processors would still make things run faster. It
>> won't be twice the speed mind you, but you'd deffinatly make things
>> go smoother.


And it wouldn't be cheap, at first anyways.

----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http/www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

 

[norm]

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

"Cameron Ward" <cameron_ward19@yahoo.ca> wrote in
news:1119728981.487559.187420@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com:

> well of course it wouldn't be cheap, nothing in computers ever is at
> first. But seriously now, for what people use them for, laptops are
> more then effecient, even without dual processors or fast ram.
> Desktops will always be better, and i think people who want to push
> their computers to the limit will never look at a notebook as a viable
> option... they will always look to a desktop.
>
> -Cameron
>

Well, performance to a business man is how long his battery will last and
how fast he can download the latest proposal from the head office. He
really doesn't care what's inside as lond as it does the job, and he's
willing to pay the extra.

As for pushing the limit, I agree that desktop's are the way to go.

Norm

----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http/www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

 

[Guest]

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

"Cameron Ward" <cameron_ward19@yahoo.ca> wrote:
>Of course dual processors would work.

You really have bought into the hype, haven't you? IIRC I saw a
benchmark recently that dual-processor systems gain you 10%
improvement.

>how much memory bandwidth does a standard laptop have anyways?

Well, mine is 1/2 the speed (400MHz) and not dual-channel like my
desktop, so that's why I threw out 1/4 the bandwidth in my previous
missive.

Again, there's essentially no difference between a 2GHz processor and
a 3GHz processor if the FSB is only running at 400MHz.

 

[norm]

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

Carlos Moreno <moreno_at_mochima_dot_com@xx.xxx> wrote in news:3Lcve.31002
$rz.1335043@wagner.videotron.net:

> Norm wrote:
>> "Cameron Ward" <cameron_ward19@yahoo.ca> wrote in
>> news:1119660687.572284.135700@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
>>
>>
>>>I think the major issue here is heat, and wouldn't
>>>dual core chips produce ridiculous amounts of heat?
>

Reduce power consumption and you reduse the head, not to mention extending
the battery life.

N

----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http/www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

 

[Guest]

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

There is no hype to dual processors!!!!! sure for running one
application you don`t see that much improvment, but the whole point is
that you can have two processors doing two completely different things
with half the lag to your pc.... dual processors aren`t speed boosts
they are performance boosts. There is a difference between raw speed
and performance, and last time i checked a 3.0ghz machine was more, way
way way more than capable of running any application.

-Cameron