Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Technology Stocks : Intel Corporation (INTC) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Charles Gryba who wrote (166968)	6/24/2002 5:24:37 PM
From: wanna_bmw	Respond to of 186894

Constantine, Re: "my initial impression was that you were somehow making it sound like the 2 watt power consumption was the greatest thing since sliced bread." Don't know how you got that impression, but as long as you understand my position now, then I am satisfied. As Tenchusatsu said, the real point is that even if the processor were operating at 2W all the time, it wouldn't make much of a difference to battery life, what with the rest of the system's components consuming many more watts than that. Still, every little bit helps, and idle power states is one way to lower average power. I am still waiting for lower power screen technology. I saw this one demonstration of a display that could show an image and hold that image while consuming zero watts of power. It took power to update the image, but while it is static, the chemicals in the matrix can apparently hold their hue with no power what-so-ever. As I am typing this response, I look at how static my screen is, and I wonder how much of a power savings that kind of technology could mean for the laptop market. The biggest problem with the demo, however, was that screen updates took a very long time (about 3 seconds to refresh the display). That makes it unsuitable for today's laptop usages. However, if they find a way to decrease the refresh speed by a factor of about x100, then they will be able to get 30fps of refresh, which should be adequate for even running video. Without the limitations of current CRTs and LCDs and the need to refresh even static screens at >60fps, the low power screen that I am describing could still produce a clear, crisp image at a much lower refresh rate. Since the screen is the single largest consumer of power in a laptop, one could get significant battery life from such a display improvement. wbmw