My Dream PC -- Silent, Cold, and Motionless

Hi:

I wonder if it is possible to design a PC that does not reqiure any
fans or discs.

This computer uses RAM chips -- instead of magnetic discs -- in to
store information and does not need a CPU because each bit of
information is provided with a processing unit and its own memory.
This would make the PC run much faster and not need any fans or moving
parts. It is entirely chip-based. Since each bit is provided with its
own memory and processing, this would prevent crashes or overheating
from occuring.

Also, couldn't a PC be built in such a way that it freshly generates
the correct electric signals ["on the fly"] instead of playing them
back from its ROM chips?

Its not that I don't like ROM. I was curious as to whether there is an
"on the fly" alternative that freshly-generates the electronic signals
[that are normally stored in ROMs] instead of playing them back from
the ROM.

There are sets of instructions stored in ROMs. In the case of a PC,
these instructions load before the CPU "knows" it has a hard drive or
other peripheral devices. Couldn't those instructions be generated in
real-time insteading of storing them?

I am aware that EEPROM is reliable, low power, customizable, reprogram-
able, cheap and proven. But just out of curiosity, my dream PC is hard-
coded [thus not needing any ROM] and also uses RAM chips -- instead of
magnetic discs -- in to store information and does not need a CPU
because each bit of information is provided with a processing unit and
its own memory. This would make the PC run much faster and not need
any fans or moving parts. It is entirely chip-based. Since each bit is
provided with its own memory and processing, this would prevent
crashes or overheating from occurring.

Other specs are below. The stuff below also do not need any ROM memory
because they are physically-built to generate the signals which
correspond to the following.

OS: Windows 98SE
Browser: Mozilla Suite 1.8b

No fans, no discs, no moving parts, no ROM [except for the CD/DVD
recording/playing and re-writing].

IOW, my dream PC would work perfectly but would not need any moving
parts, discs, or fans. The "HDD" would consists of silicon RAM chips
in place of disc-platters and electric parts in place of magnetic
parts. No moving parts, no noise, no fans, no magnets, no hazardous
heat.

To put it simply, what I am describing is a PC that does not need to
store any information because all of the signal codings for the info
is generated in real-time.

The following is a bad analogy but I'll add it anyway.

PC reading info from memory = sample playback synth playing back its
samples of sounds of an FM synth.

PC generating its signals in real-time = an *actual* FM synth freshly-
generating its tones "on the fly".

Yes, I know, the above is a poor analogy but I couldn't think of
anything better.


Thanks,

Radium

Radium wrote:
> 
> Hi:
> 


   Just unplug your computer and throw the IEC cord away.  It will meet
all three requirements, forever.


-- 
Service to my country? Been there, Done that, and I've got my DD214 to
prove it.
Member of DAV #85.

Michael A. Terrell
Central Florida

On 2007-03-24, Radium <glucegen1@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I wonder if it is possible to design a PC that does not reqiure any
> fans or discs.

Sure, that's easy enough with off the self hardware, with a few
provisos.

> This computer uses RAM chips -- instead of magnetic discs -- in to
> store information and does not need a CPU because each bit of
> information is provided with a processing unit and its own memory.
> This would make the PC run much faster and not need any fans or moving
> parts. It is entirely chip-based. Since each bit is provided with its
> own memory and processing, this would prevent crashes or overheating
> from occuring.

Is RAM really appropriate for long term or bulk storage?  What
happens when you turn the system off?  Even flash isn't really
suited for HDD replacement due to its limited write endurance,
although the situation is improving.

> Also, couldn't a PC be built in such a way that it freshly generates
> the correct electric signals ["on the fly"] instead of playing them
> back from its ROM chips?

Well yes.  You indirectly mention microcode later in your post
which is not present on all processors - some instead prefer
so-called 'random logic' (because a schematic appears to have no
discernable pattern or structure).  For microcode it's viable
although inflexible - consider the Pentium f00f bug which was
corrected with new microcode.  With random logic you'd need a new,
redesigned chip.

For anything other than microcode, it would quickly become impractical.
If you were writing,say, a bottloader, you would have to write your
software and then design a chip from scratch that spat it out.
Such a chip would likely be bigger and slower than a ROM chip.

> I am aware that EEPROM is reliable, low power, customizable, reprogram-
> able, cheap and proven. But just out of curiosity, my dream PC is hard-
> coded [thus not needing any ROM] and also uses RAM chips -- instead of
> magnetic discs -- in to store information and does not need a CPU
> because each bit of information is provided with a processing unit and
> its own memory. This would make the PC run much faster and not need
> any fans or moving parts. It is entirely chip-based. Since each bit is
> provided with its own memory and processing, this would prevent
> crashes or overheating from occurring.

What makes you think a massively parallel system would be more
reliable than a uniprocessor solution?  The software is substantially
more difficult to write - the development tools for parallel processing
are fairly crude.  Thorough testing is even harder.

You may be interested in looking at the INMOS transputer.  That
seems broadly comparable to what you have in mind (apart from this
strange wish for a ROMless computer) and it was designed 20 years
ago.

> OS: Windows 98SE
> Browser: Mozilla Suite 1.8b

Forget it.  Such a fundamentally different architechure would never
run a current version of Windows: too many assumptions about the
underlying architechure are made for that.  You'd need custom,
designed from the ground up versions of your software.

> The following is a bad analogy but I'll add it anyway.
>
> PC reading info from memory = sample playback synth playing back its
> samples of sounds of an FM synth.
>
> PC generating its signals in real-time = an *actual* FM synth freshly-
> generating its tones "on the fly".

This appears more confusing than the main thrust of your article
for several reasons, and I suspect you're not altogether clear of
the underlying priciples.  But I'm no expert there so I'll leave
that one lie.

-- 
Andrew Smallshaw
andrews@sdf.lonestar.org

Not sure about fans but for disks, you are talking about solid state drives. 
Those are available now but way too expensive for the common market.

-g

On 23 Mar 2007 21:01:29 -0700, "Radium"
<glucegen1@gmail.com> wrote:

>Hi:
>
>I wonder if it is possible to design a PC that does not reqiure any
>fans or discs.

yes, but do you really need it or is this just a novelty
idea or a passing fancy without real benefit?

A well designed system will not be loud, even inaudible with
fans.  It will run cool if you select power efficient
components, and of course don't need modern performance
levels, or spend more time and money on the cooling
solution.


>
>This computer uses RAM chips -- instead of magnetic discs -- in to
>store information and does not need a CPU because each bit of
>information is provided with a processing unit and its own memory.

It's starting to read like a daydream, not something you are
going to need let alone build.



>This would make the PC run much faster and not need any fans or moving
>parts. 

False, mechanical/magnetic discs don't use a very high % of
system power, getting rid of one doesn't by itself allow
fanless or motionless.  Do you need it to journey to outer
space?  If not, you probably have a more modest # of years
life requirement.



>It is entirely chip-based. Since each bit is provided with its
>own memory and processing, this would prevent crashes or overheating
>from occuring.


I hate to break it to you, but this is not some grand
vision, it is the obvious eventual evolution of computers,
mentioned time and time again.

The key here is that always wishing for some better future
tech is silly.  If you can't make due with contemporary
tech, odds are that when that new tech finally comes to pass
you will still be having same kinds of thoughts, that the
(then) contemporary tech is not ideal and .... if only...
some thing changes... it's even better.

Being modern means using what is available to get the job
done, being able to use the technology instead of only
finding it problematic.


>
>Also, couldn't a PC be built in such a way that it freshly generates
>the correct electric signals ["on the fly"] instead of playing them
>back from its ROM chips?
>
>Its not that I don't like ROM. I was curious as to whether there is an
>"on the fly" alternative that freshly-generates the electronic signals
>[that are normally stored in ROMs] instead of playing them back from
>the ROM.

No, a piece of silcon is dumb, awaiting instrucitons that
are pre-written.




>
>There are sets of instructions stored in ROMs. In the case of a PC,
>these instructions load before the CPU "knows" it has a hard drive or
>other peripheral devices. Couldn't those instructions be generated in
>real-time insteading of storing them?

Generated by what?  You'd then need instructions for it to
generate the instructions, a bit like telling you to walk
over to the ringing phone, knowing that when you answer, it
will be my pre-recorded message telling you to go to the
store and get some bread and milk.  It is pointless since I
could have just told you to get the bread and milk instead
of introducing the additional step.




>
>I am aware that EEPROM is reliable, low power, customizable, reprogram-
>able, cheap and proven. But just out of curiosity, my dream PC is hard-
>coded [thus not needing any ROM] and also uses RAM chips -- instead of
>magnetic discs -- in to store information and does not need a CPU
>because each bit of information is provided with a processing unit and
>its own memory. This would make the PC run much faster and not need
>any fans or moving parts. It is entirely chip-based. Since each bit is
>provided with its own memory and processing, this would prevent
>crashes or overheating from occurring.


You have no dream PC, just fragments of concepts that are
not targeted towards anything in particular.

I recommend that you do as briefly suggested above, to
better learn to use the technology available.  Let tomorrow
take care of itself unless you are the engineer being paid
to come up with these inventions.

In alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt "geoff" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote:

>Not sure about fans but for disks, you are talking about solid state drives. 
>Those are available now but way too expensive for the common market.
>
>-g
>
At one time, not too long ago either, a 4-gig drive for under $200 would
seem like a hell of a bargain.  Two of them isn't really all that bad,
even today, as long as you're not downloading big video files.

Sombody *is* making a computer with all solid-state disk-drives ... 80
gig, as I recall.  A bit pricey though, as you state.

-- 
    _____
     /  '               / &trade;
  ,-/-, __  __.  ____  /_ 
 (_/   / (_(_/|_/ / <_/ <_

On Mar 24, 10:49 am, kony <s...@spam.com> wrote:
> On 23 Mar 2007 21:01:29 -0700, "Radium"
>
> <gluceg...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >Hi:
>
> >I wonder if it is possible to design a PC that does not reqiure any
> >fans or discs.
>
> yes, but do you really need it or is this just a novelty
> idea or a passing fancy without real benefit?

I don't need it but I would like it.

> >This would make the PC run much faster and not need any fans or moving
> >parts.
>
> False, mechanical/magnetic discs don't use a very high % of
> system power, getting rid of one doesn't by itself allow
> fanless or motionless.

Never said it neccesarily would.

> The key here is that always wishing for some better future
> tech is silly.

Agreed.

> If you can't make due with contemporary
> tech, odds are that when that new tech finally comes to pass
> you will still be having same kinds of thoughts, that the
> (then) contemporary tech is not ideal and .... if only...
> some thing changes... it's even better.

Nope.

On 23 Mar 2007 21:01:29 -0700
"Radium" <glucegen1@gmail.com> wrote:

> I wonder if it is possible to design a PC that does not reqiure any
> fans or discs.

Well, they do make solid state "disks" (a bit expensive, mind you, but
not moving parts). As for the fanless part, I already have one of
those (it is absolutely silent):

http://home.att.net/~Tom.Horsley/zooty/zooty.html

Of course it'll work.  That's why all the major manufacturers already 
produce computers using that design...

-- 

DaveW

___________
"Radium" <glucegen1@gmail.com> wrote in message 
news:1174708889.765350.316150@y80g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
> Hi:
>
> I wonder if it is possible to design a PC that does not reqiure any
> fans or discs.
>
> This computer uses RAM chips -- instead of magnetic discs -- in to
> store information and does not need a CPU because each bit of
> information is provided with a processing unit and its own memory.
> This would make the PC run much faster and not need any fans or moving
> parts. It is entirely chip-based. Since each bit is provided with its
> own memory and processing, this would prevent crashes or overheating
> from occuring.
>
> Also, couldn't a PC be built in such a way that it freshly generates
> the correct electric signals ["on the fly"] instead of playing them
> back from its ROM chips?
>
> Its not that I don't like ROM. I was curious as to whether there is an
> "on the fly" alternative that freshly-generates the electronic signals
> [that are normally stored in ROMs] instead of playing them back from
> the ROM.
>
> There are sets of instructions stored in ROMs. In the case of a PC,
> these instructions load before the CPU "knows" it has a hard drive or
> other peripheral devices. Couldn't those instructions be generated in
> real-time insteading of storing them?
>
> I am aware that EEPROM is reliable, low power, customizable, reprogram-
> able, cheap and proven. But just out of curiosity, my dream PC is hard-
> coded [thus not needing any ROM] and also uses RAM chips -- instead of
> magnetic discs -- in to store information and does not need a CPU
> because each bit of information is provided with a processing unit and
> its own memory. This would make the PC run much faster and not need
> any fans or moving parts. It is entirely chip-based. Since each bit is
> provided with its own memory and processing, this would prevent
> crashes or overheating from occurring.
>
> Other specs are below. The stuff below also do not need any ROM memory
> because they are physically-built to generate the signals which
> correspond to the following.
>
> OS: Windows 98SE
> Browser: Mozilla Suite 1.8b
>
> No fans, no discs, no moving parts, no ROM [except for the CD/DVD
> recording/playing and re-writing].
>
> IOW, my dream PC would work perfectly but would not need any moving
> parts, discs, or fans. The "HDD" would consists of silicon RAM chips
> in place of disc-platters and electric parts in place of magnetic
> parts. No moving parts, no noise, no fans, no magnets, no hazardous
> heat.
>
> To put it simply, what I am describing is a PC that does not need to
> store any information because all of the signal codings for the info
> is generated in real-time.
>
> The following is a bad analogy but I'll add it anyway.
>
> PC reading info from memory = sample playback synth playing back its
> samples of sounds of an FM synth.
>
> PC generating its signals in real-time = an *actual* FM synth freshly-
> generating its tones "on the fly".
>
> Yes, I know, the above is a poor analogy but I couldn't think of
> anything better.
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Radium
> 

On Mar 24, 7:37 am, Andrew Smallshaw <andr...@sdf.lonestar.org> wrote:
> On 2007-03-24, Radium <gluceg...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Also, couldn't a PC be built in such a way that it freshly generates
> > the correct electric signals ["on the fly"] instead of playing them
> > back from its ROM chips?
>
> Well yes.  You indirectly mention microcode later in your post
> which is not present on all processors - some instead prefer
> so-called 'random logic' (because a schematic appears to have no
> discernable pattern or structure).  For microcode it's viable
> although inflexible - consider the Pentium f00f bug which was
> corrected with new microcode.  With random logic you'd need a new,
> redesigned chip.
>
> For anything other than microcode, it would quickly become impractical.
> If you were writing,say, a bottloader, you would have to write your
> software and then design a chip from scratch that spat it out.
> Such a chip would likely be bigger and slower than a ROM chip.

quotes from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microcode :

"Each machine instruction (add, shift, move) was implemented directly
with circuitry. This provided fast performance, but as instruction
sets grew more complex, hard-wired instruction sets became more
difficult to design and debug."

I still prefer the "hard-wired instruction sets"

"a bug could often be fixed by replacing a portion of the microprogram
rather than by changes being made to hardware logic and wiring."

But I still perfer the "hardware logic and wiring".

Yup. Just for personal preference, I also like my PC to be massively-
parallel.

> > The following is a bad analogy but I'll add it anyway.
>
> > PC reading info from memory = sample playback synth playing back its
> > samples of sounds of an FM synth.
>
> > PC generating its signals in real-time = an *actual* FM synth freshly-
> > generating its tones "on the fly".
>
> This appears more confusing than the main thrust of your article
> for several reasons, and I suspect you're not altogether clear of
> the underlying priciples.  But I'm no expert there so I'll leave
> that one lie.

How is this FM-synth analogy more confusing than the rest of my
message?