portable Computer
#1
Posted 09 October 2009 - 02:46 PM
The computer needs no screen nor mouse or keyboard but needs to be able to run XP.
Has anyone a better idea than canibalizing a Notebook?
#2
Posted 09 October 2009 - 03:28 PM
Yes.Has anyone a better idea than canibalizing a Notebook?
http://www.boot-land...?showtopic=5880
Specs talk about a 6 to 8 W power consumption, the SBC version appears to use 5 W @12V, which seems just right for a battery powered thingy.
Getting a Acer One or Asus eeePC, and reselling as spares:
- LCD screen
- keyboard
- Touchpad and chassis
Will however cost you much less.
jaclaz
#3
Posted 09 October 2009 - 04:27 PM
The idea about refinancing the project by selling the not needed parts is actually good and potentialy enables the use of a more costly base system.
How can i figure out how much computing power i need?
Don't think there exists a standardized computing power measurement system, to easily compare different systems, or does it?
#4
Posted 09 October 2009 - 05:09 PM
Well, the Fit-PC is not actually a "little server", it's a "little desktop".Those little servers, i just don't trust them to have enough power for anything but turning a few pages out every once in a while.
You usually don't get anything for free, if you want "power", you need to feed "power" to the machine , second law of thermodynamics:
http://en.wikipedia...._thermodynamics
is still valid, AFAIK.
An ATOM @1600 Mhz will go roughly as fast as an Atom @1600 Mhz can go... since both the Acer One and the eeePC use that processor, there shouldn't be much differnce to the Fit-PC, the added bonus is using SSD that should give MUCH faster random seek (but possibly slower transfer rate when overwriting), example:
http://www.notebookc...on.18750.0.html
Testing on the target system the actual app?How can i figure out how much computing power i need?
No, and moreover there are a lot of factors involved, like the drivers and the actual kind of app (lots of memory swapping or lots of disk accesses, as an example, may make the SAME PC seem either a tortoise or a hare).Don't think there exists a standardized computing power measurement system, to easily compare different systems, or does it?
You can only have a "reasoned" idea of what the actual performance would be, but you will have to perform actual tests anyway.
As often happens, unless you give some details, it will be difficult to try and advise/help.
jaclaz
#5
Posted 09 October 2009 - 06:30 PM
My concern ist about a 'realtime' app i plan to have running in the background.
When it needs to do it's job, it needs the power to do it in the right amount of time.
A optimized P3 1000MHZ Desktop PC is fast enough. 800MHz and there are already drop outs. So that's the bare minimum processing power.
Power wise i was aiming at a system without a HDD, but rather some memory card attached to the IDE or SATA bus.
The question i'm pondering still is, if it is better power wise to load the whole system into ram and use the memory card just for booting or to scale the RAM down to the least amount needed and use of the meory card like a HDD in a normal system.
Which is of course not possible, unless i buy a wagonload of computers.Testing on the target system the actual app?
For one, nobody let's me install software on their computers in the shop and second there are no systems that come with XP anymore.
#6
Posted 09 October 2009 - 08:15 PM
I don't think that there will be any advantage in loading in ramdisk or keeping the "memory card" powered up, of course speed will be much faster, once booted.Power wise i was aiming at a system without a HDD, but rather some memory card attached to the IDE or SATA bus.
The question i'm pondering still is, if it is better power wise to load the whole system into ram and use the memory card just for booting or to scale the RAM down to the least amount needed and use of the meory card like a HDD in a normal system.
Be aware that a memory card speed is - generally speaking - very low.
An SSD is faster than a HDD, but a HDD is usually much faster than, say, a CF card mounted on an adpter like these:
http://www.addonics....er/adsahdcf.asp
Exception made for the three makes/models mentioned ones, of course, that all come with XP Home:For one, nobody let's me install software on their computers in the shop and second there are no systems that come with XP anymore.
http://www.fit-pc.it...2/fit-PC2-XP-HD
http://www.acer.it/a...;CRC=3695555132
http://www.asus.com/...YUbmhXutqOeEOsN
or you need Professional for any reason?
jaclaz
#7
Posted 09 October 2009 - 09:02 PM
Yes i was thinking about one of these, will check on SSD.I don't think that there will be any advantage in loading in ramdisk or keeping the "memory card" powered up, of course speed will be much faster, once booted.
Be aware that a memory card speed is - generally speaking - very low.
An SSD is faster than a HDD, but a HDD is usually much faster than, say, a CF card mounted on an adpter like these:
http://www.addonics....er/adsahdcf.asp
Memory cards, if used just for reading used to consume less power than RAM, but in R/W mode they used to use more power than RAM.
Have you any idea if that still holds true?
I do not need any flavour of XP with the computer, i have licences for home and professional to burn.or you need Professional for any reason?
Every new computer comes with a new licemce, if you need one or not.
What Atom CPU would be the equivalent to a P3 1000MHz?
#8
Posted 09 October 2009 - 09:37 PM
And again, casually, NOT one of the mentioned ones:Every new computer comes with a new licemce, if you need one or not.
http://www.fit-pc.it...it-PC2-Diskless
http://www.fit-pc.it...2/fit-PC2-Value
More generally most "industrial" PC's or mini/pico ITX thingies will actually come WITHOUT any OS.
I won't even mention the differences between "full" and "OEM" Windows licences. (the ones that come with "every new computer")
VERY roughly, I would say that an Atom @1600 is more or less similar to a Pentium M @1000÷1200 which should be faster than a pentium III @1000:What Atom CPU would be the equivalent to a P3 1000MHz?
http://www.hardwares...com/article/270
Faster than a C7, slower than a Celeron:
http://www.engadget....ng-intels-atom/
Some more info on the Atom:
http://www.tomshardw...m-cpu,1947.html
But, as said any of the above means little, it's the complete system AND the type of app/use that actually can make the difference in "real life" speed.
jaclaz
#9
Posted 09 October 2009 - 10:21 PM
I was not referring to the assorted computers you've listed, but to the reason why i have too many licences.And again, casually, NOT one of the mentioned ones:
http://www.fit-pc.it...it-PC2-Diskless
http://www.fit-pc.it...2/fit-PC2-Value
More generally most "industrial" PC's or mini/pico ITX thingies will actually come WITHOUT any OS.
I know there are differences between full and OEM CD, but a difference between full and oem licences would be news to me.I won't even mention the differences between "full" and "OEM" Windows licences. (the ones that come with "every new computer")
VERY roughly, I would say that an Atom @1600 is more or less similar to a Pentium M @1000÷1200 which should be faster than a pentium III @1000:
http://www.hardwares...com/article/270
I have now 2 used Notebooks to checkout here.
A 1000MHz P3 which suffered from a dying HDD when it was replaced. So should be in working order, but i doubt that it is fast enough.
And a P4 with 2GHz which was sorted out, after the display was cracked due to sitting on it , but no word if that's really the only problem.
#10
Posted 09 October 2009 - 10:41 PM
Comeon, really?I know there are differences between full and OEM CD, but a difference between full and oem licences would be news to me.
I guess you are confusing the "big" Custom OEM (like HP, Dell, etc.) CD's contents compared to the contents of a "normal" OEM or FPP CD with their respective licensing status.
There are two "main" forms of licenses "OEM" and "FPP" in the consumer market. (Corporate users have additional forms of licenses available)
The OEM comprises both the "normal" OEM and the "Custom OEM" that "big" brands couple with their PC's.
Maybe in Germany Licences are different from all the rest of the world, but I don't think so :
http://download.micr...742/OSLicQA.doc
Points #6, #9, #10 and probably #11 in the above document may represent the (bad) "news".
Both will need LOTS more power when compared to an Atom based solution, Atom was devised exactly to reduce power consumption (please read as increase battery use of notebooks).I have now 2 used Notebooks to checkout here.
A 1000MHz P3 which suffered from a dying HDD when it was replaced. So should be in working order, but i doubt that it is fast enough.
And a P4 with 2GHz which was sorted out, after the display was cracked due to sitting on it , but no word if that's really the only problem.
But of course, I guess that the price of one of those Notebooks cannot be beaten.
jaclaz
#11
Posted 09 October 2009 - 11:14 PM
I don't really care about that. As long as M$ excepts the use of the serial number of one computer on another and does not even complain about me using a shop bought XP home CD for install, instead of the one that came with the computer, i see this as their way of being ok with my use of the licence.Points #6, #9, #10 and probably #11 in the above document may represent the (bad) "news".
Strange, from reading the links you've provided, i've got the impression that both, but at least the P3, would use less power.Both will need LOTS more power when compared to an Atom based solution, Atom was devised exactly to reduce power consumption (please read as increase battery use of notebooks).
My desktop system with 2 HDD, a P4 and a grafikscard uses when idleing 61 Watts and that with an elcheapo power supply from 2002!
My server with a P2 350MHz, onboard graphics and just 1 HDD. Uses between 30 and 32 Watts to do his job.
All measured AC.
#12
Posted 10 October 2009 - 09:04 AM
I was just surprised you didn't know the differences, now you know them, and can ignore those licenses knowing what you are doing.
About power management/resources, we are reading two different books, as often happens, some snippets:
http://www.tomshardw...m-cpu,1947.html
http://www.tomshardw...cpu,1947-2.htmlPower management and fabrication costs are the two imperatives Intel seems to have been guided by, at the expense (with no attempt made to hide it) of performance.
But the Atom is radically different in that it has a new architecture specially created to reduce power use.
Atom is a different architecture in the sense that it was designed to reduce power consumption and that the processor uses a totally new design. It isn’t an adaptation of an earlier architecture. Concretely, Intel is now able to offer processors that consume very little power – the high-end Atoms consume less power than the (generally very slow) ULV versions of the standard architectures.
http://www.tomshardw...cpu,1947-7.html
In addition to the low voltage (1.05 V) CPU, the Atom also introduces a new standby mode, C6. As a reminder, the C modes (0 to 6) are low-power states, and the higher the number, the less the CPU consumes. In C6 mode, the entire processor is almost totally disabled. Only a cache memory of a few kB (10.5) is kept enabled to store the state of the registers. In this mode, the L2 cache is emptied and disabled, the supply voltage falls to only 0.3 V, and only a small part of the processor remains active, for wake-up purposes. The processor can go into C6 mode in approximately 100 microseconds, which is quick. In practice, Intel claims, C6 mode is used 90% of the time, which limits overall power consumption
Of course Intel, may have completely failed the goal , but there is no doubt about what it was.
jaclaz
#13
Posted 10 October 2009 - 11:05 AM
As for the licencing. The same rules apply imo as for all human made laws, ignore how it is written and stick with how it is used in real life. Those two are seldom identical.
A pretty stupid and confusing system imo, but untill i can change that, i just go with the flow and let my attorney set everyone straight, that has a problem with that.
#14
Posted 10 October 2009 - 11:36 AM
USB connected devices:
- USB SATA 2,5" 160 Gb disk 33,1 Mb/sec
- USB IDE ATA 133 3,5" 40 Gb disk 33 Mb/sec
- USB IDE ATA 133 3,5" 30 Gb disk 33,2 Mb/sec
- USB Pendrive SANDISK Cruzer Micro 8 Gb 23,5 Mb/sec
- USB Pendrive PNY Attachè 8 Gb 17 Mb/sec
- USB Pendrive ADATA 4 Gb 15,2 Mb/sec
- USB 5 Gb Microdrive 6,5 Mb/sec
- USB 4 Gb CF card 2,7 Mb/sec
I am waiting for some parts to arrive, namely a couple of CF card to IDE adapters to repeat the CF card and microdrive tests without the USB "intermediate" interface, and a couple of these ones:
http://www.delock.co...ical_54145.html
which should make the difference, should it demonstrate the 40/20 Mb/s declared speed.
Base machine is this one:
http://www.gigabyte....oductName=STA/C
with a C7 @1000, thus theoretically slightly below your assumed standard.
I'll let you know how much power this thingy actually needs, PS is a 19V 3.42 A one (read 65 W), but of course this is theoretical and largely overdimensioned.
The machines are intended to replace oldish C3 @600 (the requisite is that of being completely fanless), that worked (and still work allright) with NT 4.00 or Win2K, but they will keep running 2K, though I don''t think that a good, optimized XP is much slower than a good ol' 2K, problem is/was amount of RAM, but these new thingies have 1 Gb on board, so there should be NO problems.
jaclaz
#15
Posted 10 October 2009 - 06:54 PM
Would be very interested in the power consumption of your system and maybe a benchmark.
I've looked today a bit around and could not find a single Netbook without active cooling, so your system would have to use even less power and probably deliver also less computing power.
#16
Posted 11 October 2009 - 10:19 AM
They are just "numbers" quick average of HDTune benchmark "transfer rate" with 64 Kb chunks.I assume that those are read speeds, right?
Only useful to have an idea of what we are talking about, to make a quck comparison.
Actual performance will be better or worse, but however in the same "gross range".
Here is a more "accurate" ATTO benchmark of the 5 Gb microdrive, of the 4 Gb CF card and of a 40 Gb HD (still all USB connected).
jaclaz
Attached Files
#17
Posted 11 October 2009 - 02:48 PM
For a little project of mine i'm looking for a portable computer. Portable in this case does not mean so much carrying it around, but that it has to run off battery. So being good at that is paramount!
The computer needs no screen nor mouse or keyboard but needs to be able to run XP.
Has anyone a better idea than canibalizing a Notebook?
HP Compaq t5720 Thin Client + UPS
#18
Posted 11 October 2009 - 05:01 PM
All measured at the walloutlet.
Read that one of those little Navi-thingies eats about 15Watt.
#19
Posted 11 October 2009 - 05:11 PM
About 20Watt sounds good. Do you own one of those? How is the performance?
#20
Posted 13 October 2009 - 11:20 AM
- idleing at 27Watt
- watching avi movie = 37-40Watt
- highest recorded peak 42Watt (during startup)
Again everything measured at the walloutlet.
#21
Posted 18 October 2009 - 03:12 PM
About 20Watt sounds good. Do you own one of those? How is the performance?
Yes, i bought one on eBay, added PCI Expansion Module Kit and eSATA PCI card + 500 Gb 5400tpm 2.5" eSATA external disk to build some kind of NAS.
Operating System used is Windows XP embedded Service Pack 3 (own built image instead of HP standard image which is bloated with clients for Citrix and others tools, add-ons and utilities).
Can't really says about performance. But about as fast as an 5 years old P4 2.53 desktop with 40GB 7200 tpm HDD (slow).
Good: OS on CF, fast read and no writes (protected by EWF)
Bad: only 100Mb NIC (but i don't have a Gigabit switch), low performance SiS graphics (but i use it primary for storage) and remote desktop connection for administration.
#22
Posted 18 October 2009 - 11:54 PM
Threw all drives out and used a CF card as boot drive.
As OS i use a 300MB XP/PE with shutdown once - resume many and with just 128MB of RAM that goes lightning fast, even on an old system.
Unfortunately it seems i need to upgrade to 256MB.
Still looking into maybe getting a CPU which needs less power, but so far i can't confirm what processing performance they have, compared to their desktop cousins.
0 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users