Slashdot Mirror
Centrino Laptops Reviewed
Jeff Mancuso writes "CNET seems to be the first out with full reviews of the new Centrino Pentium M laptops. The performance looks solid, the features are great, designs are thin and battery life runs up to 4-7 hours on these machines." Yeah, I had hoped that we would make it on the review list, but alas, no such luck. Nice looking machines, though.
The Centrinos are out and I had to buy a Dell Inspiron 8200 with a P4-M 1.80Ghz last Friday. I hate technology ;-)
Thanks slashdot for providing a link to this fantastic full review!
For when this article gets moved off Cnet's front page, here's a direct link.
And just so you won't mod me up, here's a link to goatse.cx
For you lazy bastards.
2 22-1.html?tag=ld
:-D
http://computers.cnet.com/hardware/0-1027-8-20926
Enjoy. Oh, and, to be honest, I'm happy with my new 12" PowerBook G4 - It does everything I want, and then some.
Informatus Technologicus
What the hell happened to Pentiums V through CMXCIX?
~ "When I'm of that age I'm just going to live up a tree."
Why hasn't it advanced much compared to just about every other technology in a laptop ? To me, low battery life and low weight are THE most important characteristics of any laptop, I might use, but we had laptops running for 2-3 hours 5-7 years ago, which is still where most laptops are at. Here it seems the Centrino ekes out its long life through advances in the CPU, not through better batteries.
A recent Sony Vaio notebook I just got, while a lovely machine, lasts *maybe* 1 1/2 hours when all the consumption-related options are turned way down. Plug in the wifi card and it's borderline useless.
So why hasn't battery life advanced significantly ? Are we already at a theoretical limit of battery performance ? Or is battery performance improving, but just managing to keep pace with ever-increasing power-consumption ?
It appears the Centrino is a processor that actually could be practical, conserving battery power at the expense of computing power. As such, the market is of people that want more battery time, and are going to sacrifice computing power to do so.
Why do these laptops then contain such battery burning parts as large screens, CDRW/DVD drives, and weigh as much as 7lb?
When I saw the Sony Picturebook with Transmeta Crusoe processor, I was drooling. Not because it was a Crusoe processor, but because it was a computer that could do what mobile people need it to do, and do it for a long time, and be unobtrusive enough to put in my jacket pocket.
If you're going to get a portable computer but you're always going to be plugged in when using it, get a cheap ECS Desknote that doesn't come with a battery. If you worry a bit about battery time, get a normal mobile Pentium IV or Mobile Athlon. If you're insane about battery life, get a Crusoe. I don't see the middle ground between the last two.
Doing the Right Thing should not be preempted by making a buck.
This will not get you a review unit any sooner. Review units are sent to news sites that actually test machines; not to a "news" site that would use the machine and then post a three-sentence blurb on, which would be followed by 400 comments about goatse.cx and SOVIET RUSSIA, and one on-topic post complaining about the price of the product reviewed.
Call this flamebait, troll, whatever, but it's reality: slashdot isn't classified in the realm of a legitimate news site. It's a BBS, plain and simple.
In summary: go buy your own fucking laptop, Hemos.
12 new Athlon Mobile models, which will go down to 1 volt core voltage and use not more than 1 watt (!).
Check here
The 1 watt number is from a Heise article.
Bye egghat.
-- "As a human being I claim the right to be widely inconsistent", John Peel
why is it in reviews that the reviewers can't seem to bother to mention the weights of the laptops? i don't want to be toting around a seven pound beast.
Well, it shows the IBM with 416 minutes of battery life, while running a 1.3GHz, 1.5GHz, or 1.6GHz and a 64MB ATI Mobility FireGL. Not too shabby, I say, although it comes with Windows XP Professional, XP Home, 2000, 98 Gold, 98 SE, or NT 4.0 (with Service Pack 6a). Most of our laptops made locally here are getting breanded Linux on them. I buy my stuff domestic.
Put identity in the browser.
Seems Intel found a way to dramatically lower power consumption and heat without sacrificing too much CPU power.
I cant wait until we can get flex-atx or something like miniitx boards designed for these centrinos.
I want to put together little console-ish media players and gaming machines to plug into the TV, and VIA Edens offerings so far are just a little to gutless, and Shuttles spacewalker boards are great, but screaming CPU and case fans wont cut it.
I wonder how these things would cluster (yeah, imagine a beow...). Possibilities for my own personal little server farm without having to run another 150 amps of service to my PC room, and wont deafen me (a beowulf cluster of fans I dont need).
I don't need no instructions to know how to rock!!!!
Fuel cells contain hydrogen and I would be pretty scared to carry around a laptop with that much energy potential in it.
I dunno if I would worry about it too much. First, fuel cells don't have to use hydrogen. A lot of different hydrocarbon fuels can be used, depending on the design of the cell. I believe that the new laptop fuel cells that have been announced will be using methanol (rubbing alchohol) for fuel. Second, you have to keep it in perspective. How many people carry around butane lighters? There is a significant amount of energy in one of those, yet they seem to be remarkably safe. I've never heard of a catastrophic lighter accident, although I'm sure it happens. No reason to assume that a fuel cell "tank" wouldn't be at least as safe.
Anandtech also has their review up.
The performance of these machines varies quite a bit. The top performers are described and benchmark results are here.
What accounts for this range of performance. All four machines have the same processor, clock, memory speed, bridge chip, GPU, disk speed, etc.:
Is it all in the firmware settings?
Laptop Makers Don't Want This Intel Inside The new Centrino comes with a disappointing wireless chip
Too bad PC makers don't agree. Dell Computer Corp. (DELL ), Hewlett-Packard Co. (HPQ ), and other top manufacturers are eager to harness the extra power and efficiency of the new Pentium, but they are underwhelmed by Intel's wireless technology, which they say transmits data more slowly than those of rivals such as Broadcom (BRCM ).
What's more, notebook manufacturers perceive an ulterior motive behind Intel's Centrino launch. While Otellini says Intel is combining features in one package "so everything works [well] together," some PC makers fear Intel could boost prices if it were to become the sole supplier for most of a notebook's innards. And even if Intel didn't raise prices, PC makers say they'd prefer to continue buying components from numerous suppliers so they can better set themselves apart from competitors.
I've not part of the over clocking scene, nor the laptop scene, so I wouldn't know one way or the other, but would it be possible to take an already good laptop (battery life wise) such as one of these models with the centrino, and underclock it? I'd love a laptop, but I really only want one to access email and putz around with excel files on the move.
Is it even possible to jimjam with the bios settings, and lower the performance of the CPU? Would that even have an effect on battery life?
"Inattention makes clowns of us all" -Bean
I have to say, being a lifelong Windows user (I had a stint with Macs briefly, 10 years ago in high school yearbook class, pagemaker and what not) I was getting quite fed up with my 9 pound, 1 hour, Sony Vaio AMD laptop. So last week I sold it and went out and bought a sleek little 12" ibook. Best purchase I've ever made. After the initial learning curve with OS X (why the heck isnt Ctrl+C working? Wait, what's this weird little symbol key?) I am really digging the ibook. It's so beautiful, has great battery life, and does everything I'd ever need in a laptop. I love that I can ssh into my colo box without having to download putty. Little stuff like that.
Anyways, long story short, if I had to do it again now with all these T&L windows laptops out, I would still go with the ibook.
"You Mac gayboys really ought to do your research. [snip] I don't sit at my computer all day using Photoshop filters. Look at games on Macs. They're pathetic."
That's a hoot, AC. You sit at your computer all day playing games and have the hubris to call Mac proponents "gayboys" (can you spell loser? Probably not, you'd probably spell it looser).
My guess is that most laptop purchasers buy laptops primarily to do useful work, not to play games. The story is about laptops, isn't it?
Once again, that's "loser" not "looser" or "loozer." It's a word you definitely should get used to hearing!
hi!
- Len Bosack, Founder of Cisco Systems
"I'd rather be a lightning rod than a seismometer." -Ken Kesey
Well, hard disks aren't getting any lighter, CD-ROMs aren't getting much lighter, keyboards're probably at the ragged edge of weight/reliability, TFT screens only get so light, and so, what's left?
Batteries.
Why's laptop battery life suck? Because as batteries get better they use less of them to make the laptop lighter. Why are laptops so heavy? Because if the batteries were any lighter, they'd have even less power...
I want a nice thick ten or fifteen pound laptop that's got enough battery life to last all day and enough reinforcement under the hood that I can thump users upside the head with it. Lightweight's overrated.