So-Called "smart" Watches...

[stroppy]

Just now, svorkoetter said:

While I really hope you're right about smart "watches" never fully displacing real watches, there are actually two ways to improve the battery life: better battery technology, or more energy efficient electronics.

My first computer back in the late 70s used about 10W of power (2MHz 8-bit processor, 4KB RAM). My second most recent computer used 120W (3GHz 32-bit processor, 4GB RAM). My latest computer is back to 10W (2GHz 64-bit processor, 16GB RAM), is about the same performance as my second latest, and is almost completely silent because it puts most of its energy into computing, not heating the room, and thus doesn't need to run the fan much. It's safe to assume that in 5 or 10 years, a smartwatch with today's capabilities could probably run for a year off of a button cell.

Well there are already smartwatches that don't have the voice call and answer features but simply notify you of a call or message via vibration and sometimes a visual indicator on a plain LCD panel.  They are often mated to a standard quartz movement and can run for a year or so with a CR2016/25/32 battery.  

I suspect that there will be vast improvements to battery life in short order in the coming years, rendering these first watches obsolete.  This is where ordinary watches have it all over the smart units.  Their technology is now proven and standardised with only incremental development possible into the near future...so they are virtually future-proof.

[bobm12]

That is great stroppy, all I need is a smart watch that, when I'm working on a hairspring, goes on my wrist, surprising me: bzzzzz! I could sue the company that makes them afterwards!

But I have a good one for you svorkoetter! My latest computer consumes a lot more that yours...I always build them myself with top of the line components, avoiding bottlenecks, good air flow, you get the idea. The processor only goes 95 watts...the power supply 850 watts...mmm, I know I can run the most difficult games and do as much multitasking as I can...lot's of power and speed! And running more economical than the new Intel I-7 at 140watts the processor only...now add a good video card with 4 GB of memory to those and now you have to get a huge power supply. I suppose my electronics socks from the energy angle!  

[svorkoetter]

I like to think of it this way: my new computer will pay for itself on the electricity bill in less than 2 years. I write software for a living, so I don't want the fastest computer money can buy, otherwise I'll end up writing software that only works well on the fastest computer that money can buy (e.g. my Watch-O-Scope software works fine on the 18 year old 500MHz Pentium II I have in the basement). At work, I'm one of the most senior people in my department, and I'm always the last to want a new computer. I tend to get about 10 years of use out of each one. And really the only reason I replaced my 10 year old one at home recently is because of the aforementioned energy savings (overall, we've cut our energy costs in half over the last year). Food for thought.

[stroppy]

Svorkoetter...I have to agree with your comments regarding power saving on newer, more efficient devices.  I've seen this time and time again when I have replaced an old appliance or component at home with a device rated with the energy star logo.

As a side issue, a friend of mine has been pestering me to trade up to Windows 10 on all my home PCs because of what he says are "greater refinements" yet I am perfectly happy with Windows 7.  What's your take on that argument?

[bobm12]

Hi stroppy,

Let me put in my experience and btw, I'm interested in what svorkoetter's take on your question is. In my experience working with IT for many years (I've been using Microsoft products among others since DOS 2.0 or about), there are products this company has made, - while trying to keep up with competition and trends, I think, in addition to other interests -- that have been more successful than others.

For example, nothing worked better (Microsoft speaking) than DOS 3.3 (if memory serves well) in its time until they released DOS 5.0...and then 6.11. Then they had Win 3.11 (network extensions and all and maybe because it was "the dawn of PC networking" in my mind) So, after a while the OS integrated with GUI and, of all of them, XP was the jewel of the lot. In my mind it was until Win 7 that they had a real "dependable" (if you will) product out there. The history repeated itself release after release, and it is not until Win 7 that things started to get as they "should". Notice the quotations. That means that anything between Win 7 and 10 is just not there...or between XP and Win 7 for that matter.

You also have to keep in mind that hardware is light years ahead of its software just figure that we were still using 16 bit software when all the hardware was already 32 bit (1985 to about 1995, Win NT (first 32 bit) and 6 more years for everyone to switch to 32 bits). In my mind processors, being developed at a more accelerated pace than software -- shorter life cycle -- have been plagued with many bugs -- just like Win OS's -- but being of a shorter life cycle, the next generation/version corrects it quickly so nobody really "notice". With software this is harder thing to do in a short time.

So, yes, Win 10 is alright as a "latest stable OS from MS"...or at least at home it is. You will have a relatively small learning curve since things that were there in "7" are not there anymore but "there" and so on, but it works well once all the updates are in place.

Cheers,

Bob

[stroppy]

Well, seeing that my PCs are still working fine with 7 and they are relatively new units, I'll stick with 7. mainly because I use both PCs as home theatre units and they both have DVB-T tuners inbuilt.  So I use Windows Media Centre quite a bit which, I'm told, is kaput in 10.

[Mark]

Okay...there are lots of them around now.  Should the forum have a sub forum for smart watches?

Lol. This thread is going wayyyy off topic.

In answer to the OP my view is that the forum should not have a sub forum for smart watches at this time.

If we do notice a large amount of threads about smart watches being started and popularised then we will have to consider forking a sub-forum at that time

*smiling and friendly*: If we want a thread about PC specs then perhaps consider one in the "chat about anything forum"

[bobm12]

Sorry Mark! I'm behaving like a "smart" watch....not staying on topic! Got it? Smart watch= not smart enough to be a watch?! No new section needed in MHO! 

[Mark]

3 minutes ago, bobm12 said:

Sorry Mark! I'm behaving like a "smart" watch....not staying on topic! Got it? Smart watch= not smart enough to be a watch?! No new section needed in MHO! 

Lol

[svorkoetter]

Well, I just need to answer Stroppy's question. :-)

I got tired of the "upgrade to Windows 10" nags, so I upgraded my laptop last week .... to Linux. My desktop will eventually follow suit.

But yes, we should carry on this discussion in the "anything" forum.

[Mark]

Ok. I have locked this thread as the original question has been answered

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk