OSNews

It seems to smoke the Intel GMA 500 (Paulsbo):
http://www.notebookcheck.net/VIA-Chrome9-HC.3712.0.html

-Ad

Ya VIA's S3 and chrome line are doing verry well. just got me one of these https://s3gstore.s3graphics.com/cgi-bin/shopper.cgi?preadd=action&ke...

i was very impressed. looks like we have a real contender to Nvidia and ATI (well in the mid range)

The new intigrated Chrom GPU's are better than intels 500 seriese (but only on linux) otherwise they are farily comperable on windows.

Edited 2009-02-27 21:17 UTC

i was very impressed. looks like we have a real contender to Nvidia and ATI (well in the mid range)

Last I heard they still haven't gotten around to create Linux drivers for almost any of their products. Wouldn't call it a contender for the more popular chips as such. Via does quite ok hardware, but from my experience they do a whole lot less admirable job software-wise...

Didn't they open the specifications a little while back, or did that not apply to the Nano platform? I thought as long as the specs were open, the community would create drivers. That's how it's supposed to work, isn't it?

I wouldn't say Via is alone there. Ever seen how bloated some of ATI and nVidia's Windows drivers can be, with all the systray extras and startup tasks? As a general rule, it seems hardware companies don't do so well on the software side--they do good drivers, obviously, but their supplied add-on software is usually crap.

You can't just expect the community to make decent drivers, sure it would be nice if anyone skilled enough cared but...

Regarding software bloat for graphics cards I wouldn't see a systray icon for graphics settings as something such, just remove it from run in msconfig if you don't want it.

And haven't Via always been crap? Atleast the Via KT400 and K8T800 chipsets sucked, and those are just the ones I've had, I would assume more or less all the others sucked balls to.

I actually had very good experiences with the Via K8T800-based motherboards I've used. They were fast and stable, unlike the nVidia nForce 3 boards I've used, who's supposed hardware "enhancements" ended up causing problems. In particular, anyone remember the hardware firewall in the nForce 3 250GB chipset, and what happened when you tried to use bittorrent with that turned on? No, the K8T800 was a barebones chipset, and was extremely effective at its job.
As for the community writing drivers, I agree. I was making a point, as that is the line it seems the extremists always hide behind: Well, if every specification was open source, the community would provide the driver. In practice, it doesn't always work that way. Even with open specifications, writing a driver isn't usually a walk in the park.

http://www.s3graphics.com/en/resources/drivers/chrome_PCIe/#Linux_x...

the newer ones aer in the work and should be released shortly

more here: http://drivers.s3graphics.com/en/download/drivers/chrome_PCIe-Linux...

see the driver selection of OS's on the left: http://www.s3graphics.com/en/resources/drivers/chrome_500/index.jsp...

and last but not least, pick your distro of choice (legacy drivers): http://www.viaarena.com/default.aspx?PageID=2

Edited 2009-02-28 00:15 UTC

Actually it seems way overpriced - it seems more like a $30 card. The ATI 4670 and Nvidia 9500GT are about the same price. Both have better specifications and 2-4x the RAM.

Smoke? When a real graphics card get 20.000 and the 500 and this one get 150 vs 200? Both are completely useless, there is no "smoke" here, there isn't even any glow any more .. Both of them sucks to an insane degree compared to anything remotely decent.

If you want to do gaming, then getting a Nano netbook is really silly.

The GMA 500 and Chrome9 are intended to better support compositing UI's with low power draw. Based on the benchmarks and Q3A tests, the Chrome9 should do a much better job.

If Nano Chrome9 combo is at price parity with Atom Paulsbo, then getting a Nano netbook would seem like a better choice.

-Ad

In Spain it's already available [1] and it costs 500 euro (444 pounds, 634 dollars).

Oh well, you might still get it for 400 pounds in the UK and 550 dollars in the USA.

[1] http://www.accesoriossamsung.com/v1.2.1d/portatil-netbook-samsung-b...

it is my understanding that they did not cripple the ram controller. this was done as a selling point for them, since the Atom has.

more power to VIA, I cant wait for their next line of CPU's (drool)

I said the Atom chipset not the Atom itself! Please read properly!

The RAM controller on Poulsbo is crippled. It only supports a max of 1GB (for the US15L) and 2GB (for the US15W).

Read it here, right from the horse's mouth:
http://ark.intel.com/ProductCollection.aspx?codeName=24973

-Ad

The Nano is not as crippled as the Atom, whose success Intel seems to be scared of:

*x86-64 native
*Out-of-order execution
*No limit on amount of RAM
*No limit on screen size (or was that Microsoft, given the existence of the Dell Mini 12?)
*No limit on screen resolution
*No limit on processor speed
*I'm sure Via wouldn't mind if they got bundled with an nVidia chipset
*I doubt Via would mind if they got bundled with a touchscreen (again, was this Microsoft?)

Of course, from what I've read the Nano has inferior performance to the Atom (or at least, the dual-core Atom that Intel won't sell for Netbooks) at the same time as higher power consumption.

Via's main selling point ought to be that they have far fewer strings attached. The Nano seems to be more of a flagship processor from a company that focuses on small and light components, while Intel seems to be ashamed of the existence of the Atom and are trying to keep it from going anywhere.

Edited 2009-02-28 00:55 UTC

Pure FUD. The Atom is an in-order processor because Intel chose not to implement branch-prediction hardware in order to save power. Also in the name of power savings, EM64T-specific hardware and the newer SSE extensions were left out. The Atom platform is _not_ limited in RAM, screen size, or screen resolution; the specific configurations ordered by OEMs determine these factors. And _all_ processors are bound by thermal limits on their clock rate (or "speed").

In the end, you have the Atom which draws ~5 watts, and the Nano which draws ~20 (not considering chipset draw, which is not Intel's strong suit). Make your own conclusions, but be sure to include in them the market that Intel's after, and the fact that the Atom is the only thing making Intel money right now.

Not quite FUD.

Microsoft almost "gives away" XP Home to OEMs who make netbooks, in an attempt to slow the rate at which Linux was being installed on that class of machine. Microsoft put "self-imposed" restrictions on the machine specifications for which they were prepared to offer XP Home to OENs at that bargain price as an option.

So you can't get a netbook with XP Home with more than 1GB RAM, or 1024x600 screen size, or faster than 1.86 GHz single-core CPU.

These limitations are not due inherently to the Intel Atom processor.

So, if as an OEM you want to offer a netbook class machine with better hardware specs (say 2GB RAM and 1280x800 screen resolution) ... then just put Linux on it and go right ahead.

Edited 2009-02-28 07:07 UTC

Just to avoid the shit storm of the century - maybe you should look at the state of Linux before assuming that the lack of Linux uptake/growth on the netbook after Windows XP entered the scene all has to do with 'big bad Microsoft'.

Having tried OpenSuSE 11.1, Ubuntu 8.10 and ArchLinux, I can assure you that Linux has along way to go in the area of spit, polish and professionalism when it comes to sorting out the rough edges. Avoiding the issue, moderating down comments and screaming in my face isn't going to fix these issues and they aren't going to disappear if you suddenly start ignoring them.

Just to avoid the shit storm of the century - maybe you should look at the state of Linux before assuming that the lack of Linux uptake/growth on the netbook after Windows XP entered the scene all has to do with 'big bad Microsoft'.

Having tried OpenSuSE 11.1, Ubuntu 8.10 and ArchLinux, I can assure you that Linux has along way to go in the area of spit, polish and professionalism when it comes to sorting out the rough edges. Avoiding the issue, moderating down comments and screaming in my face isn't going to fix these issues and they aren't going to disappear if you suddenly start ignoring them. "

Linux on netbooks is indeed a bit of a sad story. For a long time, the only option available were "tame" versions that were essentially locked down to what was offered on the machine. Xandros and SuSe both come from companies that have signed deals with Microsoft ...

I'm still in the hunt myself for a version that works out of the box on netbooks as well as I know Linux can work. This quest is not made any easier by the distributions not including in their kernels the wireless drivers and acpi scripts that are actually available.

So far, Ubuntu Jaunty is the best one. It works out of the box on netbooks. Ubuntu 8.10 (Intrepid) doesn't. Unfortunately, Jaunty is at this time still in Alpha-release stage, so it too at this point doesn't have the spit and polish that you are looking for.

Even for Arch Linux (which in general is very up-to-date) ... I have to go and install a special kernel called kernel-eee.

http://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Installing_Arch_Linux_on_the_As...

Another example ... MEPIS 8.0 is stable, solid, and polished (it is basically Debian 5.0) ... but wireless and sound don't work properly on netbooks out of the box. You have to fiddle to get it to work.

Sigh!

So I actually agree with you ... but I also note that it can be done. You can set up (with some effort) a very nice Linux OS working on your netbook.

So what is the problem here? Why is this effort necessary? Why can't there just be a nice, polished, fast, stable, not-tainted-by-Windows (so no Mono) Linux OS offered by OEMs for sale to consumers along with the machines?

There does seem to be a strong reluctance on the part of OEMs to actually work with the Linux distributions ...

Thanks for the heads up - right now I am in the process of writing a review of my Acer Aspire One (AOA150); I'll provide a link to 'report stories' on this website; basically an experience trying Linux out and heading back to Windows. Its not going to be popular with the 'true believers' but it is something that needs to be written about in a desperate hope of at least someone saying, "hey, you know, he really does have a point - lets start addressing these issues".

Edited 2009-02-28 08:52 UTC

PS: Just so that you know ... I don't moderate down comments, and I haven't moderated down any comment that you have made.

I do try to point out alternatives and other factors that people may not have considered, however.

You should look at the state of Linux before assuming that the lack of Linux uptake/growth ... has to do with 'big bad Microsoft' ... Linux has along way to go in the area of spit, polish and professionalism when it comes to sorting out the rough edges. "
The two things are not mutually exclusive. Microsoft definately has been crippling netbook specs. It's easily the most annoying thing they've done for a long time. Would two gigs of RAM really be such a problem?

Linux may not be perfect but neither is XP. If Microsoft don't want my custom I can go elsewhere now. They need to stop messing their customers about like this.

1) Way to go misquoting me - heck, why not just re-write sentences entirely if you're going to abbreviate sentences as to give a distorted retelling of what I actually said. Then again, if you have no valid point to make - why not distort what the original person said?

2) Where is your evidence to show that Microsoft is deliberately crippling netbooks? I'm running Windows XP Home and it is in now way crippled. Where is your evidence to back up your accusations against Microsoft or is this more screaming from the wilderness rather than valid contribution to the discourse?

3) Windows XP is far from perfect, infact, it is a pretty sad indictment on Microsoft that they need to dredge up a 7 year old operating system to work adequately in a constrained device. With that being said, what is even more appauling is the even worse performance both battery and speed when it comes to supporting devices in regards to Linux distributions on the said netbook. From the lack of support for my memory stick readers to the subpar wireless performance.

The Linux world has had 7 years to catch up to Windows XP and still hasn't surpassed it - Maybe the sader indictment is the fact that Linux distributions still can't compete with a 7 year old operating system

Edited 2009-03-01 03:28 UTC

Oh really? Do you have any evidence to back these claims?

Based on this information:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_VIA_Nano_microprocessors

The Nano U2series seem to have 8W TDP. The NC20 uses U2250.

-Ad
The

My mistake; I saw figures claiming 20W back when these were released, which I assume refer to the L-series.

As far as the rest of my claims, you may verify them yourself on the Intel Atom wikipedia page. That is, unless your goal was to discredit the entire post based on a single (ancillary) factual error.

I was talking about these claims in your post:

I would like to see some facts on your above claims.

I've proven that the Atom platform is artificially limited in RAM up in this thread. I doubt you could buy an Atom netbook that isn't bundled with Intel's crippled chipsets.

-Ad

And I pointed you to the Wikipedia page with the answers you seek. EM64T and SSE4 hardware is enabled only on the desktop versions of the Atom, for power considerations.

The Atom platform is not limited in RAM size. OEMs are asked by Microsoft, not Intel, to ship netbooks with 1GB of RAM or less if they want to ship them with a low-priced XP Home license. Thus they order (or contract with Intel for) chipsets with 1GB memory soldered in. Another motivation for this move is the size increase involved in providing a user-accessible memory slot.

On a side note, Dell is bucking this trend with the future release of the 720p Mini 10, which will feature 2gb of memory (and, presumably, not XP Home).

You did not point me to a wikipedia page. You merely mentioned that there are resources in wikipedia on it.

I checked and so far none of of the Atom processors have SSE4. Please cut the crap!

-Ad

If you want to use this new notebook/netbook whatever machine with a non-Windows OS, if it uses VIA graphics as well as the Nano CPU, then it would appear that a Linux driver for the S3 graphics chip has just arrived in the nick of time:

http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=s3_linux_ogl3_va...

Thank you for the link but the Intel graphics do have the advantage of a driver that is opensource, mature and available on more than just Linux.

With that being said, it will be interesting to see how Windows 7 changes things in the future.

Thank you for the link but the Intel graphics do have the advantage of a driver that is opensource, mature and available on more than just Linux.

With that being said, it will be interesting to see how Windows 7 changes things in the future. "

Precisely so.

I merely point to the link for the S3 driver if people had heard (previously) that there was no Linux driver for these more recent S3 graphics chips, and hence may have been intending to dismiss this machine on that basis, because they believed it was unsuitable for Linux.

Given that the (regrettably closed-source) Linux driver recently announced supports hardware accelerated multimedia codecs, and claims support for OpenGL 3.0, then if true this may even turn out to be one of the most capable Linux graphics drivers currently available.

Am I missing something? I recall a few years ago doing my research on Linux WiFi trying to find an appropriate card that would work. I ran across a certain Belkin model number on the list, which appeared that it should work, as it supposedly used a well-supported chipset (RaLink or Realtek or something like that). When I bought the damn thing and brought it home, I found out that it actually had an Atheros, which I could barely get working in Ubuntu at the time (6.06 was the first version IIRC that it actually worked). Any other distro? Tough luck.

It's been a few years now, and I haven't touched it since (and my sister insisted on running Windows anyway), so I haven't been able to test it lately. Is Atheros really that well-supported in Linux these days? And if so, is it just certain models? I recall that Atheros being a nightmare, just like all the rest I've attempted to get working...

Am I missing something? I recall a few years ago doing my research on Linux WiFi trying to find an appropriate card that would work. I ran across a certain Belkin model number on the list, which appeared that it should work, as it supposedly used a well-supported chipset (RaLink or Realtek or something like that). When I bought the damn thing and brought it home, I found out that it actually had an Atheros, which I could barely get working in Ubuntu at the time (6.06 was the first version IIRC that it actually worked). Any other distro? Tough luck.

It's been a few years now, and I haven't touched it since (and my sister insisted on running Windows anyway), so I haven't been able to test it lately. Is Atheros really that well-supported in Linux these days? And if so, is it just certain models? I recall that Atheros being a nightmare, just like all the rest I've attempted to get working... "

Atheros had an apparent change of heart, and hired some programmers to produce an open source driver for Linux for their chipsets, which is subsequently now part of stock Linux kernels.

http://www.atheros.com/news/linux.html

http://practical-tech.com/network/atheros-becomes-linux-friendlier/

http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news_item&px=NjYyMw

The reverse-engineered madwifi driver, which used to be required, has stopped operations, because now the officially-supported-by-atheros ath5k and ath9k drivers work.

Edited 2009-02-28 13:01 UTC

Atheros chipsets have always been the best supported 802.11g/802.11a chipsets for Unix systems. Originally, via a prorietary, closed-source HAL+OSS driver, then by the madwifi project, then by the OpenBSD reverse-engineered HAL, and now by a fully-OSS HAL+driver (ath5k/ath9k).

However, the wireless networking stack in Linux has gone through a lot changes, re-writes, and periods of brokenness, causing a lot of wireless drivers to stop working, be unstable, work sometimes, and so forth. For a while, there were three separate stacks in the kernel, and some drivers only worked with some stacks and not others. It's only in the last year or so that Linux has gained a useable and stable wireless stack.

Meanwhile, those use FreeBSD or OpenBSD had working wireless, with roaming, WPA (not OBSD), and super-simple configuration (1 line in rc.conf, couple lines in wpa_supplicant.conf).

The only wireless chipset worth buying is Atheros, even if your laptop has Intel onboard. It just works!

Atheros has been supported for years and years. My first wifi card was a Cisco a/b/g that worked quite well with the Madwifi drivers. This was like 4 or 5 years ago.

Yes, in Spain it's sold for 499.95 euro VAT included. That's 431 without VAT.

But I just found that in the UK it's also available [1] for 377.78 pounds VAT included (that's 426.54 euro, or 73.5 euro cheaper than in Spain, lovely). Without VAT that's around 371 euros.

[1] http://www.saveonsamsung.com/Samsung_NC20_White_515405.html