Linked by Thom Holwerda on Fri 28th Nov 2008 12:42 UTC
Hardware, Embedded Systems 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.
Thread beginning with comment 338798
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[4]: Loongson
by spiderman on Mon 1st Dec 2008 09:07 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Loongson"
spiderman
Member since:
2008-10-23

The Windows PC and mac OS X markets are dead ends.
It has nothing to do with the market, it's technical.
Don't worry, Microsoft, Apple and Intel will continue to make billions of dollars from their crap. That doesn't mean they will move us forward. You confuse what you call the market with progress.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[5]: Loongson
by SkateNY on Mon 1st Dec 2008 09:33 in reply to "RE[4]: Loongson"
SkateNY Member since:
2008-12-01

"It's technical?" What the hell does that mean? Yes, Microsoft and Apple will continue to make money, with or without you, mostly the latter. What's your point? Are you trying to tell the world that you're a lonely and unhappy person, or are you simply championing stupidty? In either case, mission accomplished.

Edited 2008-12-01 09:35 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[6]: Loongson
by spiderman on Mon 1st Dec 2008 10:12 in reply to "RE[5]: Loongson"
spiderman Member since:
2008-10-23

I say x86 is a technical dead end. I don't doubt that they are sold by the billions on the PC market and stuff. I never said Intel will go down or loose money. I just said that x86 is not the way forward.
Why do you think intel and others tried to kill it?
People will continue to buy them, by billions. But what is the way forward for x86 seriously?
Anyway, whatever I say there is a communication problem that makes it so that you just can't get me. You believe x86 is the way forward, no matter how crippled it is because the "market" says so. And if someone says something else, you feel attacked and insulted.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[5]: Loongson
by BluenoseJake on Mon 1st Dec 2008 16:08 in reply to "RE[4]: Loongson"
BluenoseJake Member since:
2005-08-11

so moving to 64bit isn't moving forward? Virtualization extensions? AMD fusion? The movement to lower power consumption? Multiple cores?

Come on, x86 has continued to gain new capabilities and markets since the original IBM PC. If you want to ignore the facts, feel free, but in the last 5 years x86 has gained massive new capabilities, and I don't see it stopping any time soon.

Wearing blinders doesn't change facts, it just removes them from view. If your pet processor architecture can't keep up, too bad.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[6]: Loongson
by spiderman on Mon 1st Dec 2008 19:50 in reply to "RE[5]: Loongson"
spiderman Member since:
2008-10-23

Well, I suppose moving to 64bit and implementing virtualization proves that x86 can still evolve, although 64bit and virtualization was nothing new. Maybe dead end is too strong and things can still improve.
I still think that x86 is unclean. It is condemned to support legacy software. I know Intel has the best factories and can put a lot of money in supporting x86 with very small transistors and many Gigahertz, but if only they put that money on a clean design, things would be a lot different.
I don't care for legacy software so I put my money on better design for my next netbook because I have hope that one day we can put an end to the inefficient x86 mess. Give me all the gigahertz and the smaller transistors for less energy on a processor that implements the features I need cleanly and I'll be happy. I know it takes a revolution to move past x86, and I know it won't happen, but I refuse to be a lemming.

Edited 2008-12-01 20:00 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 1