My First Terabyte laptop (TM)

phrakture · 2005-09-07 15:26:37

Seriously... wtf is up with this?

Processor: 6.8GHZ AtomChip® Quantum® II processor
Memory: 1TB Quantum-Optical non-volatile RAM
Storage: 2TB non-volatile Quantum RAM

This is a joke, right? What happened with the giant leap from 3 to 6.8 GHz? Why is the harddisk made of RAM? What's going on?

dtw · 2005-09-07 15:46:56

You can only use it in the Arctic or it overheats

elasticdog · 2005-09-07 16:12:37

Yep, it's fake. Google for the model number of the machine and you'll find quite a few gadget sites that have written about it and subsequently had it torn to shreds in the comments section due to many things fishy...at least that's the conclusion they all came to.

Dusty · 2005-09-07 16:13:50

Question: If you have non-volatile RAM, why would you need "storage" at all?

Dusty

sud_crow · 2005-09-07 16:20:51

They are both non-volatile... but, im guessing here, one should be cheaper in some way.

Ofcourse im talking about the hipotetical case those things exist and with Dusty's question in mind.

Dusty · 2005-09-07 16:42:07

Such memory does exist in the research lab. I read a friend's research essay on the subject... memory that is both faster than RAM and larger than a hard disk, and is also nonvolatile. In such a situation, RAM = storage, we can all forget about file IO in our programming, and object prevalence (as in www.prevayler.org) will be a viable solution.

Dusty

phrakture · 2005-09-07 17:11:07

Dusty wrote:

Such memory does exist in the research lab. I read a friend's research essay on the subject... memory that is both faster than RAM and larger than a hard disk, and is also nonvolatile. In such a situation, RAM = storage, we can all forget about file IO in our programming, and object prevalence (as in www.prevayler.org) will be a viable solution.
Dusty

Non volitile RAM is possible, but costly to manufacture and has much more limited r/w cycles than a HDD

Dusty · 2005-09-07 18:18:47

I'm not talking about ram, I'm talking about new technologies... I can't remember what they all were, one was like a micro-punchcard, if you can believe it. I think there was some kind of next generation flash memory on the list two.

Dusty

Gullible Jones · 2005-09-07 21:09:58

No way in hell you could get WinXP or Linux to run natively on a system that used qubits. And the headphone jack for connecting external memory... and the ridiculously large lenses in the "CPU"... and the mention of clockspeed in referrence to a quantum computer... Probably intended as some sort of joke or something, or maybe a test of the geek community's credulity, it's just so ridiculous.

(Hmmm... And are those aliased fonts I see in the screenshots? Also, if this were real, I think there'd be something about a port to the architecture on the NetBSD site. )

yak8998 · 2005-09-07 22:43:41

looks fake to me, but the 'clock-speed jump' doesn't seem too hard to fathom. Anyone remember when the orig. alpha processor came out (500mhz I believe), we were all chruning around on ~200mhz Pentium Pros?

Gullible Jones · 2005-09-07 22:53:38

Happening already, just not a matter of clockspeed so much as raw computing power. Last time I looked around at processors, there weren't any 4+ GHz (or equivalent) x86 CPUs. Now look what's available... And that's just x86. :shock:

big_gie · 2005-09-08 20:56:55

This is a big scam.

A quantum computer is far from a prototype. Also, it will be SO different from actual computer, there's no way you will talk about Ghz : it won't function that way with electrons cycling... And it will surely not be x86 compatible! So no chances of Windows on it.

Everybody who is doing research will show you how a prototype can be : HUGE. Its not for production, its to see if its possible. So putting a prototype as a laptop... Absolutly not possible.

Have you seen the small lense on the cpu? A lense is to focus light on something... and I don't see that "something".

Its really a scam.

elasticdog · 2005-09-08 20:57:39

Windows XP can only register 4 GB of memory, and thus the screenshots are doctored. Not completely out of the realm of possibility, but doubtful at this point. If they actually had a machine with that kind of power/specs, likely they'd have to write their own software to make use of it...operating system included.

Jedi Stannis · 2005-09-08 21:19:06

Scroll down... thats 2.4 Ghz processor... the 4800 isnt the clock speed

Gullible Jones wrote:

Happening already, just not a matter of clockspeed so much as raw computing power. Last time I looked around at processors, there weren't any 4+ GHz (or equivalent) x86 CPUs. Now look what's available... And that's just x86. :shock:

mpie · 2005-09-09 11:36:53

but the fsb is 1ghz!!!!!!!

Gullible Jones · 2005-09-09 19:52:22

And its processing power is equivalent to a P4 (probably a low-end version) at 4.5 or so GHz.

(IIRC, AMD exaggerates a bit when it comes to equivalent clockspeed.)

And yes, no operating system we have would ever run on a quantum computer. Digital machines use bits; quantum computers use qubits, which may have a value of 1, 0, or both.

butters · 2005-09-11 07:53:19

But you can't forget the part where the guy behind this "scam" is a known in related circles and has some viability. This article is from 1997 where Shimon Gendlin has a 128MB non-volatile module based on "magnetic memory" technology:

http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/ … i_19951759

This could be something like a whistleblower getting fed up that his brilliant research is getting shoved to the side by corporate interests. Just an idea, I personally think the Windows screenshots lend almost irrefutable credibility to the hoax allegations.

elasticdog · 2005-09-12 22:28:10

Jedi Stannis wrote:

Scroll down... thats 2.4 Ghz processor... the 4800 isnt the clock speed

The Athlon X2 4800+ is a dual-core chip...thus 2.4 Ghz * 2 = 4800

DeusExLinux · 2005-09-15 02:15:21

The one thing you have to remember abouta dual core processor is that it doesn't double the processing speed. It does give you about a 90% boost, but not 100%.

Arch Linux

#1 2005-09-07 15:26:37

My First Terabyte laptop (TM)

#2 2005-09-07 15:46:56

Re: My First Terabyte laptop (TM)

#3 2005-09-07 16:12:37

Re: My First Terabyte laptop (TM)

#4 2005-09-07 16:13:50

Re: My First Terabyte laptop (TM)

#5 2005-09-07 16:20:51

Re: My First Terabyte laptop (TM)

#6 2005-09-07 16:42:07

Re: My First Terabyte laptop (TM)

#7 2005-09-07 17:11:07

Re: My First Terabyte laptop (TM)

#8 2005-09-07 18:18:47

Re: My First Terabyte laptop (TM)

#9 2005-09-07 21:09:58

Re: My First Terabyte laptop (TM)

#10 2005-09-07 22:43:41

Re: My First Terabyte laptop (TM)

#11 2005-09-07 22:53:38

Re: My First Terabyte laptop (TM)

#12 2005-09-08 20:56:55

Re: My First Terabyte laptop (TM)

#13 2005-09-08 20:57:39

Re: My First Terabyte laptop (TM)

#14 2005-09-08 21:19:06

Re: My First Terabyte laptop (TM)

#15 2005-09-09 11:36:53

Re: My First Terabyte laptop (TM)

#16 2005-09-09 19:52:22

Re: My First Terabyte laptop (TM)

#17 2005-09-11 07:53:19

Re: My First Terabyte laptop (TM)

#18 2005-09-12 22:28:10

Re: My First Terabyte laptop (TM)

#19 2005-09-15 02:15:21

Re: My First Terabyte laptop (TM)

Board footer