Slashdot Mirror
Crusoe vs. Dell And Compaq
Boone^ writes "Yahoo! has an article from ZDNet News that details how Compaq and Dell are shying away from Crusoe notebooks 'for now.' " Basically it says that the performance isn't so hot, and consumers are gonna be burned by the hype of the first generation of Transmeta based laptops. But then again ... the battery life sure ain't a bad thing. Mentions that Hitachi notebooks might be shipping as early as October.
Update: 06/28 09:37 by CT : here's some pictures of transmeta laptops.
New desktop PC's out-perform laptops
North Dakota expects colder weather than Texas this year
Gerneralissimo Francisco Franco is still dead
Of course Compaq and Dell are going to tell you that this chip is crap. They are not using it. The companies that are using it are just as sure to tell you that the chip is an "Intel Killer" or something.
Information wants to be anthropomorphized.
I'm still watching for the first release of OpenPPC hardware; it too is not expected to be inexpensive. TotalImpact cards sound rather cool, but are apparently expensive enough that the vendor isn't willing indicate any pricing information on their web site; reportedly about $1K per CPU.
The "pricing structure" behind the PPCs just doesn't seem suited to laptop deployment that occurs "because they're low powered."
If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate.
This supposed GREAT laptop battery life you will get with the Crusoe, but I am not buying it. The processor is ONE component, among many. Even the P3 is not the biggest hog in a laptop.
Open Ports, the LCS, the DVD/CD and the HDD all burn MUCH more power. So BFD, even f the Crusoe gets by on 1/30 the power of a P3, it will not translate into more than an extra 1/2 hour. For chissakes, the G3 gets by on 5 anyway, but the Apple does not have significantly more battery life than a comprable P3.
I am rooting for it. But like with Apple and Linux and other techs, there is more hype than substance.
Tom
Reality does not happen until you analyze the dots. -Don DeLillo (Underworld)
Honestly, aside from the engineers no one in our company needs the performance of even the lowest end of Dell's CPU offerings (500mhz).
:P
We habitually buy the cheapest CPU's we can get, a little extra RAM than usual, a moderately sized HD, and the vast majority of our userbase is happy. No one's office software comes close to maxing out their CPU, and even the lowest end systems now have respectable 2D video performance well capable of marketing presentations. I wish we had the option of buying even slower-CPU systems for a reasonable discount but alas, chips only get so cheap...
Unless you're a designer/engineer/scientist/gamer, you're not scratching the capability of the CPU, and if you are you need to kill winamp, your software dvd player, SETI, and l0pthcrack and get back to work
Before you flame me keep in mind I'm talking about normal corporate users, not enthusiasts.
-OT
I'd like to see a Linux Crusoe notebook and a gcc compiler that can generate native Crusoe code. That would be cool, I think.
-Sigh- OKAY... One Last Time -- there IS NO native code set for Crusoe chips. There IS NO point in coding a compiler for the layer of code under the morphing layer.
Two chips have already been released, and they have wildly different "native code" layers. Chips with the exact same model number might have different "native code".
Here's a little history to explain where they are going - Back in the Bad Old Days of computing, the computers had a circuit board covered with transistors, resistors and such for every single function. When you "programmed" those beasts, you were actually telling it very specific instructions on how that *one* computer should do things. Each and every model was different, often with significant differences between each *machine*.
Then Computer Languages came along, and made people happy for awhile. Although you had to write a compiler/interpreter for each machine you made, the programs could work across different machines.
Opcodes, and Integrated Circuits came *later*. Once they showed up, you could change the underlying circuitry and still maintain compatability, since you were programming to an "Instruction Set" that would stay the same across that family of processors.
Your beefy 750 Mhz Pentium III has a set of opcodes in it that mimic something called the Z80, used in CP/M machines (and several machines like the Commodore 64)[1].
Okay... so now, Crusoe is attempting to abstract the circuitry yet another layer with it's intelligent "code morphing" layer. In theory, the CM layer can do all sorts of loop optimizations, creating new structures that perform faster and faster the more times they are used.
At least, that's the theory, and what they present on their site and in their presentations. I don't know how real it is, as the benchmarks seem not to reflect what they claim.
But the point it - if you write natively, your program won't necessarily work on another machine *with the same chip*, and certainly won't work on any other Crusoe chips. Plus, you eliminate the advantages of any optimization that the Code Morphing layer delivers.
Think of it this way -- all the people clamoring for "Native Crusoe Code" are basically doing the same thing as people asking video driver programmers "Can you bypass those 3D and 2D accelerator chips so we can use the normal VGA registers? Yes, we know we'll have to write a seperate program for each video card."
[1] I ported over some CP/M utilities from an Apple ][+ with a Z80 card to an original IBM PC. I still have that PC, and years later looked at it's serial number. 512. Yeah, baby.
--
Evan
"$30 for the One True Ring. $10 each additional ring!" -- JRR "Bob" Tolkien
For one thing, the increase in desktop and laptop performance across the board has increased the expectations for what a laptop can do. Consumers are no longer content to use ill-designed, unsupported, and generally flakey laptops just because they don't sit on a desk. The majority of senior management in my office doesn't have desktops- they have a laptop, and a docking station in the office. Laptops are increasingly fulfilling traditional desktop roles, and are a big deal with business users that travel and make off-site presentations. If Crusoe is a real drop in performance compared to a non-Crusoe laptop of comperable cost, the business world ain't gonna bite, and that's where a lot of the new money is.
"Sweet creeping zombie Jesus!"
If you want a fast, low power-consumption chip to run Linux, why not a PowerPC? Sure, it's not x86, but there's a number of good PPC linux ports.
Yes, PPC has higher power consumption than Crusoe, but much lower than any equivalent x86. How do you think the new iMacs work with no fan?
From the article, it sounds like PPC would give you much better performance...
"Yahoo! has an article from ZDNet News that details how Compaq and Dell are shying away from Crusoe notebooks "for now".
"We just can't afford to anger our pimp." Said Dell's spokesperson. "Microsoft has always been good to us, and he doesn't like that ho Linus!"
"When I can give the customer full-size notebook performance," said Kyle Ranson, vice president and general manager of Compaq's Transactional Business Segment.
Kyle emphasized the importance of full-size notebook performance, noting that most customers expected a high framerate from their toy paperclip, and the ability to fry eggs on their CPU for all 45 minutes of battery life. When asked if he had considered the needs (and lower cpu requirements) of Linux users, Ranson responded:
"We're going to be taking care of those people shortly. Er... I mean... I'm not sure that Linux will be favorably recieved by Microsoft.Net."
--
What happens when you outlaw guns
In my opinion, these processors are better suited to be the high power processors of yet smaller devices. The laptop industry has moved beyond the speeds of the crusoe processors, but smaller devices where more power is desireable are really where the 1st generation crusoe's belong. A couple months ago, though, the crusoe's would have really given Intel a run for their money (they still are with the whole power consumption deal, but I am willing to bet that the GHz notebooks will be out soon). Also, in cost, they seem to have Intel beat in value for the buck.
Eh...