Found this while using StumbleUpon... pretty interesting. Specs can be found at http://www.picotux.com/

"The picotux 100 is the world's smallest Linux computer, only slightly larger (35mm×19mm×19mm) than an RJ45 connector."

http://www.gumstix.com/spexBundles.html

Something similar for you to look at.

Does it require another computer to function? Or is storage, RAM, et cetera internal? Like self-contained. Cuz I've seen smaller stuff before, running Windows, but with the requirement of a computer with an I/O port to actually function.

It's a full computer.

Just needs a monitor or something...

So you're saying it has storage space, a power supply unit (not an AC adapter, but like a battery), RAM, et cetera?

-EDIT-

Plus, I can't imagine it'd be very useful, being Linux-powered and having such little processing power. It'd be more practical to have a PDA. My iPAQ has a 400MHz CPU, is Windows-powered, has internal storage that's expandable, Wi-fi and Bluetooth, self-contained power supply, plus display, and is scarcely larger than that (my iPAQ weighs in at 4.67oz).

http://www.picotux.com/techdatae.html

RAM, check
Power supply, check
Storage, check

I don't see a power supply, as in a battery. And a measly 2MB? You've already got occasional inconveniences with the PSP's 32MiB, and now you're trying to run a system with 2MB?1 That's crazy, not only is it not much of a novelty item, it doesn't serve any actual practical purpose.

Not everyone uses computers for media. That's easily enough space for pure number-crunching.

lol, ever heard of the Casio calculator watch? Longer battery life, more functions.

Are calculator watches programmable?

Can they, say, find the 44th Mersenne prime?

Can this?

Eh, probably not, unless you gave it a decade or so.
But you get the point. Complex number-crunching.

Which, if programmed, my Pocket PC could do like at least ten times faster than the picotux.

But the picotux is smaller. Minimalization, right? You could carry a few dozen of these in your pocket. Very easy to sneak around.

But there comes a time when it goes beyond practicality. People make things smaller so they can be carried around, but honestly, this thing doesn't even have a display, and we're not even sure if it has a battery. For the purposes in which something of this size would come in handy, you'd need an external display, and I/O. Which pretty much sums it up, 99% of the time, my Pocket PC will be a lot more useful than the picotux.

Well, the thing was designed for only one thing, and that's small size. There must be some obscure situation out there where something like this is needed.

But it kind of sucks considering that if you take out the battery and display on my Pocket PC, it'd be scarcely larger with nearly ten times the processing power. And the size difference will only pose a problem like less than 10% of the time in an application where such a minute size is required.

myscrnnm, you just dont get it. This thing isnt supposed to be practical, and it most certainly isnt. It was created to see how small a system could be and run linux. Nothing more.

I bet the corporations could find some way of using it.

lol, the most pointless thing I've heard of this week. Why try to run Linux on something small when we already know it uses very little resources? The meaning of life is to obtain moksha, so we have to find more ways of running Windows on smaller devices, which is why the Smartphone was invented.

That's my point, that there is no point. Duh. And it doesnt matter how small of a system we can run windows on, it will never be as small as a linux system can be.

One day, the Windows operating system shall be made to run on a nanomachine.

I kinda doubt that.

Yeah, but it wont be because the operating system got any more efficient. It will be because of hardware advancement, which means that linux will still run on a smaller machine.

I'm not sure that either OS will still be around by that time, or if they are, that they'd be compatible with whatever immense changes come with nanotechnology.

The thing is, Microsoft has worked hard to ensure that subsequent versions of Windows become more efficient than the last, in order to comply with the ramifications of Moore's law. Basically, if they move too fast, it'll get inefficient and computers will seems slow, so they need to make sure they make it as efficient as possible.

Yeah, that's why the OS takes up almost 2 gigs of space on my hard disk, get's larger every release, and becomes more graphically-intense. If they were at all worried about efficiency they'd go back to windows 3.1 graphics. I'm partial to 95/98 myself.

There has to be a balance. If you're using Windows 3.1, people will think you're some sort of nerd based on the appearance. But with Windows Vista's Aero, it will appeal to a much larger audience. And it's about giving the people what they want.

They can go right ahead and appeal to whoever they want, but they AREN'T making things any more efficient.

Think about it, Vista has way more features than XP, yet runs even faster with an equivalent CPU and specs.

Yeah. That's not what whatever version I tried out a couple weeks ago said.

Use Beta 2.

Beta 2 Rocked. Cant wait for Vista .

Yeah. Vista is basically what's gonna win back some market space from Apple Computer.

So is this like an actual computer? Could you store things on it? It doesn't seem to have any RAM cards. In fact, it doesn't have any cards.

The RAM is soldered in, plus, it's like 2MB, I think. But yes, there's RAM.

That is Very cool.

Not as cool as my Pocket PC. 400MHz Intel XScale CPU, 64MB of RAM, integrated Bluetooth 2.0 and 802.11b, blah blah blah.

Your industry quality mass production model PDA will never be as cool as this custom work of art.

That is amazing.



Ok, that's cool. Although I thought AMD processors were better than Intel.

They used to be, for gaming. Intel kicked it up a notch with their cheaper, yet performing Core 2 Duo line. Intel is going to win back some of their marketshare.

Intel is just like Microsoft and their monopoly of computers, computer accessories, and Internet. I say support the underdog, go with AMD.

AMD has done well, but unless they chop their costs (which they have by a large portion) more, they'll recede. Intel might of been the dominant one, but for the experienced gaming world, AMD ruled. They're not the underdog. No, many computers contain an AMD processor nowadays. They're a rival.

I think if I ever customized a computer, I would go with AMD because I am always playing games and stuff like that.

I've mentioned it before, so far, I'd rather a Core 2 Duo over an AMD processor for gaming as of right now.

What is the processor speed on that?

Who wouldn't? Anyone who's an expert on computer components will tell you that Intel is the best choice of CPU on the market, the perfect combination of value, performance, and reliability. I've used Intel CPUs all the way from the original Pentium all the way to the Pentium D, and I'm not stopping now. I've used AMD, and simply put, it's crap. Just overpriced and underpowered crap.

It varies from each model.

No, 55MHz. I have proof, you can look it up, it's a fact. There are two models listed, both with equivalent clock speeds.

He was talking about the Core 2 Duo, look at what he quoted.