Linked by Kris Shaffer on Thu 24th Mar 2005 19:07 UTC
Permalink for comment
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
News
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/20/13 22:43 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/20/13 21:50 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/19/13 23:15 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/19/13 23:11 UTC, submitted by Drumhellar
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/18/13 21:06 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/18/13 7:37 UTC
Linked by fran on 05/18/13 1:38 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/17/13 23:35 UTC, submitted by kragil
Linked by MOS6510 on 05/17/13 22:22 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/17/13 22:15 UTC, submitted by Tom
More News »
Sponsored Links



The author thinks that the Cell processor is revolutionary on the desktop markets. I really wouldn't say so. Even if the desktop markets are going to advance in a rapid pace in the next few years, I highly doubt that the Cell has anything to do with it. And anyway the technology Cell offers will be old in a couple of years. It's utopistic to think that the Cell could compete with Intel on the processor markets or against x86. Also porting all to the Cell seems like a stupid task. I don't see the advantages that would bring.
I think if Google put up with an OS, it wouldn't be thin client. It would just be a masked Linux with basic tools and links to browser-based apps like gmail.
I think that we are a bit far away from desktops hosted somewhere else than our own hard disks. Though someone should give a good thinking how this could help the current situation of the 3rd world. Maybe 486-based thin clients could rapidly increase the development of low-tech countries.
I wouldn't say that the author is totally away from his tracks, except on the Cell and Google. 5/10