[Arm-netbook] so where does ULP-COM fit into our thinking?

[Scott Sullivan]

On 10/09/2012 05:24 AM, Simon Kenyon wrote:
> http://blogs.arm.com/embedded/702-i-like-pc-like-arm-reaches-into-computer-on-module/
>

It's already not relevant to us as it's has the same limitations that 
other standards like it share(*). That limitation is the ability for a 
non-technical user to re-allocate or reuse their already purchased 
computing power.

Luke did a reasonable job on IRC of explaining that and the choice of a 
PCMICA-like card format which I've pulled together for convenience here.


http://lists.phcomp.co.uk/pipermail/arm-netbook/2012-October/005796.html
From: http://ibot.rikers.org/%23arm-netbook/20120929.html.gz @ 18:57.53 
(slightly reformated)

penguin42:
" OK, but why do you want EOMA to be installed/removed more often - I 
want to understand why granny would want to do this? "

lkcl:
" SO-DIMM sockets have a lifecycle of about .... something like 25 
cycles *total*. Maybe not Granny but a professional who has an 
EOMA-68-compliant Digital SLR Camera, as well as an EOMA-68-compliant 
smartphone, tablet, laptop, and 30in LCD monitor at work and a games 
console at home. They might end up inserting/removing their EOMA-68 CPU 
Cards up to 10 times a *day*
The potential here is *huge*.  it covers virtually every mass-volume 
electronics system you can think of, in the world. With the exception of 
the hard-core gaming industry, the high-end server market, high-end / 
real-time video editing industry and ... err... i run out of examples 
where EOMA-68 could not be used.  oh yeah: portable watches :)"


(*): Some listed here:
http://elinux.org/Embedded_Open_Modular_Architecture

-- 
Scott Sullivan