Q: Why don't desktops us mobile cpus?

So? What the **** is your point?

Put 5000 of them in the same room and it might kill you.

What does 4-5 PCs creating heat have to do with that fact that you said
laptops don't have any heat issues?



"jaster" wrote in message
...
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]

"Well you can say it, but that's not quite the same as reality."
Exactly! Reality seems to be an issue around here.


"kony" wrote in message
...
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 Wed, 21 Dec 2005 15:35:32 -0800, ISOHaven thoughtfully wrote:

Ok...good. Let's go with that. As I said, "same level".

Gaming:
Asus A8N32-SLI
Dual 7800GTX 512MB in SLI mode
AMD 4400+
2GB of Corsair 3500LL matched memory

That will stomp your laptop regardless of the drives I use. If you have
numbers that prove me wrong then let's see them! I would love to see
them and I wold LOVE to see the laptop that would kick my ass.


If this is addressed to me your system cost as much as the Dell XPS M710.

BUT, what does a gaming laptop have to do with SAVING electricity and
this thread? That's been my whole point all along. Nothing this guy
brings up is EVER within scope of the convo.

I never asked about saving electricity. Personally, I can save
electricity by turning off the pcs and other electronic at night.

Although I do think "green", LED lights instead of incadescents, solar.
wind power and rain collection in new constructions, carbon burning energy
production, bio-diesel and hybrid cars, more mass transit, decentralizing
production, etc., etc.

But none of that had anything to do with my question of product cpu lines.
Which is what difference would it make if "desktop" cpu production were
phased out and there was only "mobile" cpu production, since prices would
eventually fall and "mobile" cpus can now run anything that a "desktop"
cpu can run?

If this is addressed to me your system cost as much as the Dell XPS M710.
Cost is a new conversation....

But none of that had anything to do with my question of product cpu lines.
Which is what difference would it make if "desktop" cpu production were
phased out and there was only "mobile" cpu production, since prices would
eventually fall and "mobile" cpus can now run anything that a "desktop"
cpu can run?
EXACTLY!!! Do I need to repleat myself:

BUT, what does a gaming laptop have to do with SAVING electricity and
this thread? That's been my whole point all along. Nothing this guy (JAD)
brings up is EVER within scope of the convo.

On Thu, 22 Dec 2005 05:16:31 GMT, jaster
wrote:


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.

It's certainly true that the most common uses don't require
a modern level of performance, and further than some people
never do anything at all that would require such performance
levels. However, these are not potential
mobile-CPU-based-system purchasers, these are
keep-using-what-they-have, NON-customers.

Someday, they'll be forced to upgrade due to hardware
failure or some particular need for more performance, but
even for these people their desire isn't to just "meet"
their current performance demand... they want as many years
as possible out of a system at lowest cost possible. When a
mobile CPU provides that, it'll be a more reasonable choice.
Until then, it's used where it is most fit, mobile apps.




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.

Depends on exactly what you mean by "MediaPC".
You still seem to be overlooking something though, that a
person does not buy a PC only to run whatever application
they have, the moment after the system arrives in their
possession. They expect it to be MORE performance than they
need when bought, to have as much longevity as possible.
While they may not "need" as much longevity today as when
the average system cost a couple thousand dollars, they're
still looking to do that and it is reasonable to a certain
extent.

You can't really argue one can swap many components on a
system tailored to a few low power usage, because there are
always concerns about power supply, cooling, as has been the
case for several years now. Even with mobile CPUs, we
dont'necessarily have assurances THEY won't be more energy
hungry in the future... but frankly I think there will not
only be no merging of desktop and mobile CPUs as you wanted,
but rather a further split of mobile CPUs into low and much
lower power consumption for the more embedded throwawy type
devices coming out in the future whether tablet PC or any
other genre.


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.

jaster wrote:
I know the motherboards are different but is there a reason why desktop
computer aren't built to use mobile cpus?
I assume desktop and mobile are about the same performance for the
average user, mobile cpus are capable enough to run 99% of the games
available, and mobile cpus run cooler and more efficient than desktop
cpus.

I'm not talking about bleeding edge computing but about the average user
happy running XP home on anything from 1-2.4mhz cpu. Wouldn't a Centrino
or Turino work ? Could I pop an AMD64 Turino into a desktop motherboard?


I know this is way off topic, but I just had to comment. One of
the responders here keeps referring to what I think he means as
"conversation" as "convo".

In reality, convo is:

"Convo is an experimental conversational system: a computer
program that can hold conversations with you in plain English.
Other names for such a system include chatterbot, chatbot or
even artificial intelligence"

So, I guess he's is a babbling box who is experimenting with
conversation? Seems like it anyway.


.................................................. .................................
"Now just look.. they're burning the `Porta-Potties'"

*** OPUS ***

On Wed, 21 Dec 2005 21:18:11 -0800, ISOHaven thoughtfully wrote:

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


Oh sorry. I responded to the original comment which left out "SAME
TIME". I think the problem is that Windows can't run all applications
at the same since it is not a true multi-tasking operating system.

Retard!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
[snip]

On Thu, 22 Dec 2005 11:38:21 -0330, Bill D. thoughtfully wrote:

jaster wrote:
I know the motherboards are different but is there a reason why desktop
computer aren't built to use mobile cpus? I assume desktop and mobile
are about the same performance for the average user, mobile cpus are
capable enough to run 99% of the games available, and mobile cpus run
cooler and more efficient than desktop cpus.

I'm not talking about bleeding edge computing but about the average user
happy running XP home on anything from 1-2.4mhz cpu. Wouldn't a
Centrino or Turino work ? Could I pop an AMD64 Turino into a desktop
motherboard?


I know this is way off topic, but I just had to comment. One of the
responders here keeps referring to what I think he means as "conversation"
as "convo".

In reality, convo is:

"Convo is an experimental conversational system: a computer program that
can hold conversations with you in plain English. Other names for such a
system include chatterbot, chatbot or even artificial intelligence"

So, I guess he's is a babbling box who is experimenting with conversation?
Seems like it anyway.


OH NO you didn't ?


.................................................. ................................
"Now just look.. they're burning the `Porta-Potties'"

*** OPUS ***

Since you seem incapable of following along I'll be sure to point out
exactly who said what

jaster wrote: "I think the problem is that Windows can't run all
applications at the same since it is not a true multi-tasking operating
system."

Oh really? So why is it LIKE I SAID BEFORE all of our desktops have no
problem at all?????

jaster wrote: "Oh sorry. I responded to the original comment which left
out "SAME TIME"."

Really? Are you sure I left that out? Because I have my own quote right
he

ISOHaven wrote: "The Laptops slow down a lot when you run them all."

You see that words "them all"? What the **** do you think those words mean?

Here's a hint:
"them all" being the specific apps that I mentioned!

Man, talking to you, JAD and Gargravarr is like talking to a bunch of
bricks.

I would like to congratulate all the other members that where able to
continue normal conversations. I won't demean them buy inserting there
names in this post. Do I apologize for this thread? NO. I've made it my
personal mission in life to bring out peoples true form. These three people
had a TRUE form to reveal. Everyone else is already true to themselves. As
they don't have issue with someone pointing out where they went wrong.

Although you, jaster, are quit different from the other two nuts. The way I
see it you dislike me for one of two reasons:

1. You are on the same level as JAD and Gargravarr which would simply be a
very sad thing. Thus you agree with them and have "taken sides" which would
be even worse for you.

or

2. You dislike the fact that at least 5 times I have disagreed with you in
other posts. This one makes the most sense. From this I further "assume"
you aren't used to people that DO NOT accept your spoon fed info. I
honestly believe you are not used to people that HOLD YOU to what you say
and make you explain yourself if some oddity exists.

Or both....whatever.

.....because other slang words don't have multiple meanings???? Go on with
your BAD self. Wow, that's SICK! Both of which are completely stupid.

So what exactly was your point? That you are no better then JAD or
Gargravarr? Because you succeeded in proving that.

At least even your own description points out that convo has to do with
CONVERSATIONS. So at least it's slang that's in the right "time zone" as
compared to others.

Wow, can this thread get any worse with bull**** like this?



"Bill D." wrote in message
.. .
jaster wrote:
I know the motherboards are different but is there a reason why desktop
computer aren't built to use mobile cpus? I assume desktop and mobile
are about the same performance for the
average user, mobile cpus are capable enough to run 99% of the games
available, and mobile cpus run cooler and more efficient than desktop
cpus. I'm not talking about bleeding edge computing but about the
average user
happy running XP home on anything from 1-2.4mhz cpu. Wouldn't a Centrino
or Turino work ? Could I pop an AMD64 Turino into a desktop
motherboard?


I know this is way off topic, but I just had to comment. One of the
responders here keeps referring to what I think he means as "conversation"
as "convo".

In reality, convo is:

"Convo is an experimental conversational system: a computer program that
can hold conversations with you in plain English. Other names for such a
system include chatterbot, chatbot or even artificial intelligence"

So, I guess he's is a babbling box who is experimenting with conversation?
Seems like it anyway.


.................................................. ................................
"Now just look.. they're burning the `Porta-Potties'"

*** OPUS ***