Jump to content











Photo
- - - - -

portable Computer


  • Please log in to reply
21 replies to this topic

#1 MedEvil

MedEvil

    Platinum Member

  • .script developer
  • 7,763 posts

Posted 09 October 2009 - 02:46 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?

:hypocrite:

#2 was_jaclaz

was_jaclaz

    Finder

  • Advanced user
  • 7,100 posts
  • Location:Gone in the mist
  •  
    Italy

Posted 09 October 2009 - 03:28 PM

Has anyone a better idea than canibalizing a Notebook?

Yes. :hypocrite:

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.

:hypocrite:

jaclaz

#3 MedEvil

MedEvil

    Platinum Member

  • .script developer
  • 7,763 posts

Posted 09 October 2009 - 04:27 PM

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.

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?

:hypocrite:

#4 was_jaclaz

was_jaclaz

    Finder

  • Advanced user
  • 7,100 posts
  • Location:Gone in the mist
  •  
    Italy

Posted 09 October 2009 - 05:09 PM

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.

Well, the Fit-PC is not actually a "little server", it's a "little desktop".
You usually don't get anything for free, if you want "power", you need to feed "power" to the machine :hypocrite:, second law of thermodynamics:
http://en.wikipedia...._thermodynamics
is still valid, AFAIK. :thumbsup:

An ATOM @1600 Mhz will go roughly as fast as an Atom @1600 Mhz can go...:frusty: 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

How can i figure out how much computing power i need?

Testing on the target system the actual app? <_< :hypocrite:


Don't think there exists a standardized computing power measurement system, to easily compare different systems, or does it?

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).

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 MedEvil

MedEvil

    Platinum Member

  • .script developer
  • 7,763 posts

Posted 09 October 2009 - 06:30 PM

The computer will mostly be idleing doing just some low priority tasks, that even a slow Pentium could do without breaking a sweat.
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.

Testing on the target system the actual app?

Which is of course not possible, unless i buy a wagonload of computers.
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.

:hypocrite:

#6 was_jaclaz

was_jaclaz

    Finder

  • Advanced user
  • 7,100 posts
  • Location:Gone in the mist
  •  
    Italy

Posted 09 October 2009 - 08:15 PM

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.

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

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.

Exception made for the three makes/models mentioned ones, of course, that all come with XP Home:
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? :hypocrite:

:hypocrite:

jaclaz

#7 MedEvil

MedEvil

    Platinum Member

  • .script developer
  • 7,763 posts

Posted 09 October 2009 - 09:02 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.
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

Yes i was thinking about one of these, will check on SSD.

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?


or you need Professional for any reason? :hypocrite:

I do not need any flavour of XP with the computer, i have licences for home and professional to burn.
Every new computer comes with a new licemce, if you need one or not. :thumbsup:

What Atom CPU would be the equivalent to a P3 1000MHz?

:hypocrite:

#8 was_jaclaz

was_jaclaz

    Finder

  • Advanced user
  • 7,100 posts
  • Location:Gone in the mist
  •  
    Italy

Posted 09 October 2009 - 09:37 PM

Every new computer comes with a new licemce, if you need one or not. :hypocrite:

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 won't even mention the differences between "full" and "OEM" Windows licences. (the ones that come with "every new computer")

What Atom CPU would be the equivalent to a P3 1000MHz?

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

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.

:hypocrite:

jaclaz

#9 MedEvil

MedEvil

    Platinum Member

  • .script developer
  • 7,763 posts

Posted 09 October 2009 - 10:21 PM

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 was not referring to the assorted computers you've listed, but to the reason why i have too many licences.


I won't even mention the differences between "full" and "OEM" Windows licences. (the ones that come with "every new computer")

I know there are differences between full and OEM CD, but a difference between full and oem licences would be news to me.


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 :hypocrite:, but no word if that's really the only problem.


:hypocrite:

#10 was_jaclaz

was_jaclaz

    Finder

  • Advanced user
  • 7,100 posts
  • Location:Gone in the mist
  •  
    Italy

Posted 09 October 2009 - 10:41 PM

I know there are differences between full and OEM CD, but a difference between full and oem licences would be news to me.

Comeon, really? :thumbsup:
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 :hypocrite::
http://download.micr...742/OSLicQA.doc

Points #6, #9, #10 and probably #11 in the above document may represent the (bad) "news".

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.

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).

But of course, I guess that the price of one of those Notebooks cannot be beaten.


jaclaz

#11 MedEvil

MedEvil

    Platinum Member

  • .script developer
  • 7,763 posts

Posted 09 October 2009 - 11:14 PM

Points #6, #9, #10 and probably #11 in the above document may represent the (bad) "news".

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.

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).

Strange, from reading the links you've provided, i've got the impression that both, but at least the P3, would use less power.

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.

:thumbsup:

#12 was_jaclaz

was_jaclaz

    Finder

  • Advanced user
  • 7,100 posts
  • Location:Gone in the mist
  •  
    Italy

Posted 10 October 2009 - 09:04 AM

As always, I don't care that you don't care. :thumbsup:

I was just surprised you didn't know the differences, now you know them, and can ignore those licenses knowing what you are doing. :hypocrite:

About power management/resources, we are reading two different books, as often happens, some snippets:
http://www.tomshardw...m-cpu,1947.html

Power 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.

http://www.tomshardw...cpu,1947-2.html

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.

:hypocrite:

jaclaz

#13 MedEvil

MedEvil

    Platinum Member

  • .script developer
  • 7,763 posts

Posted 10 October 2009 - 11:05 AM

Interesting that you pick to look at the theoretical data, i looked at the power consumtion tests and there the computer with the Atom CPU clocks in above 60Watts. (slightly worst than the VIA)

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. :thumbsup:

<_<

#14 was_jaclaz

was_jaclaz

    Finder

  • Advanced user
  • 7,100 posts
  • Location:Gone in the mist
  •  
    Italy

Posted 10 October 2009 - 11:36 AM

Some random tests I just made ( of course deprived of any actual relevance whatsoever :thumbsup:) as I am curiously enough putting together a couple of low power thingies in this very moment.

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 MedEvil

MedEvil

    Platinum Member

  • .script developer
  • 7,763 posts

Posted 10 October 2009 - 06:54 PM

I assume that those are read speeds, right?

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.

:thumbsup:

#16 was_jaclaz

was_jaclaz

    Finder

  • Advanced user
  • 7,100 posts
  • Location:Gone in the mist
  •  
    Italy

Posted 11 October 2009 - 10:19 AM

I assume that those are read speeds, right?

They are just "numbers" quick average of HDTune benchmark "transfer rate" with 64 Kb chunks.
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).

:hypocrite:

jaclaz

Attached Files



#17 bilou_gateux

bilou_gateux

    Frequent Member

  • Expert
  • 212 posts
  •  
    France

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?

:thumbsup:


HP Compaq t5720 Thin Client + UPS

#18 MedEvil

MedEvil

    Platinum Member

  • .script developer
  • 7,763 posts

Posted 11 October 2009 - 05:01 PM

Notebook with 2.5Ghz P4 (non mobile!), 512MB Ram, DVD-ROM, no HDD, but Display still attached, booted with NaughtyPE = idleing at 36Watt, watching avi movie = 47-50Watt, highest recorded peak 75Watt (while switching from BIOS to XP drivers)
All measured at the walloutlet.

Read that one of those little Navi-thingies eats about 15Watt.

:thumbsup:

#19 MedEvil

MedEvil

    Platinum Member

  • .script developer
  • 7,763 posts

Posted 11 October 2009 - 05:11 PM

HP Compaq t5720 Thin Client + UPS

About 20Watt sounds good. Do you own one of those? How is the performance?

:thumbsup:

#20 MedEvil

MedEvil

    Platinum Member

  • .script developer
  • 7,763 posts

Posted 13 October 2009 - 11:20 AM

Notebook with PIII 1000MHz, 256MB, DVD-Rom, no HDD, TFT still attached, booted with NaughtyPE

- idleing at 27Watt
- watching avi movie = 37-40Watt
- highest recorded peak 42Watt (during startup)

Again everything measured at the walloutlet.

:lol:

#21 bilou_gateux

bilou_gateux

    Frequent Member

  • Expert
  • 212 posts
  •  
    France

Posted 18 October 2009 - 03:12 PM

About 20Watt sounds good. Do you own one of those? How is the performance?

:lol:


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 MedEvil

MedEvil

    Platinum Member

  • .script developer
  • 7,763 posts

Posted 18 October 2009 - 11:54 PM

After tweaking the smaller one of the two notebooks a bit, i've got it down to just 21 Watt with Display still attached. So i guess 16Watts without it.
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