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.

Comments

I keep hearing about...

[B-B]

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

Re:I keep hearing about...

[Mark F. Komarinski]

According to Intel, a 400Mhz Celeron PPGA uses 24.6W. According to IBM, their Travelstar 14GS (14GB 2.5" drive) takes a maximum of 5W, and that's for powerup. Normal is on the order of 2-3W. Don't know about the LCD, but a Teac notebook CD-ROM is about 3W (600mA * 5V) while active. Sharp 12.1" LCD screen takes 7.5W.(see intel.com, ibm.com, and teac.com, sharp-world.com for the specs).

You're now looking at instead of a draw of about 40.1W with an Intel Celeron versus a draw of 16.5, or a drop in almost 2/3. This would imply that all things being equal, you'd triple your battery life by going from a Celeron 400 to an Crusoe. And the Celeron 400 is pretty low power compared to the PIII chips.

-Mark