Development quotes of the week
[...]
My 11-year-old laptop can compile the Linux kernel from scratch in 20 minutes, and it can play 1080p video in real-time. That’s all I need!
Posted Jan 25, 2019 2:23 UTC (Fri)
by murukesh (subscriber, #97031)
[Link] (1 responses)
Posted Jan 25, 2019 14:47 UTC (Fri)
by dgm (subscriber, #49227)
[Link]
Posted Jan 25, 2019 12:34 UTC (Fri)
by jezuch (subscriber, #52988)
[Link] (6 responses)
That's about right. I've been saying for years now that computers already reached the "fast enough" phase for day-to-day use like 10 years ago and now what I want is not faster, but cheaper, more energy efficient and more silent. Moore's law works in more than one axis, after all. But a dream of a completly fanless desktop computer is still not really achievable, or at least not without extra cost. (Unless I missed something.)
It's been like that for *years* but the industry is not able to overcome its speed fetish, apparently.
Posted Jan 25, 2019 16:45 UTC (Fri)
by halla (subscriber, #14185)
[Link] (5 responses)
Posted Jan 25, 2019 23:32 UTC (Fri)
by edgewood (subscriber, #1123)
[Link]
Posted Jan 27, 2019 15:21 UTC (Sun)
by jezuch (subscriber, #52988)
[Link] (2 responses)
Posted Jan 28, 2019 12:01 UTC (Mon)
by excors (subscriber, #95769)
[Link] (1 responses)
If you don't need modern desktop levels of performance then you can get a totally silent Raspberry Pi for $35, which still gets you Linux on a quad-core 64-bit CPU and 1GB RAM and 1080p video support and 3D graphics in under 5 watts, which isn't bad.
I think the problem with expecting Moore's law to give you state-of-the-art-as-of-ten-years-ago performance at low power and low cost, is that even if transistor density is still increasing exponentially, power efficiency largely stopped improving over ten years ago. The most sophisticated modern CPUs have a lot of transistors (which incidentally cancels out the cost-per-transistor savings from Moore's law, so they're still expensive), but they can only use a fraction of those transistors at once else they'd melt, so they can't do much more computation within a given thermal limit than much older chips. If you don't want fans or water cooling or giant heat sinks and heat pipes, your thermal limit will be very low, so performance will inevitably be low. (On the other hand, if you only object to fans, just buy one of those other cooling systems - they'll probably be more expensive and/or less effective, but that's because you're ruling out the cheapest solution.)
Posted Feb 1, 2019 20:33 UTC (Fri)
by Pc5Y9sbv (guest, #41328)
[Link]
I recall about 10 years ago we had an Asus Eebox to play with at work. Under test, it struck me as sufficient CPU for basic work, but 1 GB RAM was too small even then.
Today, even my budget 2 year old smartphone has 2 GB of RAM. My general-purpose laptop or desktop configuration has 16 GB (which I think is sometimes insufficient but balances cost and power draw). However, I often choose to live with an iGPU to avoid the additional power impact of a discrete GPU and its additional multi-GB chunk of RAM.
Posted Feb 1, 2019 14:36 UTC (Fri)
by martin.langhoff (subscriber, #61417)
[Link]
Development quotes of the week
Development quotes of the week
Development quotes of the week
Development quotes of the week
I had the same thought, but decided that he must have some other unstated requirements that rule out devices like that.
Development quotes of the week
Development quotes of the week
Development quotes of the week
Development quotes of the week
Development quotes of the week