Slinky Little Crusoe Notebook Reviewed
does it really matter? writes "Apparently the love-in is finally on for the guys at TransmetaZone.com since they finally have a review of a Crusoe notebook to show for themselves. The silver NEC UltraLite gets a good going over, and proves to be an interesting match against a PIII-M." I'm glad to see that the promise of transmeta is finally beginning to start being fulfilled.
This is the real question.. The iBook is just as thin, weighs the same, includes a DVD/CD-RW drive, Mac OS 9.2/Mac OS X, a 12" (1024x768) screen, 4+ hour battery life, and costs less ($1800 for the top of the line iBook as opposed to $2k for the model discussed in the article)..
It's great that it stacks up well against a PIII based notebook, but that's not were the real challenge lies for this thing..
I'm glad to see that the promise of transmeta is finally beginning to start being fulfilled.
:-)
Yep, I'm glad to see they commenced the outset of initiating the maiden launch of that debut myself!
Oh, yes, that's a 'real impartial review'... it reads more like some oil-haired watchdripping toothshiner trying to sell you a car.
I want to like it, I really do. I might seriously consider one if it had 256 or 512 MB of RAM, a larger screen (1280x1024 would be nice), USB 2.0 ports and an external DVD/CD-RW drive. I don't mind schlepping a little more weight in return for being able to watch my own in-flight movie.
And while I'm dreaming, I want a pony...
Are you kidding me? Have you ever checked out and actually used one of the latest Sony Picturebooks? The last two USA versions of the Picturebook used the Crusoe, and both are mean little computer machines. Supposedly Linus uses a picturebook. I mean, who wouldn't love a fully functional Linux Workstation that is no larger than a VHS cassette tape? So there is no "finall begining to start" crap. The Crusoe has been fulfilling for over a year now, its promise of a high efficieny x86 CPU. AND YES, THE PICTUREBOOK RUNS LINUX JUST FINE!
Altough the Tm5600-based system outlasted the PIII-based one by about 28% in battery life tests, it's interesting to notice that the PIII has a 5400 mAH battery, while the TM5600's batteries add up to 4300 mAH. That is, the Transmeta processor lasted 28% more on about 20% less battery capacity. Some quick numbers indicate that the Transmeta processor would be able to run for over 6 hours on a 5400 mAH battery, which is a full 50% longer than the 4 hours the PIII system lasted, given that the batteries had the same capacity.
I recently bought a Sony Vaio PCG-SR33. As far as I can tell, it's exactly the same machine, but with a couple differences:
1) It starts at $999
2) It comes with an external CD-ROM, but no floppy
3) It has a 600mhz Low-voltage Celeron instead of a Crusoe - but gets the same battery life (about 5.5 hours)
Why anyone would spend $2500 for that NEC subnotebook, I can't fathom.
Oh yeah, my Sony also weighs 0.3 lbs less with the same dimensions.
I don't get it... does this really qualify as an "ultraportable subnotebook"? It's quite a bit larger and heavier than my Thinkpad 240, which is getting to be almost 18 months old now.
I guess what I'm really saying is I'm extremely happy with the size and weight of the Thinkpad 240, and I'm really puzzled as to why it's still just about the most lightweight laptop in the market. Don't people want computers they can comfortably carry around, instead of the six-pound Floppy/CD/DVD/15" monsters I see these days?
Anyway, the only gripe I have with my 240 is the battery life, which isn't much more than 80-90 minutes. Maybe it'd be better off running on a Crusoe chip? Or maybe that's what they sacrificed to get it so small... the size of the battery.
-- If no truths are spoken then no lies can hide --
Usually, you pay a premium of $200-$300 for equivalent functionality in a Mac compared with the PC alternative. In this case, though, it seems like the opposite is true. The only advantages I see to this machine are PC card slot and lower weight. (iBook is 4.9 pounds, this is 3.3, IIRC)
The two have more or less equivalent battery life (Apple claims 5 hours, these guys claim 5.5) If you get one of the higher-end iBooks, memory, hard drive, etc are the same. And CPU speed is pretty much identical-- I'd guess a G3/500 will edge out a Crusoe/600, but even if not it's not going to be much behind. Crusoes are optimised for power consumption, not performance.
On the downside, there's no internal media (which probably accounts for the weight difference) and apperantly you can't even get DVD-ROM or CD-RW without going to a third party. And the iBook includes FireWire ports and an interal 802.11 slot, which this does not.
Most striking is the price. To get an equivalently loaded iBook (with DVD and 128 MB RAM) is $1500. This is "approximately" $2000. Why would you pay $500 extra for a laptop with fewer features, lousy performance, and the inelegance of x86?
So, really, the only reason to prefer this to an iBook is if you need something that runs Windoze. If you have the option of running a real OS (either Mac OS or *nix) get an iBook and save some money.
For me, something like the Vaio picturebook (also with a Crusoe processor) would be ideal. That doesn't make me right or you wrong, but it means there's room in the market for both. Vive la difference!
Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from a rigged demo
--Andy Finkel (J. Klass?)