> At 05:02 AM 3/14/2006, Lee A Crocker wrote: >>I >> >>They do A/V functions OK such as DVD playback and word >>processing and web surfing. I doubt they would be a >>stellar performer for the PowerSDR. > > But, does it need to be a *stellar* performer, or, just *good > enough*. Clearly, if one is going for compact and embedded, you're going > to give up some features. I wouldn't expect to run Symantec Antivirus, XP > FastFind, etc., on a dedicated computer for the SDR1000. I, for one, would > like *good enough* with long battery life and small size, and that's where > the Via product line sort of heads. > > > Jim >
I think, as a practical matter, many users need to "round up" the official minimums a bit. People want to do what they want to do. It seems that, at a minimum, one ought to spec the machine to run at least the Flex console and one third party program, such as Ham Radio Deluxe or MixW that does its own processing of the audio and produces some sort of useful GUI display. One can say all one likes that "of course, I only do SSB" or "of course, I only do CW" but interests change and I don't see any percentage in spec'ing these things too closely. Think of it as a belt and suspenders. If we can take the official minimums, and multiply them by 3/2 (if I go by an earlier post on how to account for Via's preference of low power over performance), then I guess we do have what should be a usable Via machine (if used with a little care). But, if it turns out that we want or need to have a browser window up, contesting or RTTY software running, we may find that the reality deviates slightly from the official minimums. I was particularly disappointed in the Celeron I used on my laptop (which was not purchased with this in mind, but does exceed the official minimums by quite a bit). It could have been raw clock rate that disadvantaged it over my desktop, but the cache situation probably contributed as well. Regardless, it is notably "glitchier" the way I typically run than the corresponding desktop at 2.4 GHz with a much more ample cache. Yet, both are well above the official minimums. Moreover, if one stubbornly runs what we still call "the new keyer" and just as stubbornly uses the parallel port to receive the keystrokes, that puts some unexpected additional added load on the machine as far as I can tell from actual operations. In short, there's all kinds of ways of boosting the minimum above the official that don't require doing obviously bad things like running [EMAIL PROTECTED] I'm grateful for the official minimums and the attention paid to them -- helps us all. But, I'm not planning on ever deploying anything weaker than my 1.5 GHz Celeron lappy in the future. Larry WO0Z
