[gentoo-user] Intel Core Duo Processor - Anyone?

[gentoo-user] Intel Core Duo Processor - Anyone?

[Ow Mun Heng]

Anyone has one of these Core Duo Processors? How do they perform?
Benchmarks I've seen on the web _does_ show that they perform better
then a 2G Pentium-M.

Under linux, I would presume that one uses an SMP enabled Kernel?

-- 
Ow Mun Heng
Gentoo/Linux on DELL D600 1.4Ghz 1.5GB RAM
98% Microsoft(tm) Free!! 
Neuromancer 15:16:07 up 7:54, 4 users, load average: 3.12, 1.14, 0.86 


-- 
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-user] Intel Core Duo Processor - Anyone?

[Richard Fish]

On 3/29/06, Ow Mun Heng <Ow.Mun.Heng@wdc.com> wrote:
> Anyone has one of these Core Duo Processors? How do they perform?
> Benchmarks I've seen on the web _does_ show that they perform better
> then a 2G Pentium-M.

Excellent.  The benchmarks are not lying, and when it comes to
something like compiling, it is basically twice as fast, except for
those rare ebuilds that set -j1...

>
> Under linux, I would presume that one uses an SMP enabled Kernel?

Yes.

-Richard (proud Dell e1705 owner)

-- 
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-user] Intel Core Duo Processor - Anyone?

[Ow Mun Heng]

On Wed, 2006-03-29 at 00:55 -0700, Richard Fish wrote:
> On 3/29/06, Ow Mun Heng <Ow.Mun.Heng@wdc.com> wrote:
> > Anyone has one of these Core Duo Processors? How do they perform?
> > Benchmarks I've seen on the web _does_ show that they perform better
> > then a 2G Pentium-M.
> 
> Excellent.  The benchmarks are not lying, and when it comes to
> something like compiling, it is basically twice as fast, except for
> those rare ebuilds that set -j1...

Hm... I've seen one of those. Caused my dual-PII-350 server to crawl
through the compile. Actually, can't believe that for some packages,
compiling on that server actually came up on par, time wise, to my
laptop 1.4Ghz P-Mobile.

> -Richard (proud Dell e1705 owner)
Hmm.. seems to me, you do like your laptops big and heavy and bulky. :-)
IIRC, you had a P4 chip in your last laptop? (was that you?)

The only Core-duo being offered locally in Malaysia is the inspiron
6400.

-- 
Ow Mun Heng
Gentoo/Linux on DELL D600 1.4Ghz 1.5GB RAM
98% Microsoft(tm) Free!! 
Neuromancer 23:41:20 up 16:19, 4 users, load average: 1.49, 1.37, 1.07 


-- 
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list

[OT] Re: [gentoo-user] Intel Core Duo Processor - Anyone?

[Richard Fish]

On 3/29/06, Ow Mun Heng <Ow.Mun.Heng@wdc.com> wrote:
> Hmm.. seems to me, you do like your laptops big and heavy and bulky. :-)
> IIRC, you had a P4 chip in your last laptop? (was that you?)

Yep, except that 'luggable' incurred severe lid cracking last summer
and I had to replace it.  So I purchased a 2.1Ghz P-M 6lb notebook to
use for about 6 months until the first Core Duo came available.  That
was a nice notebook, even with a 15.4" screen, I found it to be very
portable.

This is my first notebook with a 17" screen, which I really do
like...except when I have to carry it! That's why I call it a
'luggable'. ;->

-Richard

-- 
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [OT] Re: [gentoo-user] Intel Core Duo Processor - Anyone?

[Lord Sauron]

On 3/29/06, Richard Fish <bigfish@asmallpond.org> wrote:
> On 3/29/06, Ow Mun Heng <Ow.Mun.Heng@wdc.com> wrote:
> > Hmm.. seems to me, you do like your laptops big and heavy and bulky. :-)
> > IIRC, you had a P4 chip in your last laptop? (was that you?)
>
> Yep, except that 'luggable' incurred severe lid cracking last summer
> and I had to replace it.  So I purchased a 2.1Ghz P-M 6lb notebook to
> use for about 6 months until the first Core Duo came available.  That
> was a nice notebook, even with a 15.4" screen, I found it to be very
> portable.

You have no idea what portable is.  One month on a 3.7lb. 12.1 inch
X40 and you'll never go back - even if you wanted to!

> This is my first notebook with a 17" screen, which I really do
> like...except when I have to carry it! That's why I call it a
> 'luggable'. ;->

Just a word of the wise from many experienced laptop users:

If you want to take it with you, less than 5 pounds is a requirement. 
You may say you're strong, and I believe you.  However, even the
world's strongest man would still have to admit that 13 pounds isn't a
good idea.

Plus, think of it this way:

There are exceptions to the road-warrior lighter-is-better rule, of
course, but not many.  If you *need* the power, why not just
SSH/RDesktop into a bigger, much more expensive desktop and leave your
poor laptop battery alone?  That's what I do.  I have the tiny IBM
X40: not very fast.  But then check out my desktop rig: AMD Athlon64
3000+ 2.0GHz Socket 754 1.0GHz FSB w/Hypertransport, 512Megs of RAM,
10,000RPM WD SATA150 Raptor (76GB, I'm not rich enough for the new
150GB) and a killer nVidia GeForce 6800 AGP 8x w/512MB of GDDR2 video
RAM (embedded OpenGL 1.5/DirectX9 processing).

It's my baby - I raised it from just a little Athon K6 900MHz!  I
built it myself out of a hulking abandoned server case.  When I get
home, do I crunch numbers on the X40?  No.  I use it for what it's
good for: email, office work, y'know, editing stuff.  Compile on the
big machine and you're home free.

--
========== GCv3.12 ==========
GCS d-(++) s+: a? C++ UL+>++++ P+
L++ E--- W+(+++) N++ o? K? w--- O? M+
V? PS- PE+ Y-(--) PGP- t+++ 5? X R tv-- b+
                DI+++ D+ G e* h- !r !y
========= END GCv3.12 ========

-- 
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [OT] Re: [gentoo-user] Intel Core Duo Processor - Anyone?

[Lord Sauron]

http://www-131.ibm.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/ProductDisplay?productId=4611686018425155337&storeId=10000001&langId=-1&categoryId=2059153&dualCurrId=1000073&catalogId=-840

That's the cheapest X60 with Core Duo.  HOWEVER:

I'd still highly recommend a AMD Turion.  Well...  I'd even more
strongly suggest just waiting, all you prospective laptop buyers.  A
Dual Core Turion64 is coming *very* soon.  The Turion64s murdered the
Pentium M processors in not just speed but power efficiency.  My
Athlon1400 could kill a Pentium 4 2.4GHz any time.  My Athlon64 can
destroy the fastest non-dual core Pentium 4 (extreme editions exempted
- I don't know anyone with one to compare the performance with).  Acer
makes good laptops with AMD chips.

Just for laughs, Intel just released a new Pentium4 Ext.Ed. (Dual
core, 955) to counter the FX-60 from AMD.  PC World tested the chip...
 the FX-60 was ~30% faster while being about $30 cheaper.

Okay, I'll stop evangelising AMD now.  Thanks for listening (it makes
me feel somewhat important).

On 3/29/06, Lord Sauron <lordsauronthegreat@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 3/29/06, Richard Fish <bigfish@asmallpond.org> wrote:
> > On 3/29/06, Ow Mun Heng <Ow.Mun.Heng@wdc.com> wrote:
> > > Hmm.. seems to me, you do like your laptops big and heavy and bulky. :-)
> > > IIRC, you had a P4 chip in your last laptop? (was that you?)
> >
> > Yep, except that 'luggable' incurred severe lid cracking last summer
> > and I had to replace it.  So I purchased a 2.1Ghz P-M 6lb notebook to
> > use for about 6 months until the first Core Duo came available.  That
> > was a nice notebook, even with a 15.4" screen, I found it to be very
> > portable.
>
> You have no idea what portable is.  One month on a 3.7lb. 12.1 inch
> X40 and you'll never go back - even if you wanted to!
>
> > This is my first notebook with a 17" screen, which I really do
> > like...except when I have to carry it! That's why I call it a
> > 'luggable'. ;->
>
> Just a word of the wise from many experienced laptop users:
>
> If you want to take it with you, less than 5 pounds is a requirement.
> You may say you're strong, and I believe you.  However, even the
> world's strongest man would still have to admit that 13 pounds isn't a
> good idea.
>
> Plus, think of it this way:
>
> There are exceptions to the road-warrior lighter-is-better rule, of
> course, but not many.  If you *need* the power, why not just
> SSH/RDesktop into a bigger, much more expensive desktop and leave your
> poor laptop battery alone?  That's what I do.  I have the tiny IBM
> X40: not very fast.  But then check out my desktop rig: AMD Athlon64
> 3000+ 2.0GHz Socket 754 1.0GHz FSB w/Hypertransport, 512Megs of RAM,
> 10,000RPM WD SATA150 Raptor (76GB, I'm not rich enough for the new
> 150GB) and a killer nVidia GeForce 6800 AGP 8x w/512MB of GDDR2 video
> RAM (embedded OpenGL 1.5/DirectX9 processing).
>
> It's my baby - I raised it from just a little Athon K6 900MHz!  I
> built it myself out of a hulking abandoned server case.  When I get
> home, do I crunch numbers on the X40?  No.  I use it for what it's
> good for: email, office work, y'know, editing stuff.  Compile on the
> big machine and you're home free.
>
> --
> ========== GCv3.12 ==========
> GCS d-(++) s+: a? C++ UL+>++++ P+
> L++ E--- W+(+++) N++ o? K? w--- O? M+
> V? PS- PE+ Y-(--) PGP- t+++ 5? X R tv-- b+
>                 DI+++ D+ G e* h- !r !y
> ========= END GCv3.12 ========
>


--
========== GCv3.12 ==========
GCS d-(++) s+: a? C++ UL+>++++ P+
L++ E--- W+(+++) N++ o? K? w--- O? M+
V? PS- PE+ Y-(--) PGP- t+++ 5? X R tv-- b+
                DI+++ D+ G e* h- !r !y
========= END GCv3.12 ========

-- 
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [OT] Re: [gentoo-user] Intel Core Duo Processor - Anyone?

[Richard Fish]

On 3/29/06, Lord Sauron <lordsauronthegreat@gmail.com> wrote:
> I'd still highly recommend a AMD Turion.  Well...  I'd even more
> strongly suggest just waiting, all you prospective laptop buyers.

I didn't wait, but I am guessing my e1705 will be going to a family
member in about a year so I can buy a dual-core turion laptop...

/me goes to get 3rd mortgage to pay for more gadgets...

-Richard

-- 
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [OT] Re: [gentoo-user] Intel Core Duo Processor - Anyone?

[Ow Mun Heng]

On Wed, 2006-03-29 at 13:35 -0700, Richard Fish wrote:
> /me goes to get 3rd mortgage to pay for more gadgets...
> 
/me surprised that 'whom must be obeyed' actually OK'ed the idea. Hehe..

/me have to go work out a budget report and write up a 200page brief for
getting funds from the Ministry of Home Finance.



-- 
Ow Mun Heng
Gentoo/Linux on DELL D600 1.4Ghz 1.5GB RAM
98% Microsoft(tm) Free!! 
Neuromancer 09:09:41 up 1 day, 1:48, 4 users, load average: 0.85, 0.71,
1.69 


-- 
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [OT] Re: [gentoo-user] Intel Core Duo Processor - Anyone?

[Mike Myers]

Are you sure that it was a Pentium M and not a Pentium4-M or just the 
p4s?  There is a signicant difference.  With all the benchmarks I've 
seen, the Pentium Ms beat all the other processors in terms of power 
consumption and heat and in a lot of cases, performance.  it even 
outdoes the P4s and the FX series amds.  Tomshardware even has 
benchmarks claiming such a thing (which is odd since they're usually 
anti-intel).  It is after all, a souped up P3 which allows it to have a 
faster clock speed than the p4s even when running with fewer ghz.

Lord Sauron wrote:

>http://www-131.ibm.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/ProductDisplay?productId=4611686018425155337&storeId=10000001&langId=-1&categoryId=2059153&dualCurrId=1000073&catalogId=-840
>
>That's the cheapest X60 with Core Duo.  HOWEVER:
>
>I'd still highly recommend a AMD Turion.  Well...  I'd even more
>strongly suggest just waiting, all you prospective laptop buyers.  A
>Dual Core Turion64 is coming *very* soon.  The Turion64s murdered the
>Pentium M processors in not just speed but power efficiency.  My
>Athlon1400 could kill a Pentium 4 2.4GHz any time.  My Athlon64 can
>destroy the fastest non-dual core Pentium 4 (extreme editions exempted
>- I don't know anyone with one to compare the performance with).  Acer
>makes good laptops with AMD chips.
>
>Just for laughs, Intel just released a new Pentium4 Ext.Ed. (Dual
>core, 955) to counter the FX-60 from AMD.  PC World tested the chip...
> the FX-60 was ~30% faster while being about $30 cheaper.
>
>Okay, I'll stop evangelising AMD now.  Thanks for listening (it makes
>me feel somewhat important).
>
>  
>

-- 
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [OT] Re: [gentoo-user] Intel Core Duo Processor - Anyone?

[michael]

Always interesting discussions on this list.

I have two questions for everyone (not just the person I'm responding
to):

How soon do you think we'll see laptops with the Dual Core Turion64?

Elsewhere (perhaps on this list on a different topic) someone
recommended not buying anything except for 64 bits (either AMD or Intel)
from now on. Do you agree, in particular regarding laptops?

M


On Wed, 29 Mar 2006, Mike Myers wrote:

> Are you sure that it was a Pentium M and not a Pentium4-M or just the p4s? 
> There is a signicant difference.  With all the benchmarks I've seen, the 
> Pentium Ms beat all the other processors in terms of power consumption and 
> heat and in a lot of cases, performance.  it even outdoes the P4s and the FX 
> series amds.  Tomshardware even has benchmarks claiming such a thing (which 
> is odd since they're usually anti-intel).  It is after all, a souped up P3 
> which allows it to have a faster clock speed than the p4s even when running 
> with fewer ghz.
>
> Lord Sauron wrote:
>
>> http://www-131.ibm.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/ProductDisplay?productId=4611686018425155337&storeId=10000001&langId=-1&categoryId=2059153&dualCurrId=1000073&catalogId=-840
>> 
>> That's the cheapest X60 with Core Duo.  HOWEVER:
>> 
>> I'd still highly recommend a AMD Turion.  Well...  I'd even more
>> strongly suggest just waiting, all you prospective laptop buyers.  A
>> Dual Core Turion64 is coming *very* soon.  The Turion64s murdered the
>> Pentium M processors in not just speed but power efficiency.  My
>> Athlon1400 could kill a Pentium 4 2.4GHz any time.  My Athlon64 can
>> destroy the fastest non-dual core Pentium 4 (extreme editions exempted
>> - I don't know anyone with one to compare the performance with).  Acer
>> makes good laptops with AMD chips.
>> 
>> Just for laughs, Intel just released a new Pentium4 Ext.Ed. (Dual
>> core, 955) to counter the FX-60 from AMD.  PC World tested the chip...
>>  the FX-60 was ~30% faster while being about $30 cheaper.
>> 
>> Okay, I'll stop evangelising AMD now.  Thanks for listening (it makes
>> me feel somewhat important).
>>
>> 
>> 
>
> -- 
> gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list
>
>
-- 
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [OT] Re: [gentoo-user] Intel Core Duo Processor - Anyone?

[Lord Sauron]

On 3/29/06, michael@michaelshiloh.com <michael@michaelshiloh.com> wrote:
> Always interesting discussions on this list.
>
> I have two questions for everyone (not just the person I'm responding
> to):
>
> How soon do you think we'll see laptops with the Dual Core Turion64?

AMD says the release will be within 4 months or so.  I'd expect it
within 5-6 months, to see them in enough places to really call them
"avaliable."

> Elsewhere (perhaps on this list on a different topic) someone
> recommended not buying anything except for 64 bits (either AMD or Intel)
> from now on. Do you agree, in particular regarding laptops?

Not entirely.  Having a 64-bit machine does give some major bonuses. 
Reliable sources (guys I know who do a lot of benchmarking) tell me
that a 64-bit chip will perform ~10% faster than a non-64-bit chip. 
However, 64-bit chips in laptops aren't that common yet.

If you're like me, you'll buy a 32-bit laptop just because it's
cheaper.  However, if you do stuff that would make a 64-bit chip
necessary (MatLab, for instance, runs *much* faster in a 64-bit
enviornent) then by all means shell out the extra money and get it.  I
evangalise the greatness of AMD64 technology a lot, but I will NOT
tell you to waste your money.  If you don't need the speed, DON'T BUY
IT!  Free enterprise is based on the idea that consumers will buy the
best product or the product they need.  Buy what you need.  If you
need a 17" screen, buy it.  If you (like me) can't live without
ultra-portability, buy it.  If you can't live without either...  flip
a coin : )

--
========== GCv3.12 ==========
GCS d-(++) s+: a? C++ UL+>++++ P+
L++ E--- W+(+++) N++ o? K? w--- O? M+
V? PS- PE+ Y-(--) PGP- t+++ 5? X R tv-- b+
                DI+++ D+ G e* h- !r !y
========= END GCv3.12 ========

-- 
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [OT] Re: [gentoo-user] Intel Core Duo Processor - Anyone?

[Richard Fish]

On 3/29/06, michael@michaelshiloh.com <michael@michaelshiloh.com> wrote:
> How soon do you think we'll see laptops with the Dual Core Turion64?

Summer.  Got to have them out in time for back-to-school purchasing, right?

>
> Elsewhere (perhaps on this list on a different topic) someone
> recommended not buying anything except for 64 bits (either AMD or Intel)
> from now on. Do you agree, in particular regarding laptops?

No, but others are going to disagree with me!

Nobody is currently producing laptops that can have over 4G of memory
(in fact, 2G is the max today in a laptop).  And for my AMD desktop at
home, I don't see much difference between 64 and 32-bit programs.  The
programs I am most interested in running fast are compression,
encryption, media encoding, and the like...standard desktop type uses.
 Some things are slightly faster in 32-bit, some things are slightly
faster in 64-bit, but neither mode seems to have a definitive
advantage.

So unless and until you require more memory or specific applications,
I don't think you need to worry about 64-bit.

-Richard

-- 
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [OT] Re: [gentoo-user] Intel Core Duo Processor - Anyone?

[Lord Sauron]

On 3/29/06, Richard Fish <bigfish@asmallpond.org> wrote:
> On 3/29/06, michael@michaelshiloh.com <michael@michaelshiloh.com> wrote:
> > How soon do you think we'll see laptops with the Dual Core Turion64?
>
> Summer.  Got to have them out in time for back-to-school purchasing, right?
>
> >
> > Elsewhere (perhaps on this list on a different topic) someone
> > recommended not buying anything except for 64 bits (either AMD or Intel)
> > from now on. Do you agree, in particular regarding laptops?
>
> No, but others are going to disagree with me!
>
> Nobody is currently producing laptops that can have over 4G of memory
> (in fact, 2G is the max today in a laptop).  And for my AMD desktop at

www.alienware.com  I beg to differ.  I could have sworn I saw a laptop
with more than 2G...  where was it... wow!  You appear to be right! 
Darn.. I could have SWORN I saw something with > 2G...

> home, I don't see much difference between 64 and 32-bit programs.  The
> programs I am most interested in running fast are compression,
> encryption, media encoding, and the like...standard desktop type uses.

There is a big difference.  You most likely aren't running with
software compiled for 64-bit, or software that wasn't designed to take
advantage of 64-bit, rather targeting 32-bit and just praying the
compiler helps with the 64-bit part.  It gets a bit technical, but
there is a big difference between something made from the ground up as
64-bit versus something that was made 32-bit and just recompiled
64-bit.

>  Some things are slightly faster in 32-bit, some things are slightly
> faster in 64-bit, but neither mode seems to have a definitive
> advantage.

Yes, with the unfairness of the compiler, that is true.  It's a lot
like if you had a car that could go 200MPH.  Your driver may only hit
80MPH (the 32-bit code on a 64-bit chip), but then you get a driver
trained for 200MPH driving, and then he actually hits 200MPH (the
64-bit code).

It's like the good data in good data out / bad data in bad data out theory.

> So unless and until you require more memory or specific applications,
> I don't think you need to worry about 64-bit.

Well, I think we must include bragging rights into our deliberation. 
That's a major part of it, too.  Even though some people may never use
more than a whole MHz of their PC, they still like to brag ; )

PS: I'm not one of them.  If there were a law against computer abuse,
I'd be locked up for life - It pains me to see a CPU idling.

> -Richard
>
> --
> gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list
>
>


--
========== GCv3.12 ==========
GCS d-(++) s+: a? C++ UL+>++++ P+
L++ E--- W+(+++) N++ o? K? w--- O? M+
V? PS- PE+ Y-(--) PGP- t+++ 5? X R tv-- b+
                DI+++ D+ G e* h- !r !y
========= END GCv3.12 ========

-- 
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [OT] Re: [gentoo-user] Intel Core Duo Processor - Anyone?

[Richard Fish]

On 3/29/06, Lord Sauron <lordsauronthegreat@gmail.com> wrote:
> www.alienware.com  I beg to differ.  I could have sworn I saw a laptop
> with more than 2G...  where was it... wow!  You appear to be right!
> Darn.. I could have SWORN I saw something with > 2G...

Actually, you are right.  I neglected the monstrous Clevo laptop.  Its
an AMD X2 with capacity for 2 optical drives plus 2 hard drives, up to
3G of memory, and a 200W power adapter.  Weighs 12-15 lbs, _not_
counting the power adapter!  This is acutally a Clevo design, sold by
Sager, AGearnotebooks, and many others.  Alienware got it with a
customized case.  All of the reviews I read on it basically said
"incredible performance, excellent display, but heavy, noisy, and
really hard to describe how large it really is".

I was actually considering purchasing this beast...but the noise
factor scared me off.  Not really appropriate for a shared office or
conference room.

> compiler helps with the 64-bit part.  It gets a bit technical, but
> there is a big difference between something made from the ground up as
> 64-bit versus something that was made 32-bit and just recompiled
> 64-bit.

For most applications, this is not true.  The vast majority of C/C++
code that runs on a desktop system couldn't care less whether longs
and pointers are 32-bits or 64-bits in size.  It is a compiler
function to deal with that.  And it is also a compiler function to
determine whether 64-bit or 32-bit registers should be used for a
particular operation.  FYI, gcc has supported non-x86 64-bit CPUs for
a long time, so gcc's 64-bit support is probably more mature than you
think.  So are the applications...many open source applications were
ported and adapted (if necessary) to 64-bit sparc and alpha processors
back in the late 90s.

There are opportunities for some programs to take advantage of special
processor operations through assembly instructions.  This is very
similar to how 3Dnow, MMX, SSE, et. al. make programs faster.  So
there may be some specific optimizations for some operations that can
be improved over time.

An example of an application domain that could benefit from 64-bit is
encryption, because for key setups you need to calculate very large
numbers.  Such numbers could be calculated about twice as fast with
64-bit operations vs 32-bit.  *BUT*, this does almost nothing for the
actual data encryption itself.

A good resource on the 64-bit vs 32-bit issues is to look at AMDs
optimization guide for software developers.  Chapter 3 is particularly
relevant:

http://www.amd.com/us-en/assets/content_type/white_papers_and_tech_docs/25112.PDF

-Richard

-- 
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [OT] Re: [gentoo-user] Intel Core Duo Processor - Anyone?

[Mike Myers]

Just my .02c, but it seems like the 64-bit processors come with more
hype than benefits.  Not that the 64-bit move is a bad thing at all,
but I mean it just seems like people tend to expect much more out of
them than what they should.

It would seem like a more accurate, but oversimplified explaination
would be that it simply allows for other improvements within the
computer, but it does not improve anything on it's own.  For instance,
allowing >4GB ram, which in turn gives better performance.  From what
I've read, there are improvements in certain things that are specific
to number crunching, like a database with mathematical formulas. 
However, for a desktop processor, the difference is going to be barely
noticeable, if any, especially since most desktops don't use more than
4 gigs of ram.

It definitely seems to be a difficult thing to explain though due to
the nature of the processor.  Most people think simply 'more numbers =
more speed', but that's not really case, and surely not the point. 
Since around the mid 90's, processor speeds have steadily increased,
but in the last couple of years, that increase has halted. 
Supposedly, the speeds have been maxed out for the size of the
processors, so that's why the manufacturers are trying different
routes, like hyperthreading, dual core, multi-core, and 64-bit.  None
of these features directly improve performance, but they do increase
it's capabilities.  More specifically, they allow the computer to do
MORE tasks better, instead of focusing on speeding up tasks.  That's
not a bad thing really, because it's nice to be able to do multiple
things simultaneously, like burning a cd while listening to mp3s and
playing games on a LAMP server that's running emerge -u world without
any degradation in performance in any of the processes.

That kind of performance seems to be what is intended with these
different avenues that the chip makers are taking.  That is not to say
that single tasks will perform any better, and I think the lack of
discerning the difference is causing a lot of confusion for most
people, especially when they aren't familiar with low level
programming.

On 3/29/06, Richard Fish <bigfish@asmallpond.org> wrote:
> On 3/29/06, Lord Sauron <lordsauronthegreat@gmail.com> wrote:
> > www.alienware.com  I beg to differ.  I could have sworn I saw a laptop
> > with more than 2G...  where was it... wow!  You appear to be right!
> > Darn.. I could have SWORN I saw something with > 2G...
>
> Actually, you are right.  I neglected the monstrous Clevo laptop.  Its
> an AMD X2 with capacity for 2 optical drives plus 2 hard drives, up to
> 3G of memory, and a 200W power adapter.  Weighs 12-15 lbs, _not_
> counting the power adapter!  This is acutally a Clevo design, sold by
> Sager, AGearnotebooks, and many others.  Alienware got it with a
> customized case.  All of the reviews I read on it basically said
> "incredible performance, excellent display, but heavy, noisy, and
> really hard to describe how large it really is".
>
> I was actually considering purchasing this beast...but the noise
> factor scared me off.  Not really appropriate for a shared office or
> conference room.
>
> > compiler helps with the 64-bit part.  It gets a bit technical, but
> > there is a big difference between something made from the ground up as
> > 64-bit versus something that was made 32-bit and just recompiled
> > 64-bit.
>
> For most applications, this is not true.  The vast majority of C/C++
> code that runs on a desktop system couldn't care less whether longs
> and pointers are 32-bits or 64-bits in size.  It is a compiler
> function to deal with that.  And it is also a compiler function to
> determine whether 64-bit or 32-bit registers should be used for a
> particular operation.  FYI, gcc has supported non-x86 64-bit CPUs for
> a long time, so gcc's 64-bit support is probably more mature than you
> think.  So are the applications...many open source applications were
> ported and adapted (if necessary) to 64-bit sparc and alpha processors
> back in the late 90s.
>
> There are opportunities for some programs to take advantage of special
> processor operations through assembly instructions.  This is very
> similar to how 3Dnow, MMX, SSE, et. al. make programs faster.  So
> there may be some specific optimizations for some operations that can
> be improved over time.
>
> An example of an application domain that could benefit from 64-bit is
> encryption, because for key setups you need to calculate very large
> numbers.  Such numbers could be calculated about twice as fast with
> 64-bit operations vs 32-bit.  *BUT*, this does almost nothing for the
> actual data encryption itself.
>
> A good resource on the 64-bit vs 32-bit issues is to look at AMDs
> optimization guide for software developers.  Chapter 3 is particularly
> relevant:
>
> http://www.amd.com/us-en/assets/content_type/white_papers_and_tech_docs/25112.PDF
>
> -Richard
>
> --
> gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list
>
>


--
Mike Myers
mike@yaay.us
http://www.yaay.us

-- 
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [OT] Re: [gentoo-user] Intel Core Duo Processor - Anyone?

[Lord Sauron]

On 3/30/06, Mike Myers <fluffymikey@gmail.com> wrote:
> Just my .02c, but it seems like the 64-bit processors come with more
> hype than benefits.  Not that the 64-bit move is a bad thing at all,
> but I mean it just seems like people tend to expect much more out of
> them than what they should.

You're very close to the mark, actually.

> It would seem like a more accurate, but oversimplified explaination
> would be that it simply allows for other improvements within the
> computer, but it does not improve anything on it's own.  For instance,

Yes, you're very close.  It does allow for one major thing OTTOH. 
With a 64-bit wide word, more precise calculations take half the time
they would on a 32-bit chip.  They don't give any other real major
64-bit exclusive benefits though.  The advantages of a 64-bit variable
isn't really relevant for most uses though.  Things like MatLab are
greatly benefitted, however, normal desktop use isn't.  Some video
games are now being made 64-bit, so they'll benefit from more precise
gameplay at higher speeds, however, you are right: 64-bit en se
doesn't give any other amazing benefit.

> allowing >4GB ram, which in turn gives better performance.  From what
> I've read, there are improvements in certain things that are specific
> to number crunching, like a database with mathematical formulas.

Yup.

> However, for a desktop processor, the difference is going to be barely
> noticeable, if any, especially since most desktops don't use more than
> 4 gigs of ram.

True.  However, sticking to 32-bit for the rest of forever isn't a
terribly good idea, now is it?

> It definitely seems to be a difficult thing to explain though due to
> the nature of the processor.  Most people think simply 'more numbers =
> more speed', but that's not really case, and surely not the point.
> Since around the mid 90's, processor speeds have steadily increased,
> but in the last couple of years, that increase has halted.

Not really.  AMD is still making their chips more efficient and
faster, though the new fad is to add more cores.  However, eventually
this will still limit threads to the speed of one core, which'll
prompt more and more rapid speed increases.  Just be patient; you
don't need all that number-crunching power right now, do you? ; )

> Supposedly, the speeds have been maxed out for the size of the
> processors, so that's why the manufacturers are trying different
> routes, like hyperthreading, dual core, multi-core, and 64-bit.  None

Well, they also need to make the thing smaller.  We're still on what? 
95 nanometre?  Smaller means more transistors in the same area.

> of these features directly improve performance, but they do increase
> it's capabilities.  More specifically, they allow the computer to do
> MORE tasks better, instead of focusing on speeding up tasks.  That's
> not a bad thing really, because it's nice to be able to do multiple
> things simultaneously, like burning a cd while listening to mp3s and
> playing games on a LAMP server that's running emerge -u world without
> any degradation in performance in any of the processes.

People who do that scare me.

> That kind of performance seems to be what is intended with these
> different avenues that the chip makers are taking.  That is not to say
> that single tasks will perform any better, and I think the lack of
> discerning the difference is causing a lot of confusion for most
> people, especially when they aren't familiar with low level
> programming.

In the end this might degenerate to a "programmer's rating" thing. 
IE: one standardised benchmark.

> On 3/29/06, Richard Fish <bigfish@asmallpond.org> wrote:
> > On 3/29/06, Lord Sauron <lordsauronthegreat@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > www.alienware.com  I beg to differ.  I could have sworn I saw a laptop
> > > with more than 2G...  where was it... wow!  You appear to be right!
> > > Darn.. I could have SWORN I saw something with > 2G...
> >
> > Actually, you are right.  I neglected the monstrous Clevo laptop.  Its
> > an AMD X2 with capacity for 2 optical drives plus 2 hard drives, up to
> > 3G of memory, and a 200W power adapter.  Weighs 12-15 lbs, _not_
> > counting the power adapter!  This is acutally a Clevo design, sold by
> > Sager, AGearnotebooks, and many others.  Alienware got it with a
> > customized case.  All of the reviews I read on it basically said
> > "incredible performance, excellent display, but heavy, noisy, and
> > really hard to describe how large it really is".
> >
> > I was actually considering purchasing this beast...but the noise
> > factor scared me off.  Not really appropriate for a shared office or
> > conference room.
> >
> > > compiler helps with the 64-bit part.  It gets a bit technical, but
> > > there is a big difference between something made from the ground up as
> > > 64-bit versus something that was made 32-bit and just recompiled
> > > 64-bit.
> >
> > For most applications, this is not true.  The vast majority of C/C++
> > code that runs on a desktop system couldn't care less whether longs
> > and pointers are 32-bits or 64-bits in size.  It is a compiler
> > function to deal with that.  And it is also a compiler function to
> > determine whether 64-bit or 32-bit registers should be used for a
> > particular operation.  FYI, gcc has supported non-x86 64-bit CPUs for
> > a long time, so gcc's 64-bit support is probably more mature than you
> > think.  So are the applications...many open source applications were
> > ported and adapted (if necessary) to 64-bit sparc and alpha processors
> > back in the late 90s.
> >
> > There are opportunities for some programs to take advantage of special
> > processor operations through assembly instructions.  This is very
> > similar to how 3Dnow, MMX, SSE, et. al. make programs faster.  So
> > there may be some specific optimizations for some operations that can
> > be improved over time.
> >
> > An example of an application domain that could benefit from 64-bit is
> > encryption, because for key setups you need to calculate very large
> > numbers.  Such numbers could be calculated about twice as fast with
> > 64-bit operations vs 32-bit.  *BUT*, this does almost nothing for the
> > actual data encryption itself.
> >
> > A good resource on the 64-bit vs 32-bit issues is to look at AMDs
> > optimization guide for software developers.  Chapter 3 is particularly
> > relevant:
> >
> > http://www.amd.com/us-en/assets/content_type/white_papers_and_tech_docs/25112.PDF
> >
> > -Richard
> >
> > --
> > gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list
> >
> >
>
>
> --
> Mike Myers
> mike@yaay.us
> http://www.yaay.us
>
> --
> gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list
>
>


--
========== GCv3.12 ==========
GCS d-(++) s+: a? C++ UL+>++++ P+
L++ E--- W+(+++) N++ o? K? w--- O? M+
V? PS- PE+ Y-(--) PGP- t+++ 5? X R tv-- b+
                DI+++ D+ G e* h- !r !y
========= END GCv3.12 ========

-- 
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [OT] Re: [gentoo-user] Intel Core Duo Processor - Anyone?

[Ow Mun Heng]

On Wed, 2006-03-29 at 17:34 -0700, Richard Fish wrote:
> On 3/29/06, michael@michaelshiloh.com <michael@michaelshiloh.com> wrote:
> > How soon do you think we'll see laptops with the Dual Core Turion64?
> 
> Summer.  Got to have them out in time for back-to-school purchasing, right?
> 
> >
> > Elsewhere (perhaps on this list on a different topic) someone
> > recommended not buying anything except for 64 bits (either AMD or Intel)
> > from now on. Do you agree, in particular regarding laptops?
> 
> No, but others are going to disagree with me!

Actually, if I didn't have to get one now, I would wait. I'll not wait
for the dual-core AMD, but I'll wait for the quad-core. After all, these
dual-cores are just a transition time for the chip producers. 

Intel just announced that they'll be coming out with the quad cores
sometime in Q1 2007 (can't remember which Q it was..)

> 
> Nobody is currently producing laptops that can have over 4G of memory
> (in fact, 2G is the max today in a laptop).  

I think I saw some with 3G?



-- 
Ow Mun Heng
Gentoo/Linux on DELL D600 1.4Ghz 1.5GB RAM
98% Microsoft(tm) Free!! 
Neuromancer 09:12:33 up 1 day, 1:50, 4 users, load average: 0.99, 0.80,
1.54 


-- 
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [OT] Re: [gentoo-user] Intel Core Duo Processor - Anyone?

[Lord Sauron]

On 3/29/06, Mike Myers <fluffymikey@gmail.com> wrote:
> Are you sure that it was a Pentium M and not a Pentium4-M or just the

It's ID is a Pentium-M Ultra-Low Voltage 1.0GHz Processor.  It's
basically whatever you'll find in the IBM X40 type 2386-1CU.  My
serial # is KV-AC277.  Proud owner of a IBM.  It's built like a rock -
I love it.  It's survived my backpack.  Isn't that amazing?  It's the
first device in recorded history to do that!

> p4s?  There is a signicant difference.  With all the benchmarks I've
> seen, the Pentium Ms beat all the other processors in terms of power
> consumption and heat and in a lot of cases, performance.  it even
> outdoes the P4s and the FX series amds.  Tomshardware even has

Turions are really good, though I'm not totally certain of the
veracity of the testers.  Things also vary from test to test, so it's
totally possible that what I have now is cooler and less-power-hungry
than a Turion.  However, start comparing the ratio of heat to speed
and power to speed, and the Turion slaughters the Pentium Ms.

> benchmarks claiming such a thing (which is odd since they're usually
> anti-intel).  It is after all, a souped up P3 which allows it to have a
> faster clock speed than the p4s even when running with fewer ghz.

I have one.  They suck for doing number crunching.  I have an
Athlon64.  It kicks total butt.  The Turion64 is really just a scaled
down Athlon64.  The new Turion64 X2s are just scaled down Athlon64
X2s.  AMD just takes a bit longer to make their dual-core stuff
because they load it up with all kinds of goodies that make it go
faster without clocking it up.
--
========== GCv3.12 ==========
GCS d-(++) s+: a? C++ UL+>++++ P+
L++ E--- W+(+++) N++ o? K? w--- O? M+
V? PS- PE+ Y-(--) PGP- t+++ 5? X R tv-- b+
                DI+++ D+ G e* h- !r !y
========= END GCv3.12 ========

-- 
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [OT] Re: [gentoo-user] Intel Core Duo Processor - Anyone?

[Ow Mun Heng]

On Wed, 2006-03-29 at 11:47 -0800, Lord Sauron wrote:
> http://www-131.ibm.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/ProductDisplay?productId=4611686018425155337&storeId=10000001&langId=-1&categoryId=2059153&dualCurrId=1000073&catalogId=-840
> 
> That's the cheapest X60 with Core Duo.  HOWEVER:

Hmm.. you obviously missed out this one..
http://shoponline.com.sg/product_info.php?osCsid=846a9e26b170bb790f1abf4c95c68030&currency=USD&osCsid=846a9e26b170bb790f1abf4c95c68030&cPath=116&products_id=3728

though it's just a tad bit more pricer, but way better processor specs.

I'm thinking of getting it actually. (for the "whom must be obeyed")

-- 
Ow Mun Heng
Gentoo/Linux on DELL D600 1.4Ghz 1.5GB RAM
98% Microsoft(tm) Free!! 
Neuromancer 09:08:55 up 1 day, 1:47, 4 users, load average: 0.77, 0.69,
1.73 


-- 
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [OT] Re: [gentoo-user] Intel Core Duo Processor - Anyone?

[Richard Fish]

On 3/29/06, Lord Sauron <lordsauronthegreat@gmail.com> wrote:
> You have no idea what portable is.  One month on a 3.7lb. 12.1 inch
> X40 and you'll never go back - even if you wanted to!

Well, everybody has different needs/tastes.  Frankly, I wouldn't even
want to _touch_ something with a 12.1in screen.  ;->

Portability is not my primary concern.  Nor is battery life.  Reading
and responding to email on the road is not something I need to do
frequently, or when I do, I can wait until I get to the hotel or the
conference room.  I have never even had a desire to pull out a laptop
on a plane...heck, I don't even bother with an ipod or pda usually.

My big issue is screen resolution; I need a very high resolution
screen for viewing technical schematics with good scope and readable
fonts.  I was working with a visitor recently who constantly had me
print out schematics because he could not read them on his laptop or
the available desktop without zooming in so far that he couldn't see
the overall diagram.  On my 17" screen at 1920x1200 though, neither of
us had any problems with the display.

The _minimum_ I can work with is about 1400x1050 (1680x1050 in a wide format).

> Just a word of the wise from many experienced laptop users:

Does using a laptop for 12-14 hours/day every day for the last 3 years
count as 'experienced'? ;->  Including international travel?

> world's strongest man would still have to admit that 13 pounds isn't a
> good idea.

No argument there...9lb + case + power supply is more than most people
would want or need to deal with.  But there is no sub-5lb laptop
available today that can meet my display needs.

-Richard

-- 
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [OT] Re: [gentoo-user] Intel Core Duo Processor - Anyone?

[Lord Sauron]

On 3/29/06, Richard Fish <bigfish@asmallpond.org> wrote:
> On 3/29/06, Lord Sauron <lordsauronthegreat@gmail.com> wrote:
> > You have no idea what portable is.  One month on a 3.7lb. 12.1 inch
> > X40 and you'll never go back - even if you wanted to!
>
> Well, everybody has different needs/tastes.  Frankly, I wouldn't even
> want to _touch_ something with a 12.1in screen.  ;->

That's just you - and as I said, there are a few exceptions.  However,
for most users, 17" isn't necessary, wouldn't you agree?

> Portability is not my primary concern.  Nor is battery life.  Reading
> and responding to email on the road is not something I need to do
> frequently, or when I do, I can wait until I get to the hotel or the
> conference room.  I have never even had a desire to pull out a laptop
> on a plane...heck, I don't even bother with an ipod or pda usually.

Yeah, however, I see all these people buy a cheap laptop from Dell and
expect it to run stuff like Doom 3.  They end up hating their laptop
because it's slow, heavy, and by running D3 they kiss whatever was
left of their poor battery goodbye.

> My big issue is screen resolution; I need a very high resolution
> screen for viewing technical schematics with good scope and readable
> fonts.  I was working with a visitor recently who constantly had me
> print out schematics because he could not read them on his laptop or
> the available desktop without zooming in so far that he couldn't see
> the overall diagram.  On my 17" screen at 1920x1200 though, neither of
> us had any problems with the display.

That's you and what you do.  A guy who does finances at Safeway corp.
hq doesn't need the equivalent of Bill Gate's mansion in screen real
estate.  You do.

> The _minimum_ I can work with is about 1400x1050 (1680x1050 in a wide format).

Great for you.  However, if you got a laptop for non-work use
(personal, communications, mobile DVD viewing, &c) would you rather
get the massive 9 pound thing you use at work, or a nice small 14"
portable?

When you get the 17", you're buying for necessity.  Go smaller if you
can afford it.  You can't ATM.  There's nothing wrong with that.

> > Just a word of the wise from many experienced laptop users:
>
> Does using a laptop for 12-14 hours/day every day for the last 3 years
> count as 'experienced'? ;->  Including international travel?

Yeah, experienced in your area of expertise and how it relates to
laptop buying decisions.  Different people have different patterns of
mobile use.  ~90% of the people I know need to use their laptop on the
go.  They're the people my advice is aimed at.

> > world's strongest man would still have to admit that 13 pounds isn't a
> > good idea.
>
> No argument there...9lb + case + power supply is more than most people
> would want or need to deal with.  But there is no sub-5lb laptop
> available today that can meet my display needs.

Yeah...  Lenovo, to give them credit, came really close.  15.1" in
their Z60t at only 4lbs.

Before I forget: I lied.  I doublechecked the #s and my X40 is really
2.7 lbs.  Srry...  won't let it happen again ; )

--
========== GCv3.12 ==========
GCS d-(++) s+: a? C++ UL+>++++ P+
L++ E--- W+(+++) N++ o? K? w--- O? M+
V? PS- PE+ Y-(--) PGP- t+++ 5? X R tv-- b+
                DI+++ D+ G e* h- !r !y
========= END GCv3.12 ========

-- 
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [OT] Re: [gentoo-user] Intel Core Duo Processor - Anyone?

[Richard Fish]

On 3/29/06, Lord Sauron <lordsauronthegreat@gmail.com> wrote:
> Great for you.  However, if you got a laptop for non-work use
> (personal, communications, mobile DVD viewing, &c) would you rather
> get the massive 9 pound thing you use at work, or a nice small 14"
> portable?

Even this is a tough decision for me...I do occasionally like to watch
DVDs on my laptop, even when I am at home, because at arms length my
screen takes up more of my visual field than my 65" TV across the
room!  There is just something about that that makes me smile...

Probably the same smile you get after you panic because you think you
forgot your laptop,  and then realize it is on your shoulder...

> Before I forget: I lied.  I doublechecked the #s and my X40 is really
> 2.7 lbs.  Srry...  won't let it happen again ; )

Thank goodness for competition and market analysis....we both get
laptops that we are really happy with, and that work well for us!

Anyway my advice to people is to figure out what your needs are and
buy the best laptop you can afford that comes as close to those needs
as possible.  Bigger is not always better.  Neither is smaller.

-Richard

-- 
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [OT] Re: [gentoo-user] Intel Core Duo Processor - Anyone?

[Lord Sauron]

On 3/29/06, Richard Fish <bigfish@asmallpond.org> wrote:
> On 3/29/06, Lord Sauron <lordsauronthegreat@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Great for you.  However, if you got a laptop for non-work use
> > (personal, communications, mobile DVD viewing, &c) would you rather
> > get the massive 9 pound thing you use at work, or a nice small 14"
> > portable?
>
> Even this is a tough decision for me...I do occasionally like to watch
> DVDs on my laptop, even when I am at home, because at arms length my
> screen takes up more of my visual field than my 65" TV across the
> room!  There is just something about that that makes me smile...

Yeah, even with my amazing 12.1" "Theatre-in-a-clamshell" display it
takes up more of my field of view than anything other than my dad's
massive 51" DLP HDTV (1080i, I hope to plug my hilariously overpowered
graphics card into it someday!)

> Probably the same smile you get after you panic because you think you
> forgot your laptop,  and then realize it is on your shoulder...

Yup!  What really puts it into perspective is the X4 Ultrabase dock
that I use.  When I take it with me (when I know I'll need it -
otherwise it sits next to the Athlon64) I can really feel the extra
1.1lbs.  It's more noticeable than you would think, for those of you
who never owned a laptop.

> > Before I forget: I lied.  I doublechecked the #s and my X40 is really
> > 2.7 lbs.  Srry...  won't let it happen again ; )
>
> Thank goodness for competition and market analysis....we both get
> laptops that we are really happy with, and that work well for us!

Yup.  Thank God for lassiz-faire, or you we would both have laptops
(if we were lucky) that would be the best for us - according to what
the state says is the best for us : (

> Anyway my advice to people is to figure out what your needs are and
> buy the best laptop you can afford that comes as close to those needs
> as possible.  Bigger is not always better.  Neither is smaller.

I love consulting on these things.  Just email me - I'm totally
neurotic about making sure you find what you need and not what they
say you need (which also just so happens to be the most expensive item
on their list...  what are the chances of that?)

--
========== GCv3.12 ==========
GCS d-(++) s+: a? C++ UL+>++++ P+
L++ E--- W+(+++) N++ o? K? w--- O? M+
V? PS- PE+ Y-(--) PGP- t+++ 5? X R tv-- b+
                DI+++ D+ G e* h- !r !y
========= END GCv3.12 ========

-- 
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [OT] Re: [gentoo-user] Intel Core Duo Processor - Anyone?

[Ow Mun Heng]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1083 bytes --]

On Wed, 2006-03-29 at 15:42 -0800, Lord Sauron wrote:
> On 3/29/06, Richard Fish <bigfish@asmallpond.org> wrote:

> Yeah, however, I see all these people buy a cheap laptop from Dell and
> expect it to run stuff like Doom 3. 

Soon, they'll have to but it from Alienware which dell just bought
recently. They're pulling the plug on the discrete graphics even on the
inspiron. /me hates those built-in graphics. Makes things slow.
Seriously does make a difference.

> > the available desktop without zooming in so far that he couldn't see
> > the overall diagram.  On my 17" screen at 1920x1200 though, neither of
> > us had any problems with the display.

If you're not concerned with battery nor weight. I suggest you go for
the Dell XPS Mobile concept (when it becomes available)

Now, that is one _*#$*#_ of a laptop.

Here are some shots. (hope I don't get flamed for this. I've resized the
pics to the smallest.


-- 
Ow Mun Heng
Gentoo/Linux on DELL D600 1.4Ghz 1.5GB RAM
98% Microsoft(tm) Free!! 
Neuromancer 09:34:45 up 1 day, 2:13, 4 users, load average: 1.15, 1.29,
1.26 


[-- Attachment #2: dell-xps-m2010-mobile-concept-pc_large.jpg --]
[-- Type: image/jpeg, Size: 6863 bytes --]

[-- Attachment #3: Screenshot-2.jpg --]
[-- Type: image/jpeg, Size: 3043 bytes --]

Re: [OT] Re: [gentoo-user] Intel Core Duo Processor - Anyone?

[Lord Sauron]

On 3/29/06, Ow Mun Heng <Ow.Mun.Heng@wdc.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 2006-03-29 at 15:42 -0800, Lord Sauron wrote:
> > On 3/29/06, Richard Fish <bigfish@asmallpond.org> wrote:
>
> > Yeah, however, I see all these people buy a cheap laptop from Dell and
> > expect it to run stuff like Doom 3.
>
> Soon, they'll have to but it from Alienware which dell just bought
> recently. They're pulling the plug on the discrete graphics even on the
> inspiron. /me hates those built-in graphics. Makes things slow.
> Seriously does make a difference.

However, at the same time, you really shouldn't expect games out of
any but the most expensive laptops.  Maybe 5-10 years from now that'll
be a different story, but for now that's about right.

> > > the available desktop without zooming in so far that he couldn't see
> > > the overall diagram.  On my 17" screen at 1920x1200 though, neither of
> > > us had any problems with the display.
>
> If you're not concerned with battery nor weight. I suggest you go for
> the Dell XPS Mobile concept (when it becomes available)
>
> Now, that is one _*#$*#_ of a laptop.
>
> Here are some shots. (hope I don't get flamed for this. I've resized the
> pics to the smallest.

That's not so much a laptop as a new breed of ultraportable desktop, IMHO.

--
========== GCv3.12 ==========
GCS d-(++) s+: a? C++ UL+>++++ P+
L++ E--- W+(+++) N++ o? K? w--- O? M+
V? PS- PE+ Y-(--) PGP- t+++ 5? X R tv-- b+
                DI+++ D+ G e* h- !r !y
========= END GCv3.12 ========

-- 
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [OT] Re: [gentoo-user] Intel Core Duo Processor - Anyone?

[Ow Mun Heng]

On Wed, 2006-03-29 at 17:41 -0800, Lord Sauron wrote:
> On 3/29/06, Ow Mun Heng <Ow.Mun.Heng@wdc.com> wrote:
> > > Yeah, however, I see all these people buy a cheap laptop from Dell and
> > > expect it to run stuff like Doom 3.
> >
> /me hates those built-in graphics. Makes things slow.
> > Seriously does make a difference.
> 
> However, at the same time, you really shouldn't expect games out of
> any but the most expensive laptops.  Maybe 5-10 years from now that'll

I'm not even talking about playing games. I'm just talking about graphic
rendering. eg: Desktop Wallpaper rendering/eye candy.

My wife's home desktop is a Dell w/ 768MB Ram, 2,8Ghz P4 and integrated
graphics. It runs slower (feel) than my laptop which has discrete
graphics.


> > If you're not concerned with battery nor weight. I suggest you go for
> > the Dell XPS Mobile concept (when it becomes available)
> >> Here are some shots. 
> 
> That's not so much a laptop as a new breed of ultraportable desktop, IMHO.

heh.. I like that. Ultraportable desktop.


-- 
Ow Mun Heng
Gentoo/Linux on DELL D600 1.4Ghz 1.5GB RAM
98% Microsoft(tm) Free!! 
Neuromancer 10:24:15 up 1 day, 3:02, 3 users, load average: 0.19, 0.74,
0.95 


-- 
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [OT] Re: [gentoo-user] Intel Core Duo Processor - Anyone?

[Lord Sauron]

On 3/29/06, Ow Mun Heng <Ow.Mun.Heng@wdc.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 2006-03-29 at 17:41 -0800, Lord Sauron wrote:
> > On 3/29/06, Ow Mun Heng <Ow.Mun.Heng@wdc.com> wrote:
> > > > Yeah, however, I see all these people buy a cheap laptop from Dell and
> > > > expect it to run stuff like Doom 3.
> > >
> > /me hates those built-in graphics. Makes things slow.
> > > Seriously does make a difference.
> >
> > However, at the same time, you really shouldn't expect games out of
> > any but the most expensive laptops.  Maybe 5-10 years from now that'll
>
> I'm not even talking about playing games. I'm just talking about graphic
> rendering. eg: Desktop Wallpaper rendering/eye candy.

Well, I can understand if a lot of eyekandy won't work...  yeah, I
guess you're right.  My laptop's GC works slower than a older GC that
was in a desktop.

> My wife's home desktop is a Dell w/ 768MB Ram, 2,8Ghz P4 and integrated
> graphics. It runs slower (feel) than my laptop which has discrete
> graphics.

Poor woman...  having to use a Dell ; )

> > > If you're not concerned with battery nor weight. I suggest you go for
> > > the Dell XPS Mobile concept (when it becomes available)
> > >> Here are some shots.
> >
> > That's not so much a laptop as a new breed of ultraportable desktop, IMHO.
>
> heh.. I like that. Ultraportable desktop.

--
========== GCv3.12 ==========
GCS d-(++) s+: a? C++ UL+>++++ P+
L++ E--- W+(+++) N++ o? K? w--- O? M+
V? PS- PE+ Y-(--) PGP- t+++ 5? X R tv-- b+
                DI+++ D+ G e* h- !r !y
========= END GCv3.12 ========

-- 
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [OT] Re: [gentoo-user] Intel Core Duo Processor - Anyone?

[Ow Mun Heng]

On Wed, 2006-03-29 at 18:53 -0800, Lord Sauron wrote:
> On 3/29/06, Ow Mun Heng <Ow.Mun.Heng@wdc.com> wrote:
> > On Wed, 2006-03-29 at 17:41 -0800, Lord Sauron wrote:
> > > On 3/29/06, Ow Mun Heng <Ow.Mun.Heng@wdc.com> wrote:

> 
> > My wife's home desktop is a Dell w/ 768MB Ram, 2,8Ghz P4 and integrated
> > graphics. It runs slower (feel) than my laptop which has discrete
> > graphics.
> 
> Poor woman...  having to use a Dell ; )

Hey.. I use a DELL too. Dell D600 Laptop. Went through ~6 motherboard
changes. Dang Dell always giving me re-furbished parts.

Hinge Broke off as well. 


-- 
Ow Mun Heng
Gentoo/Linux on DELL D600 1.4Ghz 1.5GB RAM
98% Microsoft(tm) Free!! 
Neuromancer 11:04:30 up 1 day, 3:42, 5 users, load average: 0.18, 0.31,
0.55 


-- 
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [OT] Re: [gentoo-user] Intel Core Duo Processor - Anyone?

[John Jolet]

On Mar 29, 2006, at 9:04 PM, Ow Mun Heng wrote:

> On Wed, 2006-03-29 at 18:53 -0800, Lord Sauron wrote:
>> On 3/29/06, Ow Mun Heng <Ow.Mun.Heng@wdc.com> wrote:
>>> On Wed, 2006-03-29 at 17:41 -0800, Lord Sauron wrote:
>>>> On 3/29/06, Ow Mun Heng <Ow.Mun.Heng@wdc.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>> My wife's home desktop is a Dell w/ 768MB Ram, 2,8Ghz P4 and  
>>> integrated
>>> graphics. It runs slower (feel) than my laptop which has discrete
>>> graphics.
>>
>> Poor woman...  having to use a Dell ; )
>
> Hey.. I use a DELL too. Dell D600 Laptop. Went through ~6 motherboard
> changes. Dang Dell always giving me re-furbished parts.
>
> Hinge Broke off as well.
>
well, now i've got a perfectly good dell inspiron 1100 running gentoo  
sitting by my ankle as I type on my ibook :)

It's great for network troubleshooting and security testing...but I  
got ahold of it because it was my wife's and the usb ports gradually  
ceased functioning....first it was the mouse, but the printer  
worked...now not even a usb-powered light will work......
-- 
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [OT] Re: [gentoo-user] Intel Core Duo Processor - Anyone?

[Matthias Bethke]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 667 bytes --]

Hi Lord,
on Wednesday, 2006-03-29 at 17:41:49, you wrote:
> However, at the same time, you really shouldn't expect games out of
> any but the most expensive laptops.

You know, "games" includes stuff released before January 2006 =^>
The 486/100 laptop I bought for EUR 150 some 8 years ago runs Zork just
fine. In C64 emulation if you like. And although I wouldn't want to try
them all I bet my Mobile Athlon XP 1600+ with its crappy shared memory
SiS gfx would run most things in portage/games-* just fine.

SCNR :)
	Matthias
-- 
I prefer encrypted and signed messages. KeyID: FAC37665
Fingerprint: 8C16 3F0A A6FC DF0D 19B0  8DEF 48D9 1700 FAC3 7665

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 191 bytes --]

Re: [OT] Re: [gentoo-user] Intel Core Duo Processor - Anyone?

[Ow Mun Heng]

On Thu, 2006-03-30 at 09:35 +0800, Ow Mun Heng wrote:

> If you're not concerned with battery nor weight. I suggest you go for
> the Dell XPS Mobile concept (when it becomes available)
> 
> Now, that is one _*#$*#_ of a laptop.
> 

Engadget just ran one of these.

http://www.engadget.com/2006/04/07/dell-xps-mobile-concept-pc-to-shipping-this-May-as-xps-m2010/

20.1 inch 1680x1050 w/ 4GB RAM.


-- 
Ow Mun Heng
Gentoo/Linux on DELL D600 1.4Ghz 1.5GB RAM
98% Microsoft(tm) Free!! 
Neuromancer 21:38:22 up 2 days, 14:48, 4 users, load average: 0.28,
0.23, 0.15 


-- 
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [OT] Re: [gentoo-user] Intel Core Duo Processor - Anyone?

[Lord Sauron]

On 4/7/06, Ow Mun Heng <Ow.Mun.Heng@wdc.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 2006-03-30 at 09:35 +0800, Ow Mun Heng wrote:
>
> > If you're not concerned with battery nor weight. I suggest you go for
> > the Dell XPS Mobile concept (when it becomes available)
> >
> > Now, that is one _*#$*#_ of a laptop.
> >
>
> Engadget just ran one of these.
>
> http://www.engadget.com/2006/04/07/dell-xps-mobile-concept-pc-to-shipping-this-May-as-xps-m2010/
>
> 20.1 inch 1680x1050 w/ 4GB RAM.

I know something's wrong here 'cause that's bigger than my CRT at
home...  I hope to get one of those gorgeous Apple Cinema HD Displays
one of these days, but I can only hope and save my pennies : )

-- 
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [OT] Re: [gentoo-user] Intel Core Duo Processor - Anyone?

[Ow Mun Heng]

On Wed, 2006-03-29 at 11:36 -0800, Lord Sauron wrote:
> On 3/29/06, Richard Fish <bigfish@asmallpond.org> wrote:
> You have no idea what portable is.  One month on a 3.7lb. 12.1 inch
> X40 and you'll never go back - even if you wanted to!

It depends actually. Like Richard, I like/love the high res on my D600 -
1400x1050. 

I can live with a 12.1" 1024x768, but I don't think I can live with
those new "Glare" LCDs which are so popular today.

But between ultraportable and having a high res screen, I _will_ go back
to a 12.1 cos of the weight. 

I used to have a Dell P166 MMX which weighed 3.2 Kgs before I bought
this 'so-called' 2.2kg D600. Now, I know that even 2.2 is heavy.

I'm a so-called road-warrior. I take my laptop nearly everywhere. (since
I don't like leaving it in the car for fear of it getting stolen. There
are reports of thieves using some kind of metal/battery detector, going
around parking lots and unlocking the trunk! 2 Colleagues lost theirs
that way.)



-- 
Ow Mun Heng
Gentoo/Linux on DELL D600 1.4Ghz 1.5GB RAM
98% Microsoft(tm) Free!! 
Neuromancer 09:04:11 up 1 day, 1:42, 4 users, load average: 0.38, 0.78,
2.16 


-- 
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list