Netbooks are still all the rage these days, but according to Intel, this is going to change soon. The company has stated that they first thought that netbooks, who are almost exclusively powered by Intel chips, would be for emerging markets, but as it turns out, they are especially popular in Europe and North America. Intel claims that while these devices are "fine for an hour", they are not something for day to day use. And AMD? They are ignoring the market altogether.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Member since:2006-07-25
as the above said, x86 is here to stay, not even intel could get rid of x86 (Itanium).
Ive heard that even some mobile phone companys will move over to x86 when it becomes a little leaner with power.
The netbook arena is a tight market because of the costs of the units, which of course is it's biggest seller. It's natural therefore that some companies don't want to get into it. AMD currently has it's work cut out remaining competitive with intel in the desktop and server market, let alone trying to enter another smaller niche market.
Edited 2008-11-28 13:19 UTC
Member since:2006-01-06
I don't know if I'd call netbooks a "niche" market. They brought ASUS from a back end supplier up to a household brand, and also vaulted acer up to the top of notebook sales (if you include netbooks in there).
I for one believe that the netbook craze is reflective of a general trend...one away from increasingly higher powered, higher heat, higher cost hogs to cheaper, lower powered commodity appliances. Whoever truly figures out this appliance market has the potential power to make themselves the next household seller. If AMD & Intel don't want to lead in this market then I'm sure there are others who can get there....I have the ARM folks in mind, who I really believe should have tried this market a long time ago.
Member since:2008-10-23
Sorry, I didn't say x86 was dead.
That's a trick of the english language. "dead end" does not mean "dead", it is a whole different concept. It just means "no road through", it has nothing to do with "dead"...
In most other languages, there is a different word for those two concepts. for instance, in french, they say "impasse" for "dead end" and "mort" for "dead". the english language is just too poor so it reuses the same word with very different meaning just by adding another word. That is confusing, but we have to live with it.
Member since:2006-01-10
Impasse is a word that works just as well in English, but then you still will always have the knee jerk responses.
Either way, I agree with you. I have never liked the x86 architecture, but have accepted the fact also that the better technologies hardly ever win out.
Just look at the Windows vs. Every other OS out there. Windows did not win out because of being the better technological operating system. It won out because of being bundled with every PC since it was available. Right place at the right time. I could only imagine if back then the Mac OS or Amiga Workbench had ran on x86 hardware and had been compatible with all the applications...
Anyhow, all of this is off topic. It's a shame that (as crappy as they were) Cyrix and the others that used to make x86 processors all died out, except AMD and Intel. I guess Via is out there in there small niche. But really, we need more competition in every processor slice so that we as consumers will get more benefits.
Member since:2006-01-02
Member since:2005-08-11
Actually, dead end means that there is no progress pass the current location. as in the road comes to a dead end. I see no signs that x86 is at a dead end, impasse, whatever. x86 has effectively taken over the PC, workstation, server, HPC and Mac markets, and is moving into netbooks and smartphones. that's not a dead end, that's a total and utter domination of multiple markets.
How anybody can claim that x86 has hit a dead end is beyond me.
Member since:2005-07-07
I still think your point isn't valid. How is x86 a dead end? It's the same story. It's been said for years but x86 continues to grow in the personal computer market (Apple) and into embedded markets. I haven't seen an argument by anyone here that can make the case that x86 is a dead end. It's wishful thinking at this point and until a company can make a processor with the price and performance of x86 it's here to stay. Point me to one next gen processor that makes the cut and I might concede.
Member since:2005-11-21
That's a trick of the english language. "dead end" does not mean "dead", it is a whole different concept. It just means "no road through", it has nothing to do with "dead"...
In most other languages, there is a different word for those two concepts. for instance, in french, they say "impasse" for "dead end" and "mort" for "dead". the english language is just too poor so it reuses the same word with very different meaning just by adding another word. That is confusing, but we have to live with it.
That's not a trick of the English language. Dead being instantaneously over/deceased/kicked-the-bucket/six-feet under/ doesn't mean no viable long-term future which is what dead end describes in IT terms.
Member since:2005-07-06
Member since:
2005-07-07
x86 is dead? What planet are you on? x86 is bigger than ever. Even if some amazing breakthrough processor came out today it would be at least ten years before x86 dies and Loongson does not seem to be a breakthrough. If you're been around long enough you'd know that x86 was supposed to be killed several times by Mips, PPC and others. It never happened.