3 ms·

Or alternatively, they will have similar amounts of computing power, but will be much smaller, lighter, cheaper, and have a better battery life. If we're more

by orib 18y ago

Or alternatively, they will have similar amounts of computing power, but will be much smaller, lighter, cheaper, and have a better battery life. If we're more careful programming, we can easily do all sorts of interesting stuff on the limited, massively low power, and ultracheap hardware I'd like to see.

omouse 18y ago
You only need to look to the past to see what sorts of tricks were and are possible. As someone once said, "what's old is new again".
- Retric 18y ago
  A PII uses 7.5 million transistors @ ~233 MHz. A Intel Core 2 Quad has 582 million transistors @ ~2400 MHz. I don't think there is a point to using anything much less than a PII on most consumer cell phone / PDA devices. And 10 years from now when 20 billion transistor CPU's are normal for home PC's I don't think using something less than a Core 2 Quad is going to have much of a point to it. (Note: I am talking about devices that show websites and take pictures.) PS: Granted if your building a toaster then an 8080 is probably overkill.
  - noonespecial 18y ago
    PS: Granted if your building a toaster then an 8080 is probably overkill. No, but using a $.95 7 million transistor cpu to simply emulate a more expensive mechanical timer might not be. And then you get internet and an LCD and all sorts of stuff basically for free. You could even emulate that 8080 if you wanted.
    - Retric 18y ago
      If your starting with an internet connection and an LCD then there is a lot of value in an ok (.95c plus) CPU . (Kindle, Cellphone, PDA, Laptop). But, if your starting with a cheep (.05c or less) CPU then adding an ok CPU, LCD, and an internet connection probably overkill. (Watch, Toster, Fridge, dish washer etc).
  - orib 18y ago
    For my mobile devices, I'd rather see a modest computing power increase, and (assuming power per transistor shrinks such that power usage for a top-of-the-line CPU is approximately constant) we end up using around 5 to 10% of the current desktop's power. To me, a laptop with 20 hours of charge and maybe the power of a current quad-core would be far more useful than a short-lived, hot, noisy machine like we have now. The same goes for a cellphone. I'd rather have 100 hours of on-time than the ability to use heavyweight technologies. Being able to forget my charger without worrying much when travelling is far more important to me.

by orib 18y ago

omouse 18y ago

You only need to look to the past to see what sorts of tricks were and are possible. As someone once said, "what's old is new again".

Retric 18y ago
A PII uses 7.5 million transistors @ ~233 MHz. A Intel Core 2 Quad has 582 million transistors @ ~2400 MHz. I don't think there is a point to using anything much less than a PII on most consumer cell phone / PDA devices. And 10 years from now when 20 billion transistor CPU's are normal for home PC's I don't think using something less than a Core 2 Quad is going to have much of a point to it. (Note: I am talking about devices that show websites and take pictures.) PS: Granted if your building a toaster then an 8080 is probably overkill.
- noonespecial 18y ago
  PS: Granted if your building a toaster then an 8080 is probably overkill. No, but using a $.95 7 million transistor cpu to simply emulate a more expensive mechanical timer might not be. And then you get internet and an LCD and all sorts of stuff basically for free. You could even emulate that 8080 if you wanted.
  - Retric 18y ago
    If your starting with an internet connection and an LCD then there is a lot of value in an ok (.95c plus) CPU . (Kindle, Cellphone, PDA, Laptop). But, if your starting with a cheep (.05c or less) CPU then adding an ok CPU, LCD, and an internet connection probably overkill. (Watch, Toster, Fridge, dish washer etc).
- orib 18y ago
  For my mobile devices, I'd rather see a modest computing power increase, and (assuming power per transistor shrinks such that power usage for a top-of-the-line CPU is approximately constant) we end up using around 5 to 10% of the current desktop's power. To me, a laptop with 20 hours of charge and maybe the power of a current quad-core would be far more useful than a short-lived, hot, noisy machine like we have now. The same goes for a cellphone. I'd rather have 100 hours of on-time than the ability to use heavyweight technologies. Being able to forget my charger without worrying much when travelling is far more important to me.