Q: Why don't desktops us mobile cpus?

I'm reading a new Tom's Hardware Article that I think directly addresses
my question :

Mobile processors to drive Intel's CPU business - analyst

http://www.tgdaily.com/2005/12/19/in...gmobilegrowth/

On Thu, 22 Dec 2005 09:08:05 -0800, ISOHaven thoughtfully wrote:

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

Why can't you use quoted text like everyone else?


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?????

Yep that was the dumbest thing I've said in a couple of weeks. Windows
is a multi-tasking OS.


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.

or

3. You're human like everyone else and talk before thinking, just like
I did with the multi-tasking.

Interesting read. Couple of thoughts:

1. That pretty much goes inline with what kony has been saying.

2. The FUTURE will hold mobile cpu's that can be used as desktops
(hopefully) but that has nothing to do with today's mobile cpu's being used
in today's desktops.

jaster wrote in his original post: "Wouldn't a Centrino or Turino work ?
Could I pop an AMD64 Turino into a desktop motherboard?"

3. I know nothing of this author and I would hate to call him a liar but I
would like to see some sales figures to back this comment up:

Humphrey Cheung wrote: "One third of all computers sold today are
notebooks."

I just checked Techdata and Synnex and the numbers hardly look like 1/3 of
total sales. But it's hard to get actual totals. In case anyone doesn't
know what these two companies are they are among the top two major computer
equipment distributors. If you buy computer equipment odds are it went
through these guys first. You also have to factor in people building thier
own PCs which is hard to do.

But all in all it would seem that Intel is certainly heading in this
direction. Whether or not they get there as promised has yet to be seen.

"Why can't you use quoted text like everyone else?"
Why can't you just simply follow along? Why ask why? Dude, it's not that
hard. I quote a sentence then under it I speak. I think the problem you
had before was you where skipping over the un"" text and went right to the
crap at the bottom. Or top depending on your client. I'm assuming that
because you stated before that my text was from "" which would have been
wrong. That would have been the crap left over from the previous post.
Learn to read everything that DOES NOT have a "" in front of it. Otherwise
if it does then you are reading old text.

"3. You're human like everyone else and talk before thinking, just like I
did with the multi-tasking."
Ah, very interesting. So I have to assume that MOST of what I've written
has been typed before it was thought out? I would assume that because of
your level of aggression towards me. Well that is certainly YOUR opinion
and you are entitled to it.

You know what it was fun trollin your sorry ass,,, cause you are a sorry ass
person. go back to your hole...and quit that pussy ass game of the last
word. Your clueless gameboy, and be rest assured you HAVE had your ass
shot dead by a laptop gamer. So SLi.....d back under your rock.

1. I could hardly follow that gibberish.

2. I find it funny that both you and Gargravarr are harping on the term
gameboy??? Which by the way is a product produced by Nintendo. But I guess
you need SOMETHING to hang on to since you have nothing else.

3. What ever happened to:

JAD wrote: "OH BROTHER. CONVERSATION over."

4. As for playing of game of last word? Aren't you playing with me, seeing
as how you keep replying? Hum.......

I'm sick and tired of having to delete the thread,, stay in the group your
from and talk to yourself, no one here is interested in your alternate
reality and stupid opinions.

Learn to use your filters idiot. oh...and...TAG you're it!

ISOHaven wrote:
....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 ***



Just tossed in an observation. Here, have a little abuse back
at ya, you stupid little co**sucker. What's with the totally
unnecessary explosion of verbal diarrhea? ****ing Psychotic.

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

If by that you're trying to suggest one cannot get a desktop with better
performance at a lower price then you are mistaken.


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

Saying it doesn't make it so.

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

Yes there would because there are different problems in making them, which
is why there is more than one type.

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

I don't have to 'wait' if I'm not going to lug it around.