Re: : interesting tablets

On 04/07/2014 05:38 PM, D. Hugh Redelmeier wrote:
> | From: David Collier-Brown <[email protected]>
>
> Good to see you on the list!
>
> | I have a previous atom netbook that I use as my writing-and-dev machine,
> | and it's quite good.  To replace it I'll want a machine with flash disk
> | (or cache) and a wodge of memory.
>
> Some netbooks allow for memory upgrades.  Typically Windows is
> hamstrung and cannot see all you add.  But Linux can.  Generally 4G is
> the limit (some of which you cannot use because some address space is
> reserved for the PCI bus).  I've upgraded all netbooks that we have.
>
> | The lack of the latter, including
> | video memory, is the current bottleneck on the machine.
>
> In what way is video memory a limit?  (It is just part of main memory
> -- there is no "on board memory" for these video systems.)
>
> | For command-line
> | compilations it's as fast as a much larger machine.
>
> That's surprising.  Perhaps you mean "fast enough".  The CPU is slower
> and the disk is likely slower (but not as significantly).
>
> | For a memory-hog GUI
> | (eclipse), it's too slow at everything.
>
> A monopolist (Intel, Microsoft, ...) has a few problems.  They want to
> make the most money.  So they want to charge as much as they can,
> without reducing their volume so much that their profit goes down.
> The solution?  Segment the market.
>
> The Atom used to be about selling cheap machines to folks as second
> machines.  Or to folks unwilling to pay for a full-priced machine.
> Oh, and to take a preemptive hit at OLPC in case it succeeded.  And a
> half-hearted blocker for ARM.
>
> Microsoft also wanted to stop Linux's inroads in the netbook market.
>
> Intel and Microsoft walled off their main markets by restricting the
> capabilities of products using the Atom.
>
> - memory limits (hardware: 32-bit bus) (software: licensing agreements
>   came with the CPU!  Win 7 Starter would not recognize memory beyond
>   2G)
>
> - horrible screen size and resolution limits (via licensing) (ones
>   that made them not qualified to run Win8 when that came around!)
>
> - speed limits (Hardware: Atom was slow, but it was sped up when AMD
>   started to make a superior product, the C-50/60/70 series)
>
> - terrible GPU.  Boosted a few times, possibly as Video became more
>   important or AMD looked to be a threat.
>
> The strategy worked.  At least for a time.
>
> - OLPC's pioneering netbook had no mainstream penetration
>
> - a lot of netbooks were sold (not clear to me if they cannibalized
>   notebook sales)
>
> - Linux's great start in the netbook world fizzled spectacularly.
>   Microsoft accomplished this by almost giving away WinXP and Win7
>   Starter.
>
> - AMD's C-50 limped along.  It was a great choice for netbooks just as
>   that market was fading.
>
> - few people love netbooks and were soon in the market for something
>   else.
>
> Too bad for Intel and Microsoft that the something else seems to have
> been tablets and smart phones with ARM processors.  So Intel and
> Microsoft have been playing catch-up for a few years now.  Looks like
> a classic case of the innovators dilemma.
>
> Me?  I found uses for selected netbooks.  Ones with close to normal
> screen resolution (1366x768 or close to it).  They were hard to find
> or expensive but I found three exceptions for my family.  But they
> weren't perfect.  Each runs Linux.
>
> I think competition leads to improved products and Intel is having to
> work hard to deliver good products to try to catch up to various ARM
> products.  Luckilly for ARM, they have their own competitive market
> that is improving ARM products at quite a clip.
>
> So: I think these tablets have interesting Intel-subsidized Atom
> processors.  I love being subsidized.  But if it doesn't run desktop
> Linux, I don't need it (I already have and enjoy Android tablets and
> don't need another).
> --
> The Toronto Linux Users Group.      Meetings: http://gtalug.org/
> TLUG requests: Linux topics, No HTML, wrap text below 80 columns
> How to UNSUBSCRIBE: http://gtalug.org/wiki/Mailing_lists
>
I'm limited to:
   1600x900       60.0*+
   1280x1024     60.0 
   1440x900       59.9 
   1280x720       60.0 
   1024x768       60.0 
on a second display, 1024x600 on the built-in  because of some
quasi-artificial "video memory" limit.

The difference in i/o speed for bunches of small files for c and c++
compiles is quite small, as it's the directory
traversal code that's the bottleneck.

Pure sequential I/O, as when using a huge Google Refine file, is
distinctly slower, and the smaller memory limits hurt, but I also don't
run refine very often, and mostly as  quasi-batch jobs while watching TV.

This little atom machine is fine as as something I use the keyboard on,
but as a pad processor for mostly images and A-V, it would either be
 - I/O bound, or
 - under-powered (;-))

--dave
[nice to be back]

-- 
David Collier-Brown,         | Always do right. This will gratify
System Programmer and Author | some people and astonish the rest
[email protected]           |                      -- Mark Twain

--
The Toronto Linux Users Group.      Meetings: http://gtalug.org/
TLUG requests: Linux topics, No HTML, wrap text below 80 columns
How to UNSUBSCRIBE: http://gtalug.org/wiki/Mailing_lists