Re: Netbook with SSD _and_ HD

On Sat, 18 Oct 2008, BillW50 wrote:

In news:cgnif4hns7ec82a7iq9st6jh6rbb880bbn@xxxxxxx,
AJL typed on Fri, 17 Oct 2008 21:07:00 -0700:
Lars <Lars@xxxxxxxx> wrote:

Previously, on Usenet AJL <nomail@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

My EeePC 2G Surf (Linux) with a 2GB SSD boots in 25 seconds.
My EeePC 1000HD (XP) with a 120GB HDD boots in 25 seconds.
I know this is apples and oranges, but my point is that while the
SSD gives the laptop some advantages, it is not always boot speed.

Hmm, I am sure I have read somewhere that one of the netbooks booted
in 10 - 15 seconds.

This EeePC 1000HD will come out of hibernation in 13 seconds. That's
what I use most of the time on all my XP computers when I shut them
down. It's a very handy mode in that it's quick and picks up where I
left off when I next power up.

That is what I would want, that it should not take longer than than
it does to switch on a cell phone.

I recently read that some upcoming netbooks will be instant on. You
may want to wait a little and see what next comes down the pike.

That 10 - 15 seconds is from a hard drive. My EeePC with a SSD takes 80
seconds to go into hibernation mode. Thus it is faster to shut down and
power up than to use hibernation mode with a SSD.

Instant on has been around for decades. My Epson PX-8 (from '84) was instant
on. My Palm IIIc (from '99) was instant on. The trick in both cases was to
run the OS from RAM (basically using standby mode). Either one could run
over 12 hours on a charge or last over two weeks in standby mode. So how
does this upcoming method you heard about actually work?

Wait a minute. I don't know those laptops, but I do know the Radio Shack
Model 100. It ran things from ROM.

But it was a whole different situation. There wasn't what we'd really
call an "operating system". There were some applications that used
some common I/O calls. It wasn't just that they didn't have to
load anything, there was no initializing (or virtually none) to do.
The RAM was CMOS, ie very low current, and static so it required no
refreshing (and no circuitry to refresh it). That RAM could be kept
alive with virtually no current when the computer was turned off.
Hence nothing needed to be loaded when it was turned on, and all the
pointers that were needed could be just left where they were in RAM.

All of the firmware took no more than 32K. That included the various
programs, and any I/O. The simple text editor I run under Linux is
just over 10 times that much, 379K. And that rides on top of the Linux
kernel, which is 4megs.

I boot Linux, and the BIOS (which likely takes up more ROM than
that Model 100 had) of the computer may or may not do a memory
check (depending on the BIOS and how I've set it), then it loads a loader,
then the loader loads the OS. The process of loading the OS includes
all kinds of hardware checking and initializing, it's not just a matter
of moving things from the hard drive to RAM. It's fast, but since each
stage takes it's time, it adds up. It's an infinitely more complicated
operating system, and application hardware.

Things like the Aspire One are a step in the right direction, trying for
smaller than "bigger and better". It's infinitely better than that Model
100 (which I paid $399 Canadian for back in 1985), and only cost me $300
a few weeks ago. But much of it is overkill for the purpose, and that
translates into other issues like high battery drain. I'm not really
sure why I need a 1.6GHz clock on the CPU, the limitations of the overall
computer are going to limit what can be done with it.

But since they are basically "regular computers" they have to be compatible, especially since much of the market really wants Microsoft
on their computers.

Instead of a BIOS that serves no purpose except to boot the computer (while BIOS supplied a general set of I/O in the original IBM PC that
sort of acted like an OS in itself, less and less of it is being used
while the computer is in operation), put the Linux loader in the ROM.
Or, put as much of the kernel and basic utilities in ROM, and run it
from there. No loading needed, not the layers to bring up the operating
system, not the need to load some utility every time you need to do
some simple task. I admit I don't know how well Linux is rommable,
there may be limitations. I do know Microware OS-9 that I ran
20 years ago and was "unix-like) was designed so things could be
run from ROM). If the basics can be run right from ROM, ie no need
to load it into RAM first, then the larger programs can still be on
the "hard drive", since it's not really feasible at this time to have
large enough "rom" to run everything from it.

Of course one significant difference between that Model 100 and
the Aspire One is the fact that the Aspire uses dynamic ram, so
it has to be constantly refreshed or else the contents lost. So
circuitry has to keep running when the computer is "off" to keep
that memory valid, or it has to be stored to "hard drive" when
"asleep" to keep the contents valid. The former helps to drain
the battery, the latter slows the "on" time since it has to
be reloaded back into RAM.

I have no idea how well customized the Linux kernels are for
the EEEPCs and the Aspire Ones. Out of a distribution, they
are very general, and maybe there is lots that will never be
needed. After all, the laptops are a pretty closed system,
so it's not like someone is suddenly going to plug in a card
that needs a driver. Strip out the unneeded stuff, and that
may make for a faster startup.

But I fear that this bold step forward is going to get washed
down. The Aspire One was better than the first wave of EEPCs,
but is there a real need for that higher clock or is it there
for mostly marketing reasons? Already we are seeing a creep
in features and size, yet the more they become like "real laptops"
the less they become valuable. If I want full features, I would
have bought a refurbished laptop of better specs for the same price.
I deliberately chose the 8gig Aspire One, not wanting the maybe
greater fragility and current drain of the model with the hard
drive, not wanting that model with Windows installed. When I
started running Linux in mid-2001, it was on a 200MHz Pentium
with 32megs of RAM and a 2gig hard drive. For portable use
of a limited nature, which is what this new wave of laptops
is about, 8gigs of "hard drive" should be enough. They aren't
meant to replace existing computers, but to supplement them. Add
features, and the weight goes up, and you'll leave the laptop
at home, just like the earlier laptops.

Michael


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Display/Render Unicode Characters?
    ... When you say lots of RAM and ROM could you estimate the size? ... When you say Linux and X is this your experience lies or is there ...
    (comp.arch.embedded)
  • Re: Display/Render Unicode Characters?
    ... > When you say lots of RAM and ROM could you estimate the size? ... environment. ... Linux is supported on many more platforms ...
    (comp.arch.embedded)
  • Re: URGENT - Pls help...pls recommend - laptop purchase
    ... management features of even the dual core Pentium). ... cost laptops running Celerons is what millions needs. ... hardware always had to play catch up ... As far as Linux, ...
    (comp.sys.laptops)
  • Re: All red screens (???)
    ... on any of my laptops or netbooks in under 10 minutes. ... Windows 7 comes in either the 64 bit version and the 32 bit version. ... your RAM memory options are greater and software ... Also, one main advantage of a desktop, to most laptops / netbooks, is ...
    (microsoft.public.windowsxp.general)
  • Re: [SLE] looking for advice about laptops
    ... >> The following website has links to other website where people ... >> have shared their experiences with putting various linux distros ... >> I would recommend you select three different laptops that you ... >> see what peoples experiences have been. ...
    (SuSE)