Date: Tue, 07 Jul 1998 11:28:12 -0700 From: Mike Smith <mike@smith.net.au> To: Thomas Zenker <thz@Lennartz-Electronic.DE> Cc: Mike Smith <mike@smith.net.au>, freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: FreeBSD in less than 4MB RAM Message-ID: <199807071828.LAA01144@dingo.cdrom.com> In-Reply-To: Your message of "Tue, 07 Jul 1998 20:10:29 %2B0200." <19980707201029.31948@tue.le>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> > > For those which say "put in more memory/disk": This doesn't help if you > > > have to run out of batteries w/ solar-panels on very remote localities, > > > only access by radio-telemetry. You need very low power equipment there. > > > So the question is not $ but watts. > > > > In the same timeframe, memory power consumption has gone down by more > > than an order of maginitude, while cost has fallen even further. > > > > Sorry, but the argument still holds good. 8) > > Sorry, but to run with 3 watts from dynamic memory is not possible, > do you know prices of SRAM? Also effordable harddisks are > much lower now in consumption, but not that low. So booting from > eprom or floppy is a must. No insult intended, but your design obviously sucks. I am working right now with a PC104 board not specifically designed for low-power operation. It manages to put an NX586-based micro, all the standard PC peripherals, 8M of RAM, 8M of flash, etc. into a sub-3W power budget. Like I said, this is a design that's not even trying. Look at the power budget that eg. the Palm Pilot works with. -- \\ Sometimes you're ahead, \\ Mike Smith \\ sometimes you're behind. \\ mike@smith.net.au \\ The race is long, and in the \\ msmith@freebsd.org \\ end it's only with yourself. \\ msmith@cdrom.com To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199807071828.LAA01144>