Linked by Thom Holwerda on Tue 7th Mar 2006 21:32 UTC
PDAs, Cellphones, Wireless In a preview of Tuesday afternoon's demonstration, Intel Marketing Director Brad Graff showed CNET several of the Ultra Mobile PC devices, including an example of the kind of hardware that will ship in the next few weeks as part of the Microsoft effort. As earlier reported, the first devices have a 7-inch touch screen, standard x86 processors, and can run full versions of desktop operating systems including the Windows XP variant being used for Origami.
Thread beginning with comment 102324
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[2]: blogged about it
by Eugenia on Tue 7th Mar 2006 23:02 UTC in reply to "RE: blogged about it"
Member since:

Isn't this what I said on my blog too? You didn't quote the next paragraph on my blog, which is exactly what I say about the issue too. So, I don't get this reply of yours. You are just duplicating what I said about money and power.

Reply Parent Score: 5

RE[3]: blogged about it
by ormandj on Tue 7th Mar 2006 23:08 in reply to "RE[2]: blogged about it"
ormandj Member since:

You specifically said: "So why is this new Origami project generates so much buzz while Be/QNX have both failed, I don't know."

Then: "But nevertheless, the Origami project is not a new idea, but it does get all the hype in the world, because it is backed by MS and Intel. This is a good example how lots of money can create lots of interest. You need money in order to make more money. Having a cool idea is *not* enough."

I answered your question, nothing more. You ask why Origami gets buzz, and Be/QNX failed in this market.

You toss out a (thought? I'm not familiar with blogging terminology) that suggests Origami is an old idea rehashed with lots of marketing funds, and state having a cool idea is not enough.

Yes, my response is very much parallel to your (thought?) However, you said you do not know what the answer to your question was. So I answered it.

Honestly, I didn't even remember reading that in your blog. I must have had a brain-fart and completely skipped your last paragraph (odd... but I won't rule it out). My apologies. If I had read it, I simply would have replied "read your fourth paragraph for the answer to your question in the 3rd paragraph."

It seems my problem is my non-understanding of how a blog works. I suppose you can postulate questions, as if speaking to the sky, and answer them in the next paragraph instead of simply correcting your question into a statement? Pah, I knew I hated blogs for a reason. ;)

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[4]: blogged about it
by Eugenia on Tue 7th Mar 2006 23:11 in reply to "RE[3]: blogged about it"
Eugenia Member since:

That was a RHETORIC question, not a real one! I obviously answered that very question on the next paragraph, that you have now quoted. ;)

Reply Parent Score: 5