AMD Is Indeed Losing More Linux Developers

[disi]

I agree entirely with przemoll, aside from the fact that mainframes tend to demand raw power too, much more than workstations. Anyways, people who use laptops as desktops are dumbasses, to put it bluntly. Getting such a product is just simply convenient but rarely anything beyond that. There are a small handful of situations where getting a powerful laptop is cost effective and most importantly, practical. Keep in mind that even if you exclude the screen and battery, you still pay more for a laptop than you do with a desktop yet you gt crappier hardware.

So going back to blackouts comment earlier, no, Atoms are not that much better than ARM and while i5 is very powerful, it has a poor value and is overkill for the average user. i7 is unnecessary even for many workstation users. The crappy thing is Windows and Intel have got people thinking people need all this performance where in the end, dual core CPUs from 10 years ago are plenty sufficient for everyday non-production tasks. Same goes for RAM but that's a convo for another day.

Thanks for being a dumbass The support contract with the supplier ends after 4 years anyway. Then the laptop are being replaced with a new model for another 4 years (we sell the old ones to some restoration charity company). Especially people working from home or somewhere remote to the office can get hardware support on site.

Even the desktop workstations from ~8 years ago run crappier than SandyBridge laptops and were nearly the same price compared to back then.

[blackout23]

There are some pretty good desktop replacement laptops like the Schenker XMG U700. Powered by the Desktop Version of the Sandy Bridge Extreme 6 Core Processor. Nvidia SLI Graphics and SSD RAID.

[schmidtbag]

Thanks for being a dumbass The support contract with the supplier ends after 4 years anyway. Then the laptop are being replaced with a new model for another 4 years (we sell the old ones to some restoration charity company). Especially people working from home or somewhere remote to the office can get hardware support on site.

Even the desktop workstations from ~8 years ago run crappier than SandyBridge laptops and were nearly the same price compared to back then.

So what's your point? Just because a i5 or even i3 sandy bridge laptop performs better than an 8 year old workstation, that doesn't mean it is used as a portable powerhouse workstation rig. The comparison is irrelevant, even to your own argument.

[disi]

So what's your point? Just because a i5 or even i3 sandy bridge laptop performs better than an 8 year old workstation, that doesn't mean it is used as a portable powerhouse workstation rig. The comparison is irrelevant, even to your own argument.

Right, it is not relevant to keep hardware older than 4 years around, if you can have more recent hardware cheaper and with a service contract that you can carry around with you or work on your docking station. And with MS build more and more demanding OS, we need better hardware to write emails.

But you keep your opinion please... I wonder why thinkpads were so successful in the 90's until now they always had docking stations.

Even at home I am not using a desktop any more due to moveability... so far I changed jobs and location every ~3 years. Same reason I don't collect non-digital books any more.

[schmidtbag]

Right, it is not relevant to keep hardware older than 4 years around, if you can have more recent hardware cheaper and with a service contract that you can carry around with you or work on your docking station. And with MS build more and more demanding OS, we need better hardware to write emails.

But you keep your opinion please... I wonder why thinkpads were so successful in the 90's until now they always had docking stations.

Even at home I am not using a desktop any more due to moveability... so far I changed jobs and location every ~3 years. Same reason I don't collect non-digital books any more.

Actally its fine to keep older hardware around. While it may be slower than today's products and more power hungry, if it gets the job done and done well then why does it matter? Also, we're mostly linux users on phoronix, where you don't need a high end dual core and 6GB of RAM to read some emails and browse the web. I got away with a 900mhz celeron with 1 GB of RAM in a netbook for nearly 3 years and it performed better than some i3 Windows setups.

I hope I'm misinterpreting you telling me to keep my opinion to myself.

IBM sold the thinkpad name to Lenovo, which is probably where the popularity dropped.

[disi]

Actally its fine to keep older hardware around. While it may be slower than today's products and more power hungry, if it gets the job done and done well then why does it matter? Also, we're mostly linux users on phoronix, where you don't need a high end dual core and 6GB of RAM to read some emails and browse the web. I got away with a 900mhz celeron with 1 GB of RAM in a netbook for nearly 3 years and it performed better than some i3 Windows setups.

I hope I'm misinterpreting you telling me to keep my opinion to myself.

IBM sold the thinkpad name to Lenovo, which is probably where the popularity dropped.

I give up
Yes, you did misinterpret that, I mean you can have your opinion (which you keep repeating). I gave you about 10 reasons in the meantime, why people might use laptops rather than desktops...
1. carry around and or dock at the desk, moving, taking up less space
2. newer laptops are very well capable of being a workstation for e.g. CAD programs
3. hardware upgrade comes with a complete new computer (desktop or laptop) + new service contract anyway, so no need to upgrade single parts like CPU/RAM/Board etc.
4. older hardware will not keep up with modern computing tasks at some stage (yes, you might be able to write emails but running MS Windows 7 with 1GB on an Intel Celeron is no fun and we have at work only MS clients)
5. power outage (at least our clients are not connected to a UPS)
6. for years I see the trend to move from desktop to laptop in most offices. We have in the UK alone probably ~200 active laptops and only ~10 desktops. Of the people I know, there are only a few who own desktops at home (hardcore gamers).
7. ...

Anyways, people who use laptops as desktops are dumbasses, to put it bluntly.

[schmidtbag]

I give up
Yes, you did misinterpret that, I mean you can have your opinion (which you keep repeating). I gave you about 10 reasons in the meantime, why people might use laptops rather than desktops...
1. carry around and or dock at the desk, moving, taking up less space
2. newer laptops are very well capable of being a workstation for e.g. CAD programs
3. hardware upgrade comes with a complete new computer (desktop or laptop) + new service contract anyway, so no need to upgrade single parts like CPU/RAM/Board etc.
4. older hardware will not keep up with modern computing tasks at some stage (yes, you might be able to write emails but running MS Windows 7 with 1GB on an Intel Celeron is no fun and we have at work only MS clients)
5. power outage (at least our clients are not connected to a UPS)
6. for years I see the trend to move from desktop to laptop in most offices. We have in the UK alone probably ~200 active laptops and only ~10 desktops. Of the people I know, there are only a few who own desktops at home (hardcore gamers).
7. ...

1 and 2 I agree with. I never said laptops can't make workstations, they're just worse at such tasks, more expensive, less reliable, and less efficient. With 3, that only applies if you're working for a company that supplies that to you. Not everyone has the money to replace their entire system when they could just replace the CPU or add another 2GB of RAM. Regarding 4, while that is overall true, dual cores from 2004 are still plenty sufficient for everyday non-production tasks, even on Wndows. If you disagree it's probably because the systems are too cluttered with crappy software running in the background OR its because you're running a laptop that is kicking on thermal throttling. As for 5, save often and this isn't an issue. I've lost maybe 1 hour of work of all power issues I've encountered combined, which isn't that bad. I've lost more work due to hardware failures, something a laptop is more prone toward. For 6, it makes sense since laptops are easier for companies to maintain and they consume less power. It wouldn't surprise me if there have been stolen computers though.

I'm not saying laptops are bad, because i think they're useful in many situations and are generally better than touchscreen tablets. They are fine for work computers. While they are capable of being used as workstation or gaming systems, they're not BETTER at it.

[ChrisXY]

more expensive

Yes.

, less reliable,

Not really. At least if you have one with decent build quality.

and less efficient.

Energy efficient? It was my impression that the mobile components are designed for energy efficiency since the coolers are all smaller and it sometimes needs to run on battery.

With 3, that only applies if you're working for a company that supplies that to you. Not everyone has the money to replace their entire system when they could just replace the CPU or add another 2GB of RAM.

I have had no problem getting to the ram slots on my last two notebooks. They are even behind those service openings where you only have to remove 2 or 3 screws.

CPUs are a bit more tricky. You almost surely can replace it with reasonable effort but you need to keep below the capacity of the cooling system. But in my laptop I believe I could put in a 3940XM with the same coolers. And different sockels on different generations are the same problem on desktop pcs.

I've lost more work due to hardware failures, something a laptop is more prone toward.

Does this apply to laptops with decent quality (not the ultra cheap ones) too? I have even a eee 1000h as a "server" running 24/7 for some years now and the only thing that was ever broken was the fan which I replaced with one for like $5 on ebay.

While they are capable of being used as workstation or gaming systems, they're not BETTER at it.

Whatever "better" means. While my HD 7970M is more expensive than a desktop 7870 or 7850 I find it "better" because it is so much more mobile in a notebook. If you only ever work at home or play games at home a stationary PC might be better. If you never know where you'd might spend your time working or playing games it's less clear.

[schmidtbag]

Not really. At least if you have one with decent build quality.

Yes and you pay a higher premium for that. Build quality tends to not matter on desktops.

Energy efficient? It was my impression that the mobile components are designed for energy efficiency since the coolers are all smaller and it sometimes needs to run on battery.

No I meant efficiency of running software. Due to thermal and power management, you get fluctuations in processing power.

I have had no problem getting to the ram slots on my last two notebooks. They are even behind those service openings where you only have to remove 2 or 3 screws.

Exactly, so why replace the whole system when its that easy?

CPUs are a bit more tricky. You almost surely can replace it with reasonable effort but you need to keep below the capacity of the cooling system. But in my laptop I believe I could put in a 3940XM with the same coolers. And different sockels on different generations are the same problem on desktop pcs.

Many OEMs use crappy coolers that are just barely good enough to keep the CPU it shipped with from overheating, so it makes sense why they make it a chore to replace the CPU. Today, many CPUs run within the same TDP even when you add another 2 cores. You could put an i7 in a laptop that shipped with an i5, which could theoretically run cooler since it is generally under less stress overall, but you take the risk of overheating if you manage to max it out. Desktops do have the same problem but at least they won't burn your lap and their heatsinks are easily replacable.

Does this apply to laptops with decent quality (not the ultra cheap ones) too? I have even a eee 1000h as a "server" running 24/7 for some years now and the only thing that was ever broken was the fan which I replaced with one for like $5 on ebay.

Yes, but not as much. The thing about laptops is they're easier to throw around, spill stuff on, yank on cords, clog cooling fans, and in general are touched more often. Humans tend to be clumsy and many don't know how to take care of their stuff. Obviously if you take good care of your stuff, or in your case, have a laptop that you probably let sit in a closet all day, a laptop's only physical abuse disadvantage is clogged vents.

Whatever "better" means. While my HD 7970M is more expensive than a desktop 7870 or 7850 I find it "better" because it is so much more mobile in a notebook. If you only ever work at home or play games at home a stationary PC might be better. If you never know where you'd might spend your time working or playing games it's less clear.

Better means more performance and more consistent performance. Your 7970M has:
core - 850MHz
memory - 1200MHz
bus width - 256 bit
stream processors - 1280

The desktop 7970 has:
core - 950MHz with a boost of 1000
memory - 1200MHz
bus width - 384 bit
stream processors - 2048

The 7850 has:
core - 860MHz
mem - 1200
bus width - 256 bit
stream processors - 1024

So your laptop GPU was more expensive than a 7850 and probably performs about the same (faster because of the additional stream processors but slower due to thermal throttling). High end GPUs like these need room to cool off, which a thin laptop can only do so well. I checked benchmarks and the 7970M performs slightly worse than an nvidia GTX660, desktop model.

[scjet]

Phoronix: AMD Is Indeed Losing More Linux Developers

At the beginning of the week I reported that AMD got rid of at least three of their Linux kernel developers. It's becoming more clear though that it's not only three long-time Linux kernel developers they have let go...

http://www.phoronix.com/vr.php?view=MTIyMDQ

Well, that is what happens when you put an EX-"Salesman" from Lenovo/IBM - Rory Read, in charge of a CPU/APU/... manufacturing corporation like AMD. That guy is just a bean-counting-slasher.
He couldn't "engineer" dental-floss, let alone market it, ...

I mean, wtf did we expect, eventually. ?
It is just truly sad,
and yet I'm still amazed how well, (much better that before) the latest catalyst drivers (as of Dec/2010) actually work now.
How long will that keep up, is anybody's guess. ?

With Nvidia's Optimess catastrophe, now is NOT the time to cut Linux development from AMD.

Hey "Rory", did you "READ" that ?!!!!!