Q: Why don't desktops us mobile cpus?

On Wed, 21 Dec 2005 23:58:28 GMT, jaster
wrote:

On Wed, 21 Dec 2005 05:55:44 +0000, kony thoughtfully wrote:
[snip]

They certainly do. People just accept it. Unquestionably I can hear when
the fans kick on, on my laptop. It then becomes louder than any fans on
the desktop system I'm currently typing on, though it's mostly due to the
higher RPM and small fan. Even so, the laptop heat issue is another kind,
that of only making the reductions to the extent of it being necessary for
the thing to work at all in a small battery powered form factor. They
don't really care what the CPU uses from a 'green' aspect.


Not that there aren't problems but you're the first to complain about
laptop fan noise. My laps never had heat or noise issues. Yours
homemade?

Nope, but I can hear it, and I choose not to hear fans
if/when that's realistic. Perhaps you just don't put much
of a load on yours so it's mostly idling?




Why does it bother you? You CAN choose a Via Eden if you want one.


It was a question, an innocent question so I thought. I wonder why the
big 3 didn't just make one line of processor that will work in laptops,
desktops, media PCs, servers and workstations.


They did, then their product line expanded to suit the other
niches.

You wouldn't care if Intel said the roadmap lead soley to a dual-core
processor capable of running all know apps and OS in both laptops or
desktops.

It'd certainly make me think twice about an Intel CPU if the
compromises made to end up with this universal product,
weren't optimal for the intended system- and THERE is the
big issue, it's not a one-shoe-fits-all world. AMD would
gladly displace them or the other way 'round, if one were to
cripple a product line the other isn't going to voluntarily
do it rather than accentuate the difference between them.
SMALL % performance differences sell products, so it would
seem you want the cooler CPU, lower energy, but which
company should volunteer to be first to lose market share
because of it? Not at all a good example the other
manufactuerer(s) would want to follow either.



Actually, I think PCs as we know them will go bye-bye within 10-20yrs.
As much as I hate to think it, Media PCs will replace traditional PCs and
communicators and tablets will replace laptops. As soon as prices drop
you'll be looking for a MediaPC to play games, amusements and productivity
on 32-65in HDTVs in 5.1 audio.

I'm sure there will be more specialized systems, so there
will be the inefficient high performance system for
demanding things, those reserved for internet kiosk or other
closely related things, AND the tertiary systems embedded in
your car, refridgerator, etc. It's certainly good to have
low-power CPUs in most of those, but not in the box taking
the role of the primary system and that's the one you
suggest refitting.

To put it another way, a few minor percentage of people want
this, and thus, there are a small % of products for them to
buy. If anything the market does respond to demand.

There would have to be something to "cop out" of. I've already explained
what wanted. I'm just done treating you like a child and doing everthing
for you. If you want your answer then go back and read it for yourself.



"JAD" wrote in message
...

"ISOHaven" wrote in message
...
and cheaper BTW...which is right up your alley...you know
I like how you harp on something for so long that you start to believe it
as fact. That's hilarious!!!

...next to the box you'll be living in....when 'your' company catches
on.
Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight!


so basically You don't know then?
I have to figure out 99% of the crap you spew, cause it makes little
sense.
Wow, I spell out all the specs for you and you have this much trouble
figuring it out? Yup, you are about stupid as our graphics artists here.
Why are graphics guys so ****ing dumb when it comes to normal ****????


So to end this....Are you saying that 'dollar for dollar' laptops can't
compete with desktops, or are you saying that NO WAY can a laptop out
perform a desktop of equal hardware (as equal as you can get AFA CPU)?
HOLY CRAP!!!!!!!!!!!! You actualy sound like you are ready for a real
conversation..... it must be a trap.... not sure if I should continue....
Hum...I would bite but I feel I have explained my thoughts well enough.
I no longer need to explain anything to you. I might sound like a broken
record here but again YOU are the only one confused by my words. I've
used a LOT of the same words in the rest of this thread and was able to
get normal responses from everyone else.


So when it boils down...you cop out......

On Wed, 21 Dec 2005 11:24:26 -0600, David Maynard thoughtfully wrote:

jaster wrote:

[snip]

I think you're stuck in a "it's a desktop stupid" line of thought.
Maybe I should have asked why are there desktop cpus now that there are
mobile cpus. I think there is a huge market for desktops. Some people
are making laptops their next PC, some even buy docking stations and
monitors for their laptops. So if Intel/AMD stopped making "desktop"
cpus and only manufactured "mobile" cpus what would be the loss?

Performance and cost.

Dell XPS M710


As I said many times the average "mobile" chip performs as well as the
average "desktop" chip. There wouldn't be a difference in cost between
"mobile" and "desktop" cpus if there were only "mobile" cpus. And just
like now everyone will wait for the latest greatest "mobile" cpu to come
down to their purchase point.

On Wed, 21 Dec 2005 20:45:48 -0600, David Maynard thoughtfully wrote:

[snip]

For the same price as a desktop of the same performance? And are you 100%
sure it doesn't throttle under sustained full load? Just to name a couple.

But the question I responded to was "desktop" vs "mobile" CPUs and the
simple fact of the matter is they are designed for different environments
and the attendant requirements. A mobile may have different packaging for
space considerations, more aggressive power conservation measures for
battery consumption, different thermal characteristics, lower voltage
operation etc. They just ain't the same thing if you are, in fact,
optimizing for the 'mobile' environment.

No they are not the same but they run the same applications, so why do we
need "desktop" cpus? BTW, they use the same sockets, 775, 754, etc.

On Wed, 21 Dec 2005 10:50:28 -0800, ISOHaven thoughtfully wrote:

I never said it wont run Outlook. It wont run ALL the MENTIONED APPs at
the SAME TIME....PRODUCTIVELY.

Damn you are stupid!


[snip]

If the laps can't run SAP it sounds like the tech responsible for buying
those laptops made a mistake.

On Wed, 21 Dec 2005 16:03:03 -0800, ISOHaven thoughtfully wrote:

"You haven't been in the newsgroups much otherwise you'd have read all the
posts about heating and noise. Laptops don't seem to have those issues."
Somehow I missed the heat comment. Laptops don't suffer from heat issues.
Where the heck have you been!?!?!?!? The average complaint of a decent
powered laptop is the heat they produce! Why do you think there are so
many laptop coolers out there? Keep a decent laptop on your LAP for any
length of time and if you don't sweat off 5 pounds I'd be surprised.

I'll agress that recently some of these laptops have gotten a LOT better
with that issue. The newest thinkpads we've purchased latley, the X41 and
the Z60t are MUCH better but they still heat up your lap pretty well.



Yeah my portable CD player is hot when I keep in on my lap too!
However, put 4-5 PCs in a small room and you don't need a heater in the
winter but you'll need A/C in the summer.

[snip]

On Thu, 22 Dec 2005 04:33:16 GMT, jaster
wrote:

On Wed, 21 Dec 2005 20:45:48 -0600, David Maynard thoughtfully wrote:

[snip]

For the same price as a desktop of the same performance? And are you 100%
sure it doesn't throttle under sustained full load? Just to name a couple.

But the question I responded to was "desktop" vs "mobile" CPUs and the
simple fact of the matter is they are designed for different environments
and the attendant requirements. A mobile may have different packaging for
space considerations, more aggressive power conservation measures for
battery consumption, different thermal characteristics, lower voltage
operation etc. They just ain't the same thing if you are, in fact,
optimizing for the 'mobile' environment.

No they are not the same but they run the same applications, so why do we
need "desktop" cpus? BTW, they use the same sockets, 775, 754, etc.

Then why do we need notebook CPUs? Might as well get rid of
them if we're considering only whether they run same apps,
but obviously we aren't, rather the performance and price
differences.

On Thu, 22 Dec 2005 04:29:04 GMT, jaster
wrote:

On Wed, 21 Dec 2005 11:24:26 -0600, David Maynard thoughtfully wrote:

jaster wrote:

[snip]

I think you're stuck in a "it's a desktop stupid" line of thought.
Maybe I should have asked why are there desktop cpus now that there are
mobile cpus. I think there is a huge market for desktops. Some people
are making laptops their next PC, some even buy docking stations and
monitors for their laptops. So if Intel/AMD stopped making "desktop"
cpus and only manufactured "mobile" cpus what would be the loss?

Performance and cost.

Dell XPS M710


As I said many times the average "mobile" chip performs as well as the
average "desktop" chip.

Well you can say it, but that's not quite the same as
reality.

There wouldn't be a difference in cost between
"mobile" and "desktop" cpus if there were only "mobile" cpus.

Of course not, then you'd have desktop (universal) CPUs
costing more.


And just
like now everyone will wait for the latest greatest "mobile" cpu to come
down to their purchase point.

.... and just like now, everyone is searching for the next
great battery to stuff in a laptop so they can use more
power... and fuel cells are coming along so we're going to
be seeing it happen, most likely.

On Thu, 22 Dec 2005 03:24:26 +0000, kony thoughtfully wrote:

On Wed, 21 Dec 2005 23:58:28 GMT, jaster wrote:

On Wed, 21 Dec 2005 05:55:44 +0000, kony thoughtfully wrote: [snip]

They certainly do. People just accept it. Unquestionably I can hear
when the fans kick on, on my laptop. It then becomes louder than any
fans on the desktop system I'm currently typing on, though it's mostly
due to the higher RPM and small fan. Even so, the laptop heat issue
is another kind, that of only making the reductions to the extent of
it being necessary for the thing to work at all in a small battery
powered form factor. They don't really care what the CPU uses from a
'green' aspect.


Not that there aren't problems but you're the first to complain about
laptop fan noise. My laps never had heat or noise issues. Yours
homemade?

Nope, but I can hear it, and I choose not to hear fans if/when that's
realistic. Perhaps you just don't put much of a load on yours so it's
mostly idling?




Why does it bother you? You CAN choose a Via Eden if you want one.


It was a question, an innocent question so I thought. I wonder why the
big 3 didn't just make one line of processor that will work in laptops,
desktops, media PCs, servers and workstations.


They did, then their product line expanded to suit the other niches.


You're right and for the home/office/mobile/desktop consumers I don't see
why they shouldn't go back, ie, home/office/desktop/mobile line
workstation/server line, AMD, Intel and VIA. Saves research costs.

You wouldn't care if Intel said the roadmap lead soley to a dual-core
processor capable of running all know apps and OS in both laptops or
desktops.

It'd certainly make me think twice about an Intel CPU if the compromises
made to end up with this universal product, weren't optimal for the
intended system- and THERE is the big issue, it's not a
one-shoe-fits-all world. AMD would gladly displace them or the other
way 'round, if one were to cripple a product line the other isn't going
to voluntarily do it rather than accentuate the difference between them.
SMALL % performance differences sell products, so it would seem you
want the cooler CPU, lower energy, but which company should volunteer to
be first to lose market share because of it? Not at all a good example
the other manufactuerer(s) would want to follow either.



Actually, I think PCs as we know them will go bye-bye within 10-20yrs.
As much as I hate to think it, Media PCs will replace traditional PCs
and communicators and tablets will replace laptops. As soon as prices
drop you'll be looking for a MediaPC to play games, amusements and
productivity on 32-65in HDTVs in 5.1 audio.

I'm sure there will be more specialized systems, so there will be the
inefficient high performance system for demanding things, those reserved
for internet kiosk or other closely related things, AND the tertiary
systems embedded in your car, refridgerator, etc. It's certainly good
to have low-power CPUs in most of those, but not in the box taking the
role of the primary system and that's the one you suggest refitting.

To put it another way, a few minor percentage of people want this, and
thus, there are a small % of products for them to buy. If anything the
market does respond to demand.

These are hardware NGs so ALL the good people who post here are more aware
of PC hardware than the average PC user. A lot of people don't have PCs,
a lot still use dial-up, some are still running Win3.1 on 486 PCs with 8m
ram. A neighbor still uses dial-up on her 486 Win95 PC for her work at
home job.

I think the average PC is used for surfing, finance, email, productivity
(money management, office apps), occassional game, music and some video.
Our first DVD player was my PCs DVD player.

More people are into music, video editing, photo editing, printing, web
sites, PVR and gaming. My point is all of that can be done on a MediaPC
and you can still swap out components. And in 10yrs that will be the hot
"desktop" pc although traditionals will still be around. Because cell
phones can now get streaming video and the internet, IPOD get video, I
think tablets and notebooks will get smaller.

Wow, you are as stupid as JAD. What the **** can you not understand about
the comment:

"ALL the MENTIONED APPs at the SAME TIME"
Wow dude, I wrong about you. You are as ****ing stupid as the rest of these
****ing morons.

ALL APPS....AT THE SAME TIME

****ing retards!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

They run SAP just fine! They run Outlook just fine! They run all apps just
fine. Run them all AT THE SAME TIME......damn!



"jaster" wrote in message
t...
On Wed, 21 Dec 2005 10:50:28 -0800, ISOHaven thoughtfully wrote:

I never said it wont run Outlook. It wont run ALL the MENTIONED APPs at
the SAME TIME....PRODUCTIVELY.

Damn you are stupid!


[snip]

If the laps can't run SAP it sounds like the tech responsible for buying
those laptops made a mistake.