Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Retailer Planning Laptops With Intel Core i7 Chips

kdawson posted more than 5 years ago | from the can-you-say-luggable dept.

Intel 142

An anonymous reader writes "The Canadian PC retailer Eurocom is planning to ship a 12-pound laptop with Intel's Core i7 chip, which might go down well with deep-pocketed geeks. The Core i7 was designed with desktop computers and servers in mind; later members of the Nehalem chip family are planned to address portables. The 17" notebook's price, not yet announced, will certainly be in excess of $5,000."

cancel ×

142 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Desktop Replacement (4, Insightful)

ushering05401 (1086795) | more than 5 years ago | (#26691195)

Whatever happened to the 'desktop replacement' designation for mobile but not lightweight platforms?

This reminds me of the first laptop I ever owned:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commodore_SX-64 [wikipedia.org] .

Re:Desktop Replacement (3, Funny)

Tubal-Cain (1289912) | more than 5 years ago | (#26691231)

Wikipedia says:

The Commodore SX-64, also known as the Executive 64, or VIP-64...

Funny, the name implies it was for business use and yet the picture shows it with a pair of joysticks...

Re:Desktop Replacement (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26691269)

Commodore was inept, but I doubt they were releasing PR photos of their boxes sitting on someone's living room carpet ;)

Re:Desktop Replacement (2, Interesting)

laejoh (648921) | more than 5 years ago | (#26692317)

Did you read the wikipedia entry? It brings back the spirit of the C64:

(This was, however, often easily overcome by the user simply entering the appropriate BASIC POKE commands to change screen colors and keystroke to change the cursor color to mimic the C64's default colors prior to loading of the program.)

Re:Desktop Replacement (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26691293)

Is she illin with the panicillin?
Is she reelin in the panicillin?
Is it feelin with the panicillin?
Are you steelin in the panacillin?

Panka Panka

Is she liable no suitifiable no not on trial but so suitifiable
Is she viable no suitifiable pliable style is so suitifiable
so reliable no suitifiable shes not on file but so suitifiable
im on the dial its so suitifiable its like im liable but more suitifiable

Re:Desktop Replacement (5, Informative)

obarthelemy (160321) | more than 5 years ago | (#26691523)

Reasons for needing such a powerful but heavy and battery-challenged "laptop".

Taking your apps+docs (let alone taking you OS) with you on an HD/USB key doesn't really work for most OSes and Apps. Especially if you need specialty apps, like video/CAD... or whetever really NEEDS an i7.

Being certain you'll have an up-to spec PC wherever youre going, without being dependant on someone to book it + set it up for you.

Gaming in small appartments (I assume the vid card is nice, too).

Of course, being able to maybe use the laptop a little while NOT connected to the mains is.. a nice bonus.

I've been reading forever that Intel+AMD are including "laptop" power-management features in their "desktop" parts. Maybe with heavy underclocking one can actually watch a full DVD on a single charge ?

Re:Desktop Replacement (3, Funny)

Carbon016 (1129067) | more than 5 years ago | (#26692009)

There's a spec for that. It's called "micro-ATX".

A laptop... (4, Funny)

2Bits (167227) | more than 5 years ago | (#26691207)

... that's not supposed to be put on your lap, unless you are sure you don't want to have offspring. Given that this is designed for the /. kind of geek, the question of offspring is probably not too much of a problem anyway :)

Re:A laptop... (4, Funny)

WSOGMM (1460481) | more than 5 years ago | (#26691441)

... that's not supposed to be put on your lap, unless you are sure you don't want to have offspring. Given that this is designed for the /. kind of geek, the question of offspring is probably not too much of a problem anyway :)

Oh yeah? Well, your laptop is so fat that a...

It's not a laptop ... (4, Funny)

bigsteve@dstc (140392) | more than 5 years ago | (#26691489)

... it is a compact electric (gonad) cooker. :-)

Re:It's not a laptop ... (1, Funny)

poetmatt (793785) | more than 5 years ago | (#26691557)

Don't you mean Penis Panini?

Re:It's not a laptop ... (1)

Ihmhi (1206036) | more than 5 years ago | (#26693545)

That sounds like an awesome name for a new Davinci's Notebook album.

Re:A laptop... (4, Funny)

AuMatar (183847) | more than 5 years ago | (#26691617)

If you're single and still getting some, a temporary decrease in fertility is a feature not a bug.

Crazy talk (1, Funny)

jonaskoelker (922170) | more than 5 years ago | (#26691771)

a temporary decrease in fertility is a feature

Only if the girl's birth control pill fails to work, and in that case the after-oops pill will work just as fine.

I don't buy it as an argument for frying my balls. But feel free to do what you want to your own testicles :)

Re:Crazy talk (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26692907)

Going really into off-topic territory, but how would you know the birth control pill has failed right away in order to take the other one?

Re:Crazy talk (2, Funny)

hobbit (5915) | more than 5 years ago | (#26693095)

Only if the girl's birth control pill fails to work, and in that case the after-oops pill will work just as fine.

That attitude really must have women beating down your door.

From the inside.

Re:A laptop... (1)

Paradigm_Complex (968558) | more than 5 years ago | (#26693817)

If you're married with children and still getting some, a temporary decrease in fertility is a feature not a bug.

Trust me on this.

Re:A laptop... (1)

Bearhouse (1034238) | more than 5 years ago | (#26692049)

Lamptop, then?

Re:A laptop... (1)

JCSoRocks (1142053) | more than 5 years ago | (#26694897)

On the contrary! By the time you get done hauling this thing around you'll have a physique rivaling that of any muscle beach type. With both brains and brawn the ladies will be just flocking to you... although you may want to do something about those suspenders...

Re:A laptop... (1)

drinkypoo (153816) | more than 5 years ago | (#26695001)

HP tech support says that you should always use your nw9440 "Mobile Workstation" on the docking station. That's not very mobile :( (And this is just a 17" widescreen core duo)

Just plain silly (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26691299)

The problem with this design is that the i7 chips put out 130 watts TDP. Even if this laptop has a battery, it's going to last less than an hour.

I should I know. I have a toshiba laptop that has a desktop P4 in it. 1 hour.

Re:Just plain silly (5, Funny)

Yvan256 (722131) | more than 5 years ago | (#26691321)

The laptop is 12 pounds: two pounds for the laptop, ten pounds for the batteries.

Re:Just plain silly (3, Funny)

Thanshin (1188877) | more than 5 years ago | (#26691527)

The laptop is 12 pounds: two pounds for the laptop, ten pounds for the batteries.

Which gives you an autonomy of 1+t hours; being "t" the amount of time you're able to keep your cycling power over 1000 watts.

Re:Just plain silly (1)

Fred_A (10934) | more than 5 years ago | (#26691731)

The laptop is 12 pounds: two pounds for the laptop, ten pounds for the batteries.

I'm so disappointed... at 12 pounds, they could at least have included a 22" screen. At least I hope it has a quad SLI GPU for crisp Excel rendering.

Maybe next time....

Re:Just plain silly (4, Funny)

mgblst (80109) | more than 5 years ago | (#26692457)

THe good thing is, if you leave your lights on, you can use the battery to start your truck.

Re:Just plain silly (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26692791)

Actually I'd like something like that. Like a net book, only fullsize, and the leftover space used for batteries. It'll probably last a week on a single charge, and won't be hell to type on, or watch movies.

Hmmmm...., BTW, patent pending. =P

Re:Just plain silly (2, Funny)

funkatron (912521) | more than 5 years ago | (#26693679)

£12? Bargain. Bet it's heavy tho.

Sorry

Re:Just plain silly (4, Insightful)

0100010001010011 (652467) | more than 5 years ago | (#26691467)

At my company *everyone* has a laptop. The battery just needs to last long enough that I can make it to the meeting rooms and back. 'Mobile' computers have more use than just using them away from power for long periods of time. You can sit at another desk, on a whim go out on location with all your files, etc.

I'd love something like this for Matlab processing.

And weight isn't an issue because we all have laptop bags or backpacks. A 20 lb laptop would still be lighter than the books I carried in college.

Re:Just plain silly (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26691565)

At my company *everyone* has a laptop. The battery just needs to last long enough that I can make it to the meeting rooms and back.

If all they do is run around to and from meetings, why not just set up computers in the meeting room.

(apart from the obvious question: what the heck do these people actually DO)

Re:Just plain silly (1)

daveime (1253762) | more than 5 years ago | (#26692531)

They spend all their time synching their meeting notes and calendar entries between the laptop an dthe PCs of course.

Re:Just plain silly (1)

TaoPhoenix (980487) | more than 5 years ago | (#26692623)

They don't do that either. They get IT to do that.

They're good at "extending functionality" of firefox though.

Re:Just plain silly (4, Informative)

0100010001010011 (652467) | more than 5 years ago | (#26693223)

I'm a Mechanical Engineer. I take lots of data from test cells and process it. Gigs of data sometimes, so you can't just install it where ever. Matlab, Vector CANape and the other programs I use aren't cheap and network licenses are even more expensive.

I may have 1 meeting a day, all I said is that the laptop has to last until I make it there, I didn't say that all I did all day was run around to meetings.

It may have to last long enough for me to get to the DC/AC inverter in the test rig or until I walk down to the test cell. Or be light enough that I can take my work home.

Weight might be an issue to you, it is to me.

No one is forcing you to buy this.

If you need the computational horsepower and portability, why not have a desktop and VNC into it through your laptop?

VNC sucks, it's good for maybe setting up something on a computer or two, but you can't work through it 8 hours a day. Plus, then my company would have 2x the computers.

Re:Just plain silly (1)

AuMatar (183847) | more than 5 years ago | (#26691629)

Weight might be an issue to you, it is to me. Wearing a backpack is a pain in the ass and it hurts my back after a while. I actually don't take my work laptop anywhere ever, including meetings, because it's a pain in the ass to carry around. The only laptop I'll ever actually move around with is my personal EEE, due to the fact its only 2 pounds and can be carried without a special case.

Re:Just plain silly (4, Interesting)

cerberusss (660701) | more than 5 years ago | (#26692019)

And weight isn't an issue because we all have laptop bags or backpacks

It happens to me that I'm walking around for 30-60 minutes on the airport with a laptop bag hanging on one shoulder and rolling luggage on the other hand.

I'll tell you I'm pretty glad if I get to sit down and let the laptop slide off the shoulder.

Re:Just plain silly (1)

hobbit (5915) | more than 5 years ago | (#26693123)

Get a rucksack. I really can't fathom why people still insist on using shoulder bags for laptops.

Re:Just plain silly (2, Insightful)

cerberusss (660701) | more than 5 years ago | (#26693511)

Several reasons I could think of:
- on my back it's not easily reachable (think being able to fetch PDA, phone, wallet, passport or agenda)
- but much more easily reachable by others
- company doesn't supply a backpack
- when you wear a suit or any other business-like attire, you ruin the jacket with a backpack

Re:Just plain silly (1)

hobbit (5915) | more than 5 years ago | (#26695219)

You keep all your valuables in your bag? No wonder you're concerned about it being "more reachable by others". Have you considered having a shoulder bag for your valuables, and a separate one for your laptop?
I'm sure your company would supply you with a backpack if you explained that you need it to stop your back hurting. And I don't really understand why distributing the whole load over only one shoulder will do less damage to your suit jacket (it doesn't mine).

Re:Just plain silly (1)

RiotingPacifist (1228016) | more than 5 years ago | (#26693577)

Because i intend to keep my laptop. i have no intention of letting my laptop out of my sight on a buzy bus/tube/station, i even know a guy that had his laptop (with a full set confidential documents) ripped of his back by closing tube doors.

Re:Just plain silly (1)

hobbit (5915) | more than 5 years ago | (#26695281)

i have no intention of letting my laptop out of my sight on a buzy bus/tube/station

It's a matter of basic consideration for your fellow passengers to take your backpack off when you're on a busy bus/tube, so you'll be doing that anyway. If you're concerned about security, get one that opens on the inside of the shoulder straps, so it can't be opened when it's on your back.

i even know a guy that had his laptop (with a full set confidential documents) ripped of his back by closing tube doors.

I see shoulder bags get caught in tube doors considerably more often than backpacks, because they tend to have more freedom to swing out.

Yep (1)

Sycraft-fu (314770) | more than 5 years ago | (#26692279)

I think part of the problem is that people have a given size of computer in their mind when they hear "laptop" when really it covers a fairly wide range. What this might be called is a "desktop replacement." These are used when you want the power of a desktop, but you need some portability. You aren't looking to cart it everywhere with you, you just need to move it around from desk to desk. For example maybe for security reasons all you work needs to remain on one computer. So your desktop at work is actually a really powerful laptop that travels home with you. Or maybe you need to be able to pack up your shit in a hurry. I had a former roommate who bought a big ass laptop for that reason when he was deployed to Iraq. He wanted a desktop, but you can't have all that extra shit in a battle zone.

These are for people who need desktop power, but need to have it in a single unit that is man portable.

It's the same kind of thing with regular sized notebooks and little sub notebooks. They are targeted at different markets. To point out the problems of using one where the other would be better is silly.

With laptops it goes kinda like this:

--If you need a computer that can stay with you all the time and it usable pretty much anywhere, but just for simple things like e-mail and web, you want a sub notebook. Something small, light, low features, long battery.

--If you need a computer that is portable and can be used on trains/planes and such without power for a reasonable amount of time, but you need to do some moderate tasks, then you want a regular notebook.

--If you need a desktop that you can pick up and move, then you want one of these high end desktop replacements.

No one size fits all, it depends on what you want to do.

Supposing I had the money to blow on a laptop, one like this is what I'd actually like. Reason is I don't use a laptop as a highly portable computer. When I'm at home, I have my desktop, it's much nicer to work at. When I'm at work, again I've got a desktop. So a laptop for me is just for travel. For example when I go visit my parents, it's nice to have my own computer. Ok well what I do is just cart the laptop to their house and set it up. I don't carry it around with me when I'm out and about. Thus a desktop replacement kind of laptop would be ideal. Huge screen, powerful hardware, who cares how much power it takes, it'll be plugged in.

Re:Just plain silly (1)

akuma(x86) (224898) | more than 5 years ago | (#26692657)

If you need the computational horsepower and portability, why not have a desktop and VNC into it through your laptop?

Re:Just plain silly (2, Insightful)

Kjella (173770) | more than 5 years ago | (#26691535)

The problem with this design is that the i7 chips put out 130 watts TDP. Even if this laptop has a battery, it's going to last less than an hour.

Depending on who you are, that might not matter. Believe it or not, but there's a market for "portable" in the "movable" sense meaning that you unhook it at one location and plug it in at another location. The alternative isn't a laptop, it's a box, monitor, keyboard and so on. Having it all rolled up into one box is a lot easier than the alternative, and the ability to open the lid and check something or bring it to a meeting for half an hour's demo without plugging in is just bonus. My dream work laptop has a quad core cpu, min. 4GB ram, min. >200GB SSD and hardware support for virtualization and virtualized IO. I don't even care if it has a working battery or not, in fact my last one I used for a long time even though the battery was bad and would last seconds.

Re:Just plain silly (2, Interesting)

DiLLeMaN (324946) | more than 5 years ago | (#26691585)

My dream work laptop has a quad core cpu, min. 4GB ram, min. >200GB SSD and hardware support for virtualization and virtualized IO. I don't even care if it has a working battery or not, in fact my last one I used for a long time even though the battery was bad and would last seconds.

That's not a laptop, that's an all-in-one. Apple calls them iMacs, and I believe HP Gateway have knock-offs of it.

Re:Just plain silly (3, Insightful)

jsoderba (105512) | more than 5 years ago | (#26691885)

An all-in-one doesn't fold up in a handy package that protects the screen and input devices, nor does it include a keyboard and pointing device. Desktop replacements do have legitimate uses.

Re:Just plain silly (1)

DiLLeMaN (324946) | more than 5 years ago | (#26691925)

Point taken. Then again, when you're lugging stuff this big around, you might as well carry along the mouse and keyboard, really. That doesn't solve the screen protection, but I'm sure some company has some nifty carrying bag -- actually, I do remember seeing a thing like that once. Wrapped around the screen, had handles, and a pocket for your mouse and keyboard.

But you're right in the sense that that's not half as easy as just closing the machine and picking it up (even if you have to pick it up with a forklift). =]

Re:Just plain silly (1)

Kjella (173770) | more than 5 years ago | (#26693211)

But you're right in the sense that that's not half as easy as just closing the machine and picking it up (even if you have to pick it up with a forklift).

Time to hit the gym, man. Anything under 50 pounds shouldn't be an issue to lift and carry around in a backpack, if that's what was required. Granted, I'm glad I don't need to but 12 pounds is probably a lot less than you'd carry if you were backpacking across the countryside.

Re:Just plain silly (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26693945)

Laptop bags usually have one strap, and one of those nerdy-looking laptop backpacks have two shoulder straps.

If you're backpacking around the countryside carrying 50 lbs of weight *on your shoulders*, you're doing it wrong.

Re:Just plain silly (1)

Rob Simpson (533360) | more than 5 years ago | (#26691607)

TDP has very little to do with how much power the chip actually uses, even at peak load. But I can't imagine this thing having decent battery life - any battery would be more of a built-in UPS than anything else. I suppose there is a market for machines that are "portable" enough to be lugged from one wall socket to another elsewhere, but keeping up with the upgrade cycle would get incredibly expensive.

Re:Just plain silly (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26691733)

Au contraire. A CPU that dissipates 130w of heat uses, surprise surprise, 130w of power. We obey the laws of thermodynamics here.

Re:Just plain silly (1)

daveime (1253762) | more than 5 years ago | (#26692547)

I think you have CPUs confused with 100% efficient space heaters.

If the CPU dissipates 130w of heat and only uses 130w, then that means the CPU itself requires 0w for anything else ? Perpetual motion patent, here we come.

Re:Just plain silly (2, Informative)

volsung (378) | more than 5 years ago | (#26693067)

If you are putting 130W into the CPU, then I would expect nearly 130W coming out in heat. Otherwise, that means the CPU is storing energy somewhere. Initially, it will store some energy as the chip heats to above room temperature, but then it should rapidly hit a steady state where power in = power out.

Re:Just plain silly (1)

mollymoo (202721) | more than 5 years ago | (#26694651)

If the CPU dissipates 130w of heat and only uses 130w, then that means the CPU itself requires 0w for anything else ? Perpetual motion patent, here we come.

In what other form does a CPU emit or store significant amounts of power then? If you know it's not heat you must have some idea. It will be sending a little power out of its interconnects, but it will be receiving power that way too.

Re:Just plain silly (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26695177)

It uses 130W of power continuously if you're beating the cpu to death with calculations. It probably only uses 40-60ish? watts when sitting twiddling its virtual thumbs.

Re:Just plain silly (1)

mikael (484) | more than 5 years ago | (#26694459)

Some people are happy with a computer that is light enough that they can carry it into car, taxi or onto public transport in a single bag, while still having enough hardware performance to run the most demanding applications such as CAD/CAM, visualization, animation and games. The only major limitation is the space requirements for hand luggage on airlines.

If you are going to buy a PC in that class, they you are going to want something that is maxed out in every capability (CPU memory + cores, GPU memory + cores, LCD screen size). These can easily be fitted into a laptop. Battery power isn't an issue, as long as there is a mains power supply. Even 10 minutes of battery power is enough to act as a UPS if there is a power failure. Micro-ATX systems may be portable but they still require a separate LCD monitor.

5 grand?! (3, Interesting)

Mad Merlin (837387) | more than 5 years ago | (#26691303)

What I'd like to know is how on earth they can justify charging 5 grand for a laptop that has nothing special about it except being absurdly heavy and featuring an i7.

For that size and weight, you could just throw a desktop motherboard in some plastic, tape a screen and battery on, then ship it out! This machine might justify the price if it clocked in at under 5 pounds.

Re:5 grand?! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26691483)

The machine I'm busy typing on right now is a customized Dell that has around the same price tag. Seriously: I don't see the price as a big deal. If you're not prepared to fork out the money for a decent development machine, you should be doomed to suffer the pains it delivers to you.

That said, I think an i7 is totally overkill :P

Re:5 grand?! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26694045)

I recently worked on an application which was extremely processor intensive, and required moveability in a laptop form factor. Mobility wasn't an issue, just the ability to pack it up and move once a day. AC power would always be available on site.

We ended up spending a little over $3K each on laptops with the X9100 dual core CPU at 3.06 GHz. I guarantee the extra horsepower provided by a quad-core i7 at 3.2 would have been welcomed, and paid for gladly.

Re:5 grand?! (1)

arekusu_ou (1344373) | more than 5 years ago | (#26694199)

I remember when the i7 was on newegg for 2-4 grand just for the processor. They may be estimating this based on that old price.

99% of people really don't need Intel Core i7 (-1, Troll)

Dixcuxx.com (1459623) | more than 5 years ago | (#26691347)

Basically Vista is nothing better than XP and most of us are still using XP and happy with it. Who would need Intel Core i7 for XP? It is just another toy that Intel wants to make some more money from you in financial crisis, just like how Microsoft is doing with its new toy with some new interface and packing!

Re:99% of people really don't need Intel Core i7 (0, Flamebait)

timmarhy (659436) | more than 5 years ago | (#26691411)

vista is more secure. remeber how you all bitched and moaned non stop about the lack of security in the windows platform?

Re:99% of people really don't need Intel Core i7 (1)

aaron.axvig (1238422) | more than 5 years ago | (#26691463)

DOS ran fine on a 286 also...maybe we didn't need any fancy toys like a Pentium II 266MHz. (Disclaimer: I was only about 6 years old in the 286 era, so may have missed some minor detail in the prior sentence. Point still stands though.)

Secondly, there ARE applications that can use more than one core. Games, Photoshop, video encoding, damn you are a troll and I fell for it. :(

Re:99% of people really don't need Intel Core i7 (1)

arogier (1250960) | more than 5 years ago | (#26691541)

I remember my first computer (sometime around 2000ish). Macintosh Classic. Then I upgraded to a compaq laptop with a 386 and DOS with DOS shell. Got more looks when I brought it into class one day than any of the computer that could play more demanding games than Zork did (note: I did remember to remove the DOS shell from autoexec.bat before bringing it in).

Re:99% of people really don't need Intel Core i7 (1)

socsoc (1116769) | more than 5 years ago | (#26693745)

You upgraded DOS in 2000? No wonder everyone looked at you funny.

Re:99% of people really don't need Intel Core i7 (1)

DiLLeMaN (324946) | more than 5 years ago | (#26691609)

Who would need Intel Core i7 for XP?

You want to be able to run Minesweeper at the same time, or maybe, perhaps, optionally, some applications. Some people do actual work with their machine instead of just refreshing /. all day.

Desktop replacement (2, Interesting)

Eun-HjZjiNeD (1001079) | more than 5 years ago | (#26691455)

I had an Toshiba P-10 a few years ago. It had an Intel P4 3.2ghz socket 478 desktop chip in it. It was a beast.

I miss having a laptop though, as I don't have much time at home.

This 12pound monster is a little bit overkill unless it has 6gb ddr3 a pair of 500gb or 1tb drives in RAID and a SLI or crossfire-x solution in it.

Then it would almost be worth it if you just had to spend 5k on a laptop.

PC architecture is not ready! (2, Funny)

VincenzoRomano (881055) | more than 5 years ago | (#26691525)

All that power will prove being useless because of constraints on the PC architecture.
Because of I/O bottlenecks, on a gaming laptop with 64-bit dual core system and 2+ GB RAM, burning a DVD while copying a file from disk to disk (SATA) will kill the system to low responsiveness.
In theory the CPU is powerful enough to juggle the I/O requests (SATA, nvidia, keyboard and mouse) with the actual computing things in a manner that the user won't experience low responsiveness a-la pre-1990.
In the practice all that power is weasted, unless you run tasks with low I/O needs.

Re:PC architecture is not ready! (2, Funny)

arogier (1250960) | more than 5 years ago | (#26691573)

Damn there goes my hopes of using atom scale holograms anytime soon for storage. At least with my limited PC architecture. Guess my computer's going to be stuck folding proteins for quite a while.

Re:PC architecture is not ready! (-1, Flamebait)

timmarhy (659436) | more than 5 years ago | (#26691803)

it's call ram you spastic. buy some more, 2 gig is entry level these days.

Re:PC architecture is not ready! (1)

VincenzoRomano (881055) | more than 5 years ago | (#26692463)

You guessed right: I do am spastic.
Doubling the RAM won't make my system more responsive, as the virtual memory on disk is never used.

Re:PC architecture is not ready! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26692661)

More RAM is always better than less

RAM still helps the file cache. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26693121)

Ram is also used for caching the file system. So unless you have more RAM than HDD space your performance will improve somewhat with more RAM. However I doubt that this is your problem, as I have a similarly speced machine that runs just fine with 2 IO jobs.
 
I imagine that responsiveness has more to do with the OS than the hardware. On the one hand, MacOS 9 and earlier had "cooperative multitasking", so you couldn't do more than one thing at once regardless of how powerful your hardware was, while at the other extreme an OS could ensure that the task the user was interacting with always had priority so that responsiveness never degraded no matter how heavily loaded the system was. Ubuntu etc. don't boost interactive processes but two IO operations at a time still seem OK.

Re:RAM still helps the file cache. (1)

RiotingPacifist (1228016) | more than 5 years ago | (#26693695)

Ram is also used for caching the file system. So unless you have more RAM than HDD space your performance will improve somewhat with more RAM.

and how does the data get onto the ram may i ask? magic? no its limited by I/O throughput (sure a bit of caching means you dant take a seek time hit quite so often but its hardly gonig to help with i/o based tasks.

Re:RAM still helps the file cache. (1)

VincenzoRomano (881055) | more than 5 years ago | (#26694015)

That's my point.
My laptop is ASUS G1s [notebookreview.com] which is labelled as "gaming" and should not be using cheap chips.
I run Linux and cannot cope with high I/O loads despite the CPU power and the memory bandwidth.
So I argue I/O subsystem is the bottleneck.

Re:PC architecture is not ready! (2, Insightful)

XDirtypunkX (1290358) | more than 5 years ago | (#26691847)

The PC architecture? Your laptop motherboard chipset with a cheap integrated SATA controller maybe. Nothing about the PC architecture limits you from designing a laptop with a PCIe 8x connected dedicated SATA/SAS controller.

Of course, if it's all from the same hard drive and you're using rotating media, it's the media that is fault not the PC bus architecture responsible for your slow down. The PC architecture is approaching 30 years of scalability.

Re:PC architecture is not ready! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26691905)

I also experienced that slowness. It's not the RAM.
Even with low grade hardware, a good OS implementation (you choose) should be able to make the system responsive.
Instead of taking 45 minutes for a 100 GB copy it could take 50 but with a responsive system.
And, after I doubled the RAM, I just got more room for buffers, no better responsiveness. I fear the I/O subsystem has poor design jeopardizing the all system during heavy loads.

Re:PC architecture is not ready! (1)

rzei (622725) | more than 5 years ago | (#26692549)

Could someone clarify the parent's post up a bit or was it simply a troll? What would be a better architecture to handle all those IO reqs?

Re:PC architecture is not ready! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26692595)

Crossbar + DMA?

Re:PC architecture is not ready! (1)

Tycho (11893) | more than 5 years ago | (#26694837)

Perhaps I/O would be better, if the average PC had not started to use PCI Express? Throughput is nice, but so is low latency, as well as DMA operations for PCIe switches. I suppose lower latency in parallel PCI-X DDR 533 is why one would find PCI-X slots like those in use with IBM POWER6 systems. PCIe seems to me at least to have been forced down the throats of PC users regardless of its level of appropriateness, which we can than Intel and Rambus for. Many of the patents for PCIe signaling are held by Rambus. We PC users got screwed, again, by Rambus.

In any case, according to PLX, their best PCIe 1.1 switches have about 110ns of latency for devices without a non-transparent port and 150ns for those bridges with a non-transparent port. The latency for PLX PCIe bridges for PCIe 2.0 devices are in the 140ns range and those switches all have a non-transparent port. Non-transparent ports are essentially a fall back port for redundancy at the switch level so that the primary computer can fail, but an always on hot backup computer can seamlessly take over for it. This assumes you are using external PCIe expansion chassis with the required cables, none of which are cheap either, and are generally custom made. By all means, though, check the latency numbers at:
http://www.plxtech.com/ [plxtech.com]

Deep-pocketed... (2, Funny)

Shag (3737) | more than 5 years ago | (#26691707)

...enough so to afford a Sherpa to carry the thing?

wow (1)

doyoulikegoatseeee (930088) | more than 5 years ago | (#26691879)

this is stupid

Hmm (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26691883)

Maybe I'm missing something, but what's the point of a 12-lb laptop that's real benefit is for being a server? Why pay 5K for that thing when you can just build a box and throw the i7 in there for stability's sake?

Just wondering.

Oblig Penny Arcade (1)

MadMidnightBomber (894759) | more than 5 years ago | (#26691943)

Re:Oblig Penny Arcade (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26692263)

sad thing is its true. I recently replaced my system (primary use: graphics editing/AV/WoW) with a 17" mbp and it literally does feel like that.

The thing runs at 70c with wow active, and almost all of that is conducted straight out the bottom. I rigged together a rack to give it a 1.5" clearance, but the last time I placed one on my lap it took me weeks to feel my nether regens again.

Re:Oblig Penny Arcade (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26692523)

Penny Arcade sucks.

Clevo (1)

wfWebber (715881) | more than 5 years ago | (#26692011)

Looking at the model and at the type number (D900F) I'm gonna guess this is another Clevo, branded as something Canadian. It's probably gonna be okay, as long as you don't want it on your lap and don't want to use it without a wall socket. Then again, who'd want that for a laptop anyway?

informat1v3 MAREMARE (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26692023)

distribution. As IN JOCKS OR CHAPS

Canada != Europe (2, Funny)

registered_after_8_y (1445553) | more than 5 years ago | (#26692029)

Perhaps a bit off topic, but why is a Canadian retailer named Eurocom? Some identity crisis going on here? Of course, planning on sticking an i7 in a laptop does seem to indicate some mental instability...

That's no laptop, ... (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26692031)

and no space station either. Reminds me of that thing Porsche built in WWII: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panzer_VIII_Maus

12 pounds (2, Funny)

nmg196 (184961) | more than 5 years ago | (#26692799)

12 pounds is quite cheap for a laptop of this spec. But I expect once it reaches the UK, it'll be more like 24 pounds. :)

Re:12 pounds (1)

mbone (558574) | more than 5 years ago | (#26693651)

I had the same reaction. I bet people would make it through the snow for a 12 pound laptop. Heck, they probably would for a 50 pound laptop.

Exchange rate? (2, Funny)

jrumney (197329) | more than 5 years ago | (#26692839)

...is planning to ship a 12-pound laptop with Intel's Core i7 chip...The 17" notebook's price, not yet announced, will certainly be in excess of $5,000.

I know the dollar has taken a hammering lately, but its not really that bad yet is it?

What's a pound? :) (1)

ChunderDownunder (709234) | more than 5 years ago | (#26693503)

Yes I know you were making a quaint pun at anachronistic units but c'mon, it's the 21st century.

Isn't it time the Brits adopted the euro [wikipedia.org] ?
And the Yanks SI [wikipedia.org] ?

In any case, that's approx 3923 euro for 5.4kg worth of laptop.

Re:What's a pound? :) (1)

mbone (558574) | more than 5 years ago | (#26693621)

No, it's approximately 4000 euros for a 5 kg laptop.

(If you are going to adopt, go whole hog.)

Ob Strongbad Ref (1)

rlp (11898) | more than 5 years ago | (#26692935)

Has some of the same specs as the renowned "Lappy 486"; Battery Life: Half of ten minutes.

Where does the 12 pounds come from? (1)

damn_registrars (1103043) | more than 5 years ago | (#26692971)

It didn't seem like there was anything that exceptional in there (in terms of something never-been-done-in-a-laptop-before, aside from the i7 CPU). We've seen two hard drives in a laptop before. We've seen tons of RAM and high-end video. We've seen 12 cell batteries.

Does this system have 2-3 pounds of special cooling hardware?

where did $5000 come from? (1)

Creepy (93888) | more than 5 years ago | (#26695189)

Isn't $5000 a bit speculative, or are they using Canadian Dollars (which is about $1000 less than USD right now)?

Looking at component pricing and comparing to what's out there like the Asus M70VM-B1, which is about $1550 for 500GB less disk, the P8400 CPU is just slightly cheaper than the low end i7 (+800 for high end), a slightly slower GPU with 512k less RAM (my guess is this uses the 9800M GTX MXM platform - let's say +$200), 4GB more of DDR3 instead of DDR2 (about $250), no blu ray player (-?). By my estimates, the high end machine should be no more than $3000-$3500 after markup.

Even when I used barebones (whitebook) skeleton laptops I get similar numbers of about $2500 on the high end, but note that neither bare bones system laptop framework could fit 3 laptop drives and the best GPU I found in one was a 9600M GTX (though I didn't look hard - just the usual sources like pricewatch, google, and two manufacturers - ASUS and MSI).

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>