Archived from groups: comp.sys.laptops (More info?)

I sit here typing on my brand new Dell laptop purchased for $1200. It
is very compact and weighs about 7lbs. Quick specs: 1.6ghz Centrino,
512meg DDR2 Ram, 60gig HD, 15" widescreen display.

If computer makers can make a powerful computer slightly larger than
the size of a typical notebook around $1000 why don't they just make
all computers this small?

The size of my laptop belies the small size required to make the
computer hidden underneath. Part of the laptop space is used for the
keyboard, the mousepad, the speakers, the volume/play interface
buttons, etc. If you take out the keyboard, the mousepad, the speakers,
etc, and just include the most important components (i.e. cpu, hard
drive, mobo) the size required for the actual computer is even smaller
yet!!!

Given the above scenario, it is incomprehensible to me how we still
have these gargantuan desktop cases housing our computer components. I
do realize that desktops have the ability for greater expansion,
however, if computer manufacturers would devote their resources to
laptops, then it is conceivable that laptop computers could someday be
afforded the same type of expansion options enjoyed by traditional
desktops today.

The price of laptops is coming down every day. Even now you can (with
coupons and a bit of good timing) buy a brand new Dell (well equipped)
for under $700 shipped. IBM G40's with Pentium 4 processors can be had
on the used market in the $500 range. Outside the argument of
expandability (and perhaps durability) it makes little sense to buy a
desktop computer.

Archived from groups: comp.sys.laptops (More info?)

pokemonn2@hotmail.com wrote:
> I sit here typing on my brand new Dell laptop purchased for $1200. It
> is very compact and weighs about 7lbs. Quick specs: 1.6ghz Centrino,
> 512meg DDR2 Ram, 60gig HD, 15" widescreen display.
>
> If computer makers can make a powerful computer slightly larger than
> the size of a typical notebook around $1000 why don't they just make
> all computers this small?
>
> The size of my laptop belies the small size required to make the
> computer hidden underneath. Part of the laptop space is used for the
> keyboard, the mousepad, the speakers, the volume/play interface
> buttons, etc. If you take out the keyboard, the mousepad, the
> speakers, etc, and just include the most important components (i.e.
> cpu, hard drive, mobo) the size required for the actual computer is
> even smaller yet!!!
>
> Given the above scenario, it is incomprehensible to me how we still
> have these gargantuan desktop cases housing our computer components. I
> do realize that desktops have the ability for greater expansion,
> however, if computer manufacturers would devote their resources to
> laptops, then it is conceivable that laptop computers could someday be
> afforded the same type of expansion options enjoyed by traditional
> desktops today.
>
> The price of laptops is coming down every day. Even now you can (with
> coupons and a bit of good timing) buy a brand new Dell (well equipped)
> for under $700 shipped. IBM G40's with Pentium 4 processors can be had
> on the used market in the $500 range. Outside the argument of
> expandability (and perhaps durability) it makes little sense to buy a
> desktop computer.

Small form factor (SFF or barebones systems) are somewhat popular for
their small size that will support standard desktop components. The Mac
Mini is an SFF box, for example. Some of the benefits of laptop
portability with superior performance due to using standard components
(except for the mainboards which are specific to SFF boxes). SFF are
limited in the number and type of expansion slots but for an option to a
laptop offer more capability and are not dead end for upgrades.

Q

Archived from groups: comp.sys.laptops (More info?)

On 10 Mar 2005 04:50:58 -0800, pokemonn2@hotmail.com wrote:

>I sit here typing on my brand new Dell laptop purchased for $1200. It
>is very compact and weighs about 7lbs. Quick specs: 1.6ghz Centrino,
>512meg DDR2 Ram, 60gig HD, 15" widescreen display.
>
>If computer makers can make a powerful computer slightly larger than
>the size of a typical notebook around $1000 why don't they just make
>all computers this small?

Reliability, upgradability and ease of maintenance are three good
reasons. Laptops can bee fairly reliable, but it is still hard to get
rid of all the heat they generate, probably not all that good for
long-term 24-7 use. The largest laptop hd is like 80gb; you can buy a
10k rpm desktop drive with 300gb capacity, and it'll be really fast.
You can also stick in a lot of pci cards in a desktop which will allow
it to have many capabilities laptops won't have without usb
bottlenecks. Have you ever had to open a laptop? It wasn't easy or a
lot of fun was it? Desktops are much easier to maintain.

Archived from groups: comp.sys.laptops (More info?)

pokemonn2@hotmail.com wrote:

> I sit here typing on my brand new Dell laptop purchased for $1200. It
> is very compact and weighs about 7lbs. Quick specs: 1.6ghz Centrino,
> 512meg DDR2 Ram, 60gig HD, 15" widescreen display.
>
> If computer makers can make a powerful computer slightly larger than
> the size of a typical notebook around $1000 why don't they just make
> all computers this small?

Mainly because most buyers don't want to compromise capability to get a
machine that small. There is a market for small machines and all the major
players have machines that fit in that niche, but it is not the mainstream.

> The size of my laptop belies the small size required to make the
> computer hidden underneath. Part of the laptop space is used for the
> keyboard, the mousepad, the speakers, the volume/play interface
> buttons, etc. If you take out the keyboard, the mousepad, the speakers,
> etc, and just include the most important components (i.e. cpu, hard
> drive, mobo) the size required for the actual computer is even smaller
> yet!!!

So? You also have one drive bay for a 2-1/2" hard disk, another for a
reduced form factor CD/DVD drive, generally no diskette drive, and
expansion only through one or two PCCard slots and maybe a little extra
RAM.

> Given the above scenario, it is incomprehensible to me how we still
> have these gargantuan desktop cases housing our computer components.

Because we want them.

> I
> do realize that desktops have the ability for greater expansion,
> however, if computer manufacturers would devote their resources to
> laptops, then it is conceivable that laptop computers could someday be
> afforded the same type of expansion options enjoyed by traditional
> desktops today.

How? Where would you put extra expansion slots? If not slots, then how
would you expand?

> The price of laptops is coming down every day. Even now you can (with
> coupons and a bit of good timing) buy a brand new Dell (well equipped)
> for under $700 shipped. IBM G40's with Pentium 4 processors can be had
> on the used market in the $500 range. Outside the argument of
> expandability (and perhaps durability) it makes little sense to buy a
> desktop computer.

The question is not "how we still have these gargantuan desktop cases
housing our computer components" but why you are unaware of the many
available small-form-factor desktop machines.

You might want to froogle "biostar ideq", "aopen cube", "shuttle xpc",
"thinkcenter s50", "hp sff", look up the Dell Optiplex SX280, the Gateway
e2300, and the Mac Mini, check out <http://www.simplifiedinnovation.com/>,
<http://www.smallpc.com/>, and if those aren't small enough for you then
you might want to take a look through the projects list at
<http://www.mini-itx.com>.

If you want a small machine they are readily available. It's just that most
people don't want them.

--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

Archived from groups: comp.sys.laptops (More info?)

If you do some research on the net, you'll find sales of laptops (and other
mobile/portable device) will outstrip the sales of desktops very shortly and
will continue to climb as the power increases. Personally, I like both, but
my power is on my floor at home

--
Thanks,
TheBurgerMan@gmail.com
--
<pokemonn2@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1110459058.568645.239610@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>I sit here typing on my brand new Dell laptop purchased for $1200. It
> is very compact and weighs about 7lbs. Quick specs: 1.6ghz Centrino,
> 512meg DDR2 Ram, 60gig HD, 15" widescreen display.
>
> If computer makers can make a powerful computer slightly larger than
> the size of a typical notebook around $1000 why don't they just make
> all computers this small?
>
> The size of my laptop belies the small size required to make the
> computer hidden underneath. Part of the laptop space is used for the
> keyboard, the mousepad, the speakers, the volume/play interface
> buttons, etc. If you take out the keyboard, the mousepad, the speakers,
> etc, and just include the most important components (i.e. cpu, hard
> drive, mobo) the size required for the actual computer is even smaller
> yet!!!
>
> Given the above scenario, it is incomprehensible to me how we still
> have these gargantuan desktop cases housing our computer components. I
> do realize that desktops have the ability for greater expansion,
> however, if computer manufacturers would devote their resources to
> laptops, then it is conceivable that laptop computers could someday be
> afforded the same type of expansion options enjoyed by traditional
> desktops today.
>
> The price of laptops is coming down every day. Even now you can (with
> coupons and a bit of good timing) buy a brand new Dell (well equipped)
> for under $700 shipped. IBM G40's with Pentium 4 processors can be had
> on the used market in the $500 range. Outside the argument of
> expandability (and perhaps durability) it makes little sense to buy a
> desktop computer.
>

Archived from groups: comp.sys.laptops (More info?)

pokemonn2@hotmail.com wrote:
>If computer makers can make a powerful computer slightly larger than
>the size of a typical notebook around $1000 why don't they just make
>all computers this small?

Because they can make significantly more powerful computers for half
the price, with (as others have pointed out) more expandability,
upgradability, and better reliability due to better heat rejection.

You haven't lived till you've built your own computer! [Actually, you
haven't lived till you've wire-wrapped your own Z-80, assembled a
bootloader by hand, burned an EPROM manually, and written your own
BIOS, but nobody goes that far any more. 8*]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.laptops (More info?)

William P.N. Smith wrote:

> pokemonn2@hotmail.com wrote:
>>If computer makers can make a powerful computer slightly larger than
>>the size of a typical notebook around $1000 why don't they just make
>>all computers this small?
>
> Because they can make significantly more powerful computers for half
> the price, with (as others have pointed out) more expandability,
> upgradability, and better reliability due to better heat rejection.
>
> You haven't lived till you've built your own computer! [Actually, you
> haven't lived till you've wire-wrapped your own Z-80, assembled a
> bootloader by hand, burned an EPROM manually, and written your own
> BIOS, but nobody goes that far any more. 8*]

Those were they days . . .

Kids today don't know the joy of having a device driver delivered as a
notebook full of assembler code to be keyed in by hand.

Would I go back to that era if I could? I don't think so. Am I glad to
have been there? You bet.

--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

Archived from groups: comp.sys.laptops (More info?)

Quaoar wrote:

> pokemonn2@hotmail.com wrote:
>> I sit here typing on my brand new Dell laptop purchased for $1200. It
>> is very compact and weighs about 7lbs. Quick specs: 1.6ghz Centrino,
>> 512meg DDR2 Ram, 60gig HD, 15" widescreen display.
>>
>> If computer makers can make a powerful computer slightly larger than
>> the size of a typical notebook around $1000 why don't they just make
>> all computers this small?
>>
>> The size of my laptop belies the small size required to make the
>> computer hidden underneath. Part of the laptop space is used for the
>> keyboard, the mousepad, the speakers, the volume/play interface
>> buttons, etc. If you take out the keyboard, the mousepad, the
>> speakers, etc, and just include the most important components (i.e.
>> cpu, hard drive, mobo) the size required for the actual computer is
>> even smaller yet!!!
>>
>> Given the above scenario, it is incomprehensible to me how we still
>> have these gargantuan desktop cases housing our computer components. I
>> do realize that desktops have the ability for greater expansion,
>> however, if computer manufacturers would devote their resources to
>> laptops, then it is conceivable that laptop computers could someday be
>> afforded the same type of expansion options enjoyed by traditional
>> desktops today.
>>
>> The price of laptops is coming down every day. Even now you can (with
>> coupons and a bit of good timing) buy a brand new Dell (well equipped)
>> for under $700 shipped. IBM G40's with Pentium 4 processors can be had
>> on the used market in the $500 range. Outside the argument of
>> expandability (and perhaps durability) it makes little sense to buy a
>> desktop computer.
>
> Small form factor (SFF or barebones systems) are somewhat popular for
> their small size that will support standard desktop components. The Mac
> Mini is an SFF box, for example. Some of the benefits of laptop
> portability with superior performance due to using standard components
> (except for the mainboards which are specific to SFF boxes).

For some SFF boxes. Mini-ITX allows very small boxen, and that's a standard
form factor with boards from a variety of vendors and with a variety of
capabilities. There's a significant hobbyist market around building them
into odd enclosures.

> SFF are
> limited in the number and type of expansion slots but for an option to a
> laptop offer more capability and are not dead end for upgrades.
>
> Q

--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

Archived from groups: comp.sys.laptops (More info?)

Chris Hill wrote:

> On 10 Mar 2005 04:50:58 -0800, pokemonn2@hotmail.com wrote:
>
>>I sit here typing on my brand new Dell laptop purchased for $1200. It
>>is very compact and weighs about 7lbs. Quick specs: 1.6ghz Centrino,
>>512meg DDR2 Ram, 60gig HD, 15" widescreen display.
>>
>>If computer makers can make a powerful computer slightly larger than
>>the size of a typical notebook around $1000 why don't they just make
>>all computers this small?
>
> Reliability, upgradability and ease of maintenance are three good
> reasons. Laptops can bee fairly reliable, but it is still hard to get
> rid of all the heat they generate, probably not all that good for
> long-term 24-7 use. The largest laptop hd is like 80gb;

100 GB is readily available--Best Buy usually has them in stock.

> you can buy a
> 10k rpm desktop drive with 300gb capacity,

Interesting-didn't know the 300 gig SCSIs were out yet.

> and it'll be really fast.
> You can also stick in a lot of pci cards in a desktop which will allow
> it to have many capabilities laptops won't have without usb
> bottlenecks. Have you ever had to open a laptop? It wasn't easy or a
> lot of fun was it? Desktops are much easier to maintain.

--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

Archived from groups: comp.sys.laptops (More info?)

On 10 Mar 2005 04:50:58 -0800, pokemonn2@hotmail.com wrote:

>then it is conceivable that laptop computers could someday be
>afforded the same type of expansion options enjoyed by traditional
>desktops today.

So you mean more pieces, bigger. All of a sudden your notebook (can't
call them slaps laptops anymore) will look like a desktop.


>The price of laptops is coming down every day. Even now you can (with
>coupons and a bit of good timing) buy a brand new Dell (well equipped)
>for under $700 shipped. IBM G40's with Pentium 4 processors can be had
>on the used market in the $500 range.

So you assume that while notebooks components get cheaper (they are)
desktop components are standing still?


>Outside the argument of
>expandability (and perhaps durability) it makes little sense to buy a
>desktop computer.

Yer right, more purchases are toward the notebook arena, but the
demise of desktops are prematurely exagerated.

One emerging application is of the HomeTheater PC. Today, it would be
very ugly to adapt a notebook for an HTPC application. The Mac Mini
has got the right idea, but things are evolving. Meantime, while you
may wait and wait and wait, plenty of people have built HTPCs with
desktop components at reasonable prices.

Archived from groups: comp.sys.laptops (More info?)

Ok, 100 gig notebook drives are available. But 200, 250 and 300 gig
drives are not. Nor are Raid arrays, or SCSI drives with 15,000 rpm
rotational speeds. And beleive me, if you take a 7200 rpm 80 gig
desktop drive and a 7200 rpm 80 gig laptop drive, they are NOT equally
fast from a performance perspective. The desktop drive is significnatly
faster.

And that's just one example. There are huge differences in CPU, video
card, optical drives, hard drives, sound cards.


J. Clarke wrote:

> Chris Hill wrote:
>
>
>>On 10 Mar 2005 04:50:58 -0800, pokemonn2@hotmail.com wrote:
>>
>>
>>>I sit here typing on my brand new Dell laptop purchased for $1200. It
>>>is very compact and weighs about 7lbs. Quick specs: 1.6ghz Centrino,
>>>512meg DDR2 Ram, 60gig HD, 15" widescreen display.
>>>
>>>If computer makers can make a powerful computer slightly larger than
>>>the size of a typical notebook around $1000 why don't they just make
>>>all computers this small?
>>
>>Reliability, upgradability and ease of maintenance are three good
>>reasons. Laptops can bee fairly reliable, but it is still hard to get
>>rid of all the heat they generate, probably not all that good for
>>long-term 24-7 use. The largest laptop hd is like 80gb;
>
>
> 100 GB is readily available--Best Buy usually has them in stock.
>
>
>>you can buy a
>>10k rpm desktop drive with 300gb capacity,
>
>
> Interesting-didn't know the 300 gig SCSIs were out yet.
>
>
>>and it'll be really fast.
>>You can also stick in a lot of pci cards in a desktop which will allow
>>it to have many capabilities laptops won't have without usb
>>bottlenecks. Have you ever had to open a laptop? It wasn't easy or a
>>lot of fun was it? Desktops are much easier to maintain.
>
>

Archived from groups: comp.sys.laptops (More info?)

Barry Watzman wrote:

> Ok, 100 gig notebook drives are available. But 200, 250 and 300 gig
> drives are not. Nor are Raid arrays,

Actually, they are. Toshiba has a couple and there are others.

> or SCSI drives with 15,000 rpm
> rotational speeds. And beleive me, if you take a 7200 rpm 80 gig
> desktop drive and a 7200 rpm 80 gig laptop drive, they are NOT equally
> fast from a performance perspective. The desktop drive is significnatly
> faster.
>
> And that's just one example. There are huge differences in CPU, video
> card, optical drives, hard drives, sound cards.

Barry, I'm not arguing with you. Just pointing out some details.

> J. Clarke wrote:
>
>> Chris Hill wrote:
>>
>>
>>>On 10 Mar 2005 04:50:58 -0800, pokemonn2@hotmail.com wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>I sit here typing on my brand new Dell laptop purchased for $1200. It
>>>>is very compact and weighs about 7lbs. Quick specs: 1.6ghz Centrino,
>>>>512meg DDR2 Ram, 60gig HD, 15" widescreen display.
>>>>
>>>>If computer makers can make a powerful computer slightly larger than
>>>>the size of a typical notebook around $1000 why don't they just make
>>>>all computers this small?
>>>
>>>Reliability, upgradability and ease of maintenance are three good
>>>reasons. Laptops can bee fairly reliable, but it is still hard to get
>>>rid of all the heat they generate, probably not all that good for
>>>long-term 24-7 use. The largest laptop hd is like 80gb;
>>
>>
>> 100 GB is readily available--Best Buy usually has them in stock.
>>
>>
>>>you can buy a
>>>10k rpm desktop drive with 300gb capacity,
>>
>>
>> Interesting-didn't know the 300 gig SCSIs were out yet.
>>
>>
>>>and it'll be really fast.
>>>You can also stick in a lot of pci cards in a desktop which will allow
>>>it to have many capabilities laptops won't have without usb
>>>bottlenecks. Have you ever had to open a laptop? It wasn't easy or a
>>>lot of fun was it? Desktops are much easier to maintain.
>>
>>

--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

Archived from groups: comp.sys.laptops (More info?)

Sorry Barry Watzman but your entire post is based on incorrect
assumption. If you would actually take the time to read my original
post CLOSELY you will see that I NEVER said that laptops were the equal
of and could do everthing that a desktop can do.

What I'm trying to say is, if they can make laptop computers with the
power and functionality of today's powerful computers (that being
Pentium 4 3.0gigahertz processors and 100 megabyte hard drives which is
way more than the average person needs by the way), why is it that
desktop computers are being made so big and clunky and use up so much
power?

I don't have the stats for power consumption of my new Dell laptop
which uses the latest Sonoma chipset, but I would gander that the power
consumption is probably considerably less than that of a traditional
desktop and runs just as fast as a desktop with similar specs.

The question I pose to computer manufacturers is that why can't they
make an effort to produce desktop computers that use less energy
(perhaps incorporate the new Sonoma chipset in every desktop
computer?!?), that take up far less space, and run quieter and much
more efficient. It's obvious the technology is here. All it takes is
for one company to take the backbones of a laptop and make a few
changes to afford this backbone the same expandability options as a
traditional desktop. And no Barry, you won't have to give up your 10
optical drives, your "live drive" sound blaster card, and 100 terabyte
hard disk drives and no your new computer won't require a 500 watt
power supply, but perhaps a 200 watt power supply!!! This is a win win
for the consumer and the environment.

Archived from groups: comp.sys.laptops (More info?)

First off I am very aware of smaller form factors available. Every
single one of you guys has completely missed the point of my original
post which is: the technology exists today to make desktop computers
much smaller (and I am talking MUCH MUCH smaller!!!) and run much much
more efficiently than today's traditional desktop. My hope is that
computer companies will eventually see this and start making computers
that offer the expandability of a traditional desktop with the
efficiency of a laptop. These computers don't have to be laptop
computers. They can resemble something more along the lines of the
smaller form factors available today.

Taking on the argument of performance, models from Hitachi Travel star
5400rpm hard drives as well as Toshiba's laptop drives all average 12ms
seek time which is on par with Seagate and Samsung's desktop hard
drives (and I'd guess most other manufacturer's) 12ms average seek
time. Regarding performance, there have been performance tests
comparing the Centrino with the Pentium 4. Depending on the type of
test being rendered, sometimes the Centrino looks better, sometimes the
Pentium 4 wins out.

http://216.239.63.104/search?q=cac [...] um+4&hl=en

The fact that you could argue it either way implies that there isn't a
whole helluva lot of difference between the two. Based on the little
research I have done, I would say there is little to no difference in
performance and that you are splitting hairs.

Archived from groups: comp.sys.laptops (More info?)

On 12 Mar 2005 10:19:47 -0800, pokemonn2@hotmail.com wrote:

>Pentium 4 3.0gigahertz processors and 100 megabyte hard drives which is
>way more than the average person needs by the way),

That sounds reasonable enough, but unfortunately that's not what
drives the market.

Do u feel like starting a "whay do everybody need a SVU" thread? (lets
not)


>I don't have the stats for power consumption of my new Dell laptop
>which uses the latest Sonoma chipset, but I would gander that the power
>consumption is probably considerably less than that of a traditional
>desktop and runs just as fast as a desktop with similar specs.

Technically, yer right.


>The question I pose to computer manufacturers is that why can't they
>make an effort to produce desktop computers that use less energy
>(perhaps incorporate the new Sonoma chipset in every desktop
>computer?!?), that take up far less space, and run quieter and much
>more efficient. It's obvious the technology is here.

You are looking at things from a Ben&Jerry point of view, and not from
people who run businesses, which unfortunately, have different
priorities than the ones u mentioned.


>hard disk drives and no your new computer won't require a 500 watt
>power supply, but perhaps a 200 watt power supply!!! This is a win win
>for the consumer and the environment.

If eveybody thinks like you, we would be all driving sensible cars,
Jimmy Carter (the first Pres. who had the gall to preach us
conservation) would had 2 very successfull terms. And Al Gore would
had won in a landslide, but NOOOoooooooo.

Archived from groups: comp.sys.laptops (More info?)

pokemonn2@hotmail.com wrote:
> First off I am very aware of smaller form factors available. Every
> single one of you guys has completely missed the point of my original
> post which is: the technology exists today to make desktop computers
> much smaller (and I am talking MUCH MUCH smaller!!!) and run much much
> more efficiently than today's traditional desktop. My hope is that
> computer companies will eventually see this and start making computers
> that offer the expandability of a traditional desktop with the
> efficiency of a laptop. These computers don't have to be laptop
> computers. They can resemble something more along the lines of the
> smaller form factors available today.
>
> Taking on the argument of performance, models from Hitachi Travel star
> 5400rpm hard drives as well as Toshiba's laptop drives all average 12ms
> seek time which is on par with Seagate and Samsung's desktop hard
> drives (and I'd guess most other manufacturer's) 12ms average seek
> time. Regarding performance, there have been performance tests
> comparing the Centrino with the Pentium 4. Depending on the type of
> test being rendered, sometimes the Centrino looks better, sometimes the
> Pentium 4 wins out.
>
> http://216.239.63.104/search?q=cac [...] um+4&hl=en
>
> The fact that you could argue it either way implies that there isn't a
> whole helluva lot of difference between the two. Based on the little
> research I have done, I would say there is little to no difference in
> performance and that you are splitting hairs.
>

When it comes down to it, the biggest question here is "What's
the point?". Let me tell you a little story. Here in Lubbock,
Texas, the land is pretty much perfectly flat, and it's barely
usable for farming. Land is the one commodity that we have in
spades. That's why you hardly ever see multistory parking
garages. We hav