Re: Intel's "Atom" processors

["Robert Green" <ROBERT_GREEN1963@xxxxxxxxx>]

"Bill Kearney" <wkearney99@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:xuidnYDGz4rrA2vanZ2dnUVZ_gudnZ2d@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > (Isn't *real* competition a wonderful thing!
>
> Feh, real competition would've been Digital actually marketing and
supportig
> the StrongARM.  Instead they tanked, Intel bought it and pretty much
treated
> it like a red-headed-stepchild.  Now they're trying to foist x86 crap on
the
> mobile market?  No thanks.

Even though the subject was the "Atom" the real focus was on the war between
Intel's efforts at laptops for schoolchildren and the One Laptop per Child
organization's much cheaper (and apparently more capable) machines.   At
least Intel is finally off the "every new CPU chip generation has to run
faster, hotter and consume considerably more power than the last one"
pathway.   The new chips only draw 3 watts, but in a few years, that will
seem as ridiculous as giant Zalman-type copper fin coolers.  The x86 world
is alive and well, or so thought Apple when it finally crossed over, so I
wouldn't write it off just yet.  Lots and lots of software tools, tested,
tried and true.  That tends to keep the old stuff in play for quite a while.

--
Bobby G.