Samsung Shows Off MV100, MZ100 Desktop PCs

Good.
Asus take note, this is where you should be taking the Eee Box (which I think looks better than these systems).
*My* perfect system would be one with a fairly quick Core2 Duo (~2GHz) on the G45 chipset (so it could use the X4500HD), 128GB SSD and 4GB of RAM with 64-bit Vista (XP would undoubtedly be better, but the hardware means Microsoft wouldn't licence it).
Laptop components to save power, sleep to RAM and SSD for low power when not in use, and yet powerful enough to run VLC for movies, an internet browser and MAME for my retro arcade fix with Avast for anti-virus. Even if I don't use all the 4GB RAM, it should help stop Vista chuntering away at the SSD like I've heard it does (and my old installtion of XP with 1GB RAM does).

Who's with me?

...oh, just me then.

I'm there too. I shudder when I realise I have something like a one bar electric fire under my desk connected to the internet, and then they doubled the price of electricity. Is there any reason why we don't see far more laptop CPU's and components in desktops? I'm no technical guru - putting power consumption aside, are laptop CPU's inferior to desktop varieties (on a like for like MHz/cores/memory/etc basis). I guess they cost more, but other than that, is there any reason why they are not used wholesale in desktops? Put another way, why on earth don't desktop CPU's deploy the same power saving strategies as laptop ones?

So what's the average standby power consumption? I didn't think it was much more than 1W on most PCs.

Martin: They cost quite a bit more for a comparable CPU, I had a quick look but I couldn't find any exact comparisons (most of the desktop CPUs are 1066Mhz or 1333Mhz FSB while most laptop ones are 667Mhz or 800Mhz). I suspect you're looking at twice the price for the same performance though.

I'm still on an Athlon XP but I was under the impression that modern desktop CPUs did implement power saving strategies like intel's speedstep?

Laptop CPUs are used quite a lot in mini-PCs and all-in-ones.

I get the impression that PC manufacturers are stuck in the 90s. They still have this distinction between a desktop device that goes all out for processing power and gaming ability (with varying levels of success depending on your budget), and a mobile device that compromises on performance in order to give a few hours on a moderately sized battery. Unfortunately, the tech press are stuck in this mentality too.

Recently, desktops have become more powerful and mobiles more efficient, but both more expensive. The Eee Box seems to be an ideal chance for a middle ground, it doesn't need to be vastly powerful (no games like Crysis) so you can save cost on graphics (Intel's X4500HD should be more than adequate) and a mainstream Core2 Duo should have enough low power modes to stop it being rampant on the juice while being more useful than the Atom. The DVI port on the back means it can be plugged into a digital monitor direct, TVs through an HDMI adapter or an analogue monitor with a VGA adapter. Bluetooth means you can use a keyboard and mouse without trailing wires everywhere.

Using laptop design practices will mean that sleeping to RAM or HDD(SSD) can get the standby power down below 1W (Xiphias - most motherboards have huge power draws when 'off' as various bits are kept permanently powered on; try buying a simple mains watt-meter and taking a look if you want a surprise: I was shocked).

The cost will be more than rock bottom, but it shouldn't be as high as the mainstream market and the styling would be infinitely more attractive. I'd happily line up an Eee Box next to my Wii so long as it had more processing clout than current without going mad.

Of course, it will generate some more heat which should be shifted, but companies are remarkably imaginitive at this, so it wouldn't have to sound like it was trying to take off.

Should be possible to make it consume less than 1W in standby and around 60-100W when running.
Better than the 20W in standby and 100-150W running of most desktops.