Slashdot Mirror
Shifting Apps To ARM Chips Could Save Laptop Batteries
An anonymous reader writes "When is an Intel PC not an Intel PC? When it moves applications such as Internet browsing and email on to an ARM processor because it can get longer battery life. And according to a story at EE Times, this hybrid Intel-ARM processor approach is being taken by PC makers as prominent as Dell. The problem for Intel: Why would you switch out of 'all-day' mode and use the Intel processor? The problem for ARM: lacking support from Microsoft for Windows; the applications it runs for the PC have to do so under Linux."
Not a problem for everyone. I've already got an ARM-based Linux running on a NSLU32 NAS head - 32Mb RAM, 32 Mb flash. If I could get a lightweight laptop with a modern ARM chip, I would be over the moon.
"It doesn't cost enough, and it makes too much sense."
Reminds me of the days when Acorn Computers were around with their RISCPC - A machine that was ARM powered, but you could also attach an x86 processor.
This is so 1990's!
Frankly I would love an ARM based notebook except for just a few issues.
1. Flash. Like it or not Flash is everywhere and I have not seen a Linux ARM version.
2. Java. I need it and JavaFX could be a nice alternative to Silverlight/Moonlight.
I see Flash as the big issue for most people. I would love to see ARM back on the "desktop" even if it is on the laptop. A ARM with a good GPU really would be a nice netbook system.
See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
windows CE is not windows. If the advantage of using windows CE is getting to use your old, familiar windows programs, good luck, because you're going to need at least a recompile if not a gigantic refactoring to get it to run on CE. If you're going to refactor anyway, then you don't necessarily have to choose CE.
-Bucky
Would such a system actually use ARM Linux? The reason I ask is that the ARM processor is commonly used PDAs and therefore has Windows CE (or whatever they call it now).
So I wouldn't be surprised if M$ just renamed it Windows 7 Green Edition and rolled it out for such netbooks. Joe Public would be all oooh it runs powerpoint and word and IE and they'd be happy.
I'm wondering if, the the overall scheme of things, the price we pay for the x86-ness of Intel and AMD's CPUs is that high. All their CPUs are basically RISC things, with a very optimized x86 compatibility layer running on top. Is that layer that expensive performance-wise ?
The Cloud - because you don't care if your apps and data are up in the air.
True; but WinCE is pretty sharply dissimilar to Windows proper. MS has put a good deal of effort into making it look somewhat windowish; but it remains an alien freak. Similar enough to make you fall into Windows habits, odd enough to constantly frustrate those habits.
Honestly, an appropriately skinned version of Linux would probably be more familiar to most users than would WinCE.
The display uses far more power than the CPU, so the benefit of adding a second low-power CPU will only be realized with a different display technology that has much lower power consumption for a static image.
When traveling, most of the time, I really do want a long battery life and don't need much compute power. But when I arrive at my destination, give a presentation, and demo some software, then I want compute power.
So, as far as I'm concerned, having a high power and a low power CPU sharing the same keyboard, screen, drive, and power supply is actually very much what I want. I hope it becomes standard.
Don't ARMs also run BSD ? It would seem that Apple might have a solution for their laptops, if they decided to go that way.
Basically, in 1991 I was an Acorn geek and had a good knowledge of ARM assembler. I'd had a A310 (an ARM2 I believe) and I'd just upgraded to a RISCPC (with the ARM3 and the FPU I think) for university, while also learning *nix in the Sun lab.
While browsing comp.sys.os I found a post from some bloke called Linus who was offering a *nix kernel that could be compiled for x86 and we started having an email chat with him about how I'd go about porting it to the ARM hardware. I took it know further when all he asked for was $20 or so as, frankly, I was a student (so had little cash) and I didn't know how to get a bankers cheque in USD.
And that, my son, is why I didn't surf a wave of Linux on ARM...
-- For evil to triumph it is enough that good men do nothing.
What's the current state of OLED?
OLED display have been spotted in the wild (sony, available since 2007). They are ultra thin, size 11".
But they still cost an arm and a leg. And OLED currently still has a shorter life time.
But as production ramps up, price will probably fall down. After a couple of year, OLED will probably cheap enough for netbooks.
Electronic paper?
Still suffers from really slow refresh rate. Good for e-book. Bad for anything which needs higher refresh rate.
The good thing, with eink is that, when not refreshing, it costs exactly 0 W. (Under sunlight. Otherwise, you still have to light it up somehow).
Maybe that display from the XO?
The first gen XO uses a normal LCD screen, but with a LED backlight that doesn't use coloured filters, but prism that split the light to generate the colours.
Thus having a better efficiency. Also works in B&W under sun light.
Currently, XO-type display are the best compromise in quality and price.
OLEDs are going to be the next-big-thing once 11" displays stop costing prices in the thousand dollar range.
Beside, given the power consumption of ATOM's chipset, a whole Intel-based solution still has a much more higher power drain than an ARM based one (which has everything into a single SoC - and can even embed RAM in the same CPU package).
So even if ATOM vs. ARM differences aren't big, Intel netbook vs. ARM netbook still makes a difference.
"Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]