Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Intel Compute Stick

intel.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

211–220 of 347 posts

Re: Intel Compute Stick

#211

Post by walterbell »

wtallis wrote: post #204
walterbell wrote: post #197

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How about running the packet filter in a dual-NIC VM on a VT-d capable PC? Dell T20 has Xeon E3 for $500 with 1TB disk and 4GB RAM. Add a PCI NIC for firewall purposes and still have the rest of the PC for use to run other VMs. GPU can be passed through to another VM.

Yeah, using desktop-class hardware works almost effortlessly, but it's not really a good substitute for a $120 router that gets by with passive cooling. This discussion is about whole computers that could hide inside the power supply for that server and run off its standby power rail. If you're going to be running a server 24/7 anyways, it makes sense to equip it to also be your firewall and gateway. But that doesn't…

It may become easier for consumers to buy a general-purpose PC once and change software as needed, rather than chasing the ever moving ceiling of low-end disposable hardware.

I've lost track of the number of cheap special-purpose appliances I've bought, which turned out to have limitations not present in a general-purpose PC. Consumer routers and NAS devices are already in this category, soon to be joined by compute sticks.

The problem is that buyers rarely know which part of the long tail they may need later. As Intel motherboards converge into a SoC and peripherals support USB3.1+, hopefully we end up with a future that looks like Google's Project Ara, i.e. small modules.

Re: Intel Compute Stick

#212

Post by dingaling »

asuidyasiud wrote: post #193
simi_ wrote: post #181

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Good point. However to me it still just seems terribly wasteful/stupid. Considering the aux battery in most computing devices, couldn't the musical thingie be embedded into the computer itself?

It is completely irrelevant, ecologically speaking.

> It is completely irrelevant, ecologically speaking.

How so? It makes the box unrecyclable; worse still, as soon as such an item is detected in the recycling plant it will often cause the whole batch of material to be rejected and dumped[1].

No-one has time to pick-through cardboard removing batteries and circuitry.

[1] Source: anecdote from a colleague who worked in a 'recyclarium'. Contaminated material causes the line to be stopped, batch dumped and machines cleaned.

The actual pre-processing sorting is quite fascinating, using spectrometers to detect the type of materials.

Re: Intel Compute Stick

#213

Post by guardian5x »

dangrossman wrote: post #49
interdrift wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Quad core" + wireless + storage for 100$.. what is going on here?

Intel is selling Bay Trail CPUs for $5. Microsoft is selling Windows 8.1 licenses for low-end devices at $15. Given an Android tablet with all the rest (wireless/storage) can be had for $40, sub-$100 Intel/Windows PCs became feasible.

They pre-install the Windows 8.1 with Bing version, which is free.

Re: Intel Compute Stick

#214

Post by guardian5x »

nacs wrote: post #87
damian2000 wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Linux will probably run fine on those specs, remember Windows has a ton of overhead in terms of RAM and storage.

I'm not really concerned about whether Linux will run 'fine' on less hardware, I'd just want to be able to purchase the higher-end (hardware-wise) version. I'm not going to buy the high-end version if it requires me to buy the prepackaged Windows license however.

Windows 8.1 with Bing version is free (as in free beer), you don't have to buy it. It is just pre-installed and can be removed.

Re: Intel Compute Stick

#215

Post by lloeki »

wtracy wrote: post #97
bulatb wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The "business meeting" use case pictured doesn't make a lot of sense. The copy at the bottom says the stick itself is a computer, not a video receiver, so there'd have to be a keyboard/mouse/controller of some kind connected to it, and they'd have to get the slide deck onto it somehow, and open PowerPoint, and that just doesn't seem particularly useful. It's much easier to use some wireless display technology and cas…

It supports Bluetooth, so you could pair a remote or a smartphone with it, and it's easier to carry than a laptop. Remember there's a full version of MS Office on it, too. What makes more sense to me, though, would be a phone with an HDMI port (or wireless video capability) that connects directly to the projector. It's one less device to carry. If you don't want to walk over to the phone to advance to the next slide,…

> I'm kind of suprised that Blackberry never tried

The BlackBerry Z10 I have in some drawer at home has a micro HDMI out. Also BB OS 10 can act as an UPnP server and a Samba share, and I think it supports Miracast or something.

Re: Intel Compute Stick

#216

Post by rab_oof »

johnvschmitt wrote: post #127
rab_oof wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Without metric tons of engineering effort for a questionable use-case. The cheaper and more sensible options are: bigger laptop or run the workload elsewhere.

I appreciate your inputs, but IMO this use case is kind of inevitable. Yes, it's hard, and not quite doable today. But, there are millions of people working on making the components of this solution better. It's so attractive to carry around a computer in our pockets (our "phones") and it's really not much of a stretch to envision a near future where the thing in our pocket is our "local data/projects" that we can pl…

I agree and thought of that a couple years ago. The issue is that it takes a loong time to converge APIs of desktop and mobile. Plus, there are power and cooling issues. Next, stuffing in a CPU and GPU that can satisfy both requirements is basically asking for completely new cores that can do high power and low power. Cooling for 3D desktop games would require tradeoffs.

The issue is whether it's worth having a bicycle that can turn into a car and a car that can turn into a bicycle. Most of the time, the execution on these is terrible at both.

Re: Intel Compute Stick

#217

Post by rab_oof »

Someone wrote: post #171
notsony wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This raises an interesting question. How much memory does Mac OS X Yosemite need? How much engineering effort is spent on optimization and improving performance, as opposed to changing the look'n'feel and adding consumer-focused features?

Apple works hard on power efficiency. You don't get high battery life for free. Memory usage may get less attention, but, for example, they do 'swap' to memory by compressing pages (does it help? I wouldn't know. Read http://dfrws.org/2014/proceedings/DFRWS2014-1.pdf ) Edit: oops. That paper isn't evaluating performance, as I thought it would.

Anyone else have 100% CPU storeaccountd with iBooks offline?

Re: Intel Compute Stick

#218

Post by rab_oof »

iwince wrote: post #149
discardorama wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

... and the Linux version will have half the RAM (1GB instead of 2GB) and a fourth the storage (8GB instead of 32GB). I think I might pass on this.

I retract my earlier comment, this is cheesy at best Intel. Sad. Still kowtowing to the Gates regime.

It's dilettante computing without the phallacy of having a shipping product.

Re: Intel Compute Stick

#219

Post by rab_oof »

Shad0w59 wrote: post #79
aditya wrote: post #40

$149 for Windows 8.1 version and $89 for Linux version, not bad. via: http://techreport.com/news/27619/intel-compute-stick-is-a-14...

Quite expensive, given that you can pick up a cheap Chinese tablet with a screen, HDMI out, micro SD slot etc. for around the same price.

Also, you don't need another computer to use it.

Re: Intel Compute Stick

#220

Post by pjc50 »

rab_oof wrote: post #109
discardorama wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

... and the Linux version will have half the RAM (1GB instead of 2GB) and a fourth the storage (8GB instead of 32GB). I think I might pass on this.

Yup. Seems like pointless, instant-gratification consumerism when server boxes are far faster, cheaper and greener. Worse, it's an un-upgradable device to buy and throw away. Anyone that needs more horsepower, it's far simpler to either trade up, use a real server or just use a cloud/VPS similar to AWS.

You've missed the point that this isn't about horsepower but about being a "set top box". I can't connect AWS to my television.
Post reply on HN