no offense, but this is pretty much what every naysayer says about new apple products until apple releases them.
Remember this is apple. they dont do anything the way everybody else does, and thats why they're succeeding.
I hereby predict that a tablet mac will sell at least one million units in its first year.
Apple is smart enough to understand that products are built from the user on down. There are ergonomics issues with holding a 11x8.5 device or notepad of similar size, and it gets even worse when you have to do it with a 1 lb device. A ~10" tablet will be used horizontally on a flat surface, on the lap, or resting on something as you won't be holding it up for extended periods of time. On top of this, there are still many issues about the feel of pen on touchscreen. It's just isn't fine grained enough yet. It has to be like pencil on paper.
If it is a tablet, like seen on many of Apple's patent applications, I think it'll be a limited use device, or a vertical market device (which Apple doesn't do).
Something like this, from a long long time ago, as a UMPC type device will probably prove much more useful:
A full-size laptop keyboard with a 1280x640 screen would be usable in coach class!
Why would Apple do that? What real advantage would they gain by that? AMD can't supply its current customers. It's offerings are second rate, and well behind schedule, and its breath of offerings are nowhere close to what Intel has now, or has planned for the future.
It's also in danger financially. If it somehow fails, and is taken over, there is no guarantee it will even survive as an independant chip maker.
Apple can't afford any more chances with a company that may not be able to supply their needs for many years into the future.
The power draw of the Silverthorn is far higher than that of an ARM. Power/performance is not as critical as just power for long duration mobile devices. Intel isn't aiming at ARM's core phone market with Silverthorn except perhaps at the "more UMPC than Phone" market...aka MID.
Intel made a run with XScale and it didn't play out for them. Silverthorn is not their attempt at direct competition with ARM in ARM's own space (low power CPU for phones and other apps) where it dominates but to deny ARM the ability to move upscale into low end UMPCs arena.
ARM used to be a desktop processor in the Archimedes. Foleo sucked and the Nokia N810 'tablet" is so-so but both uses ARM so Intel isn't unaware of which way ARM intends to grow...right smack into that MID market Intel wants to flourish and, of course, dominate. The last thing they want is to share that space with ARM. My read is still that Intel will use Silverthorn to dominate that product space and defend the UMPC/Ultraportable markets for a real push against ARM's core product space with Moorestown with its 10x power reduction.
Personally, I think Intel will win and I think Apple is the strategic partner to help them win. An Eee PC with Silverthorn will be pretty nice too.
2009/2010 is not all that far away. With Intel moving to 32nm in 2009 and using 45nm fabs for Moorestown, ARM11/Cortex A8 better be killer. Unfortunately for ARM, danged few folks are going 32nm so if Intel really really wants to win it can always do a process shrink for Moorestown which ARM will be hard pressed to answer if Intel can actually make the 32nm jump on schedule.
With power draws of between .5 and two watts, this is pretty competitive. I'm willing to bet that Intel will be able to move this to higher levels of performance than ARM.
It also depends on what these small devices are going to be expected to do. As they accumulate more functions, and with people wanting them to use more complex programs, more powerful chips will be required, and Intel's platform seems to be better positioned to deliver it.
As far as the slightly bigger devices we are both talking about, I think we can agree that this will prove to be the winner.
We can argue the point about smaller phone-like devices, if you like, but I believe that Intel can better integrate functionality into these than the ARM manufacturers can.
One thing I don't think we'll see is an OS X-like GUI.....
It would be much bettrr for a subset of Word, or a part, to be used, that would be fully compatible with Word when moved to a big machine, rather than to attempt to squeeze the entire program in.
You nailed it. The we've been calling it the 'Multi-Touch Mac' and I believe it will have the same interface as the iPhone/iPod Touch.
Quick Look is suited perfectly to what you're saying about Word. OSX now natively supports (and you can write your very own plug-in's) for just about all of the 'common' file formats your likely to use on the move.
This is just anther piece of the puzzle. Pretty exciting though!
It all depends on the MHz. Silverthorne's targeted TDP is 0.55 Watts. If that is at 600 MHz clock rate, it'll be within 600 MHz ARM implementations.
The 90nm ARM11 with MMU + TrustZone + cache are .43 to .45 mW/MHz. For 1Ghz that would be around 450mW. The iPhone's 620Mhz around a thrifty 279mW unless I did my math wrong or misread the specs.
Still...I recall reading that Silverthorne was 0.9W a while back so 0.55W is much better than I had expected. Of course it IS 45nm. When the ARMs go 65nm the disparity should open a bit again even if the Silverthorne should outclass the ARM11 on an IPC basis.
Half the battery life of the iPhone is clearly better than 1/4th the battery life...but not quite there yet.
IMHO, let Intel get to 55mW @ 600Mhz for an X86 CPU (10x improvement) and ARM is in big trouble in its home turf, 2 chip implementation or not.
Quote:
A full-size laptop keyboard with a 1280x640 screen would be usable in coach class!
1280x720 or perhaps 1280x768 or 1366x768. You might as well go WXGA if you get to 1280x640.
Appleeinstein, if that device is the new Apple UMPC, that is not going to attract many mainstream users. That is too large to be jacket pocket size and looks pretty much like the huge variety of UMPC's.
The reality is why those UMPC's had such weak sales are they are too large to be mobile and be stored in your jacket pocket so they were compared to everything not jacket size. Also virtually all the articles and reviews hated the lack of a touch type keyboard. If Apple tried to sell that type of device it will likely get similar results as to all the UMPC's thus far, weak sales.
What Intel has been promoting for these chips is pocket size devices. What is really missing is the first pocket laptop that can run any desktop application. I could see their prototype device with a thin touch type keyboard more of an optional clamshell design really gain a lot of interest for laptop users wanting a simple pocket alternative.
The UMPC line sunk because it was too big for pocket size but lacked any decent degree of productivity. The DialKey system was distracting and hard to use, and no one could get any kind of speed on it. If the UMPCs had been given a simple pocket touch typing keyboard, they would have been seen as a productivity tool rather than a novelty, and their sales would have been much better.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mobilesalesman
The history of slate/pen only devices has been terrible. That is what the UMPC's did with their 7" versions which only sold 350,000 units worldwide! Same goes for the tablet pc, etc.
A device that is just small enough to fit in a large coat pocket yet is as large as possible given those restraints so that an easy touch type keybord input can be incorporated is what will really sell like hot cakes. That would be the first ever pocket laptop and if ran full windows programs, even MS fans like me would be an Apple convert.
The only problem with this is that the idea of a "pocket keyboard" is a little bit hard to work with, since the whole point of a pocket keyboard is touch typing, and you can't actually touch type on a keyboard that's less than 7" wide and 3.5" deep. And even if the screen is pillarboxed inside speakers with a clamshell design (to allow for a greater-than 16:10 aspect ratio overall), you still need some physical margins on the keyboard, which places the physical device dimensions at 8" x 4.5" x <1"; that's only barely pocketable. Additionally, you are still restricted to a notebook form factor, which means that the switch-to-slate functionality is missing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mobilesalesman
I've been a long time MS user and business man. What most business people hoped for with the UMPC was a simple pocket laptop that enabled them to run business software typically only available in desktop OS. MS pushed everyone to build bulky bible size 7" devices. Guess what IDC just reported only 350,000 UMPC sold worldwide in 07' http://origamiproject.com/forums/thread/29265.aspx
I like that prototype length and depth but I feel a built in touch type keyboard is needed. The UMPC concept is to provide the ability to run full windows programs and thus you are not just viewing files like a PDA, etc but you want to do real computing. Thus a touch type keyboard would be what most would prefer. I would like it to have touch screen so that you have the option of using pen input and that would also eliminate the needs for a mouse.
If Apple does not make the same mistakes of the UMPC market they could really strike a blow to MS. Business users all use laptops and a large percent really do not need a super fast computer nor do they really need a huge screen. I still use an old HP Jornada and I still get business people saying what is that? can it run windows? that would be perfect if it ran windows? Those type of clamshell devices sold over 2.3 million each year and they could only run MS applications not full windows. If Apple makes a modern version that can run Windows applications that would sell tens of millions and would change the mind of many die hard MS users like me.
I've asked 50 business people what they wanted and all but one said they would love to have a modern version of my HP Jornada if it could run Windows. They also said that they prefer a touch type keyboard. If you look at the statistics of laptop sales, there are over 113 million sold this year with a huge base of users whom all prefer a touch type keyboard but a good percent just want a simple pocket laptop.
The Jornada is 5" wide - hardly pocketable. And all of Apple's patents point to a touch type tactile feedback onscreen multitouch smart keyboard.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hiro
5" is the full dimension of an iPhone. I think it needs to be a bit bigger. Personally I have been looking for a ~10" 6:9 form factor. Before anyone gags, that is essentially a steno pad notebook. Just look at a steno pad and think of the possibilities for a portable computer. Along the lines of appleeinstein's mockup, but kill all the bezels except across one end, similar to the iPhones button end. Make the bezel end symmetric, the screen flipable and you get iPhone-like bi-handedness for free too.
What do you mean "screen flipable"? And that mockup was using a high-res promo image of the iPod Touch; did you mean making the screen larger to remove the bezel or making the device itself smaller? And landscape is absolutely the way to go in physical button placement for a device of this size. The bezel won't be so large that you can't stretch your thumb over it to manipulate keys on the left edge of the screen when you are holding it in portrait "steno pad" style.
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross
We're so used to large screens, and are always crying out for higher resolutions on even MacBooks, that I question just how many people will enjoy using devices with 768 x 480 screens. There's an interface problem at the least.
If this is a medium sized device, with a screen comfortably smaller than what Ireland wants (I know you're hiding here somewhere!), then that would be small enough to carry around almost everywhere without thinking about it.
The mockup I had was a 7.63" x 4.77" screen, so at 800x500 resolution that's only 105 PPI. At 160 PPI (iPhone) that's 1220x760 resolution. Somewhere in between, perhaps.
Here's the thing: it wouldn't be hard for the Mac Touch to have an updated version of Spaces that works together with multitouch. So you could zoom in within programs just like the iPhone zooms on webpages and such (two-finger pinch), but you could also zoom in on the overall desktop (three-finger pinch). This would take care of the screen size problem. Having a virtual workspace of 15"+ in a 9" screen is priceless. Okay, not priceless, but close to it.
Pocketable would be nice, but I just don't see how Apple is going to fit any kind of workable touch typing keyboard on a pocket-sized device. Even jacket pocket size. And I am pretty sure that a virtual keyboard (more than 7" wide) will be fine for touch typing.
The only non-slate option that Apple might be considering for a UMPC would be the clamshell posted by TMT. Not that bad. The only trouble is that A. the screen aspect ratio is totally not Apple and B. this would require a touchscreen since you have no trackpad, which is very limited if you can only use it like a laptop. I'm sure that touchscreens will start to come standard, but even so it would only be truly useful and worthy of an Apple UMPC if the screen can be used in multiple orientations. And there is no way to use something like that as a slate.
In case anyone else was crazy enough to try to decode the 2D DataMatrix barcode in the chip's photograph, I'll save you the trouble of getting libdmtx built on MacOS, cleaning up the image, and doing the conversions...
The barcode decodes to "C649WT06S0206", which is the exact same text written in a human readable font along the left side.
Would have been cool to see "Screw you rumor sites" encoded there.
A full-size laptop keyboard with a 1280x640 screen would be usable in coach class!
One of the main reasons tablet format PC's haven't worked up until now is that they were either laden with a full-size/midget keyboard which made them clunky or cramped to use OR they on screen keyboard was crap.
Apple has fixed that problem with an on-screen keyboard that is NOT crap and removed the need for a mouse completely.
If you think a tablet format Mac will have the same interface as your iMac or MacBook you're missing what this device is actually for
With power draws of between .5 and two watts, this is pretty competitive. I'm willing to bet that Intel will be able to move this to higher levels of performance than ARM.
At 2W@600Mhz not really with ARM nearly an order of magnitude thriftier 2 process steps behind them at 0.2W@600Mhz.
Intel will be able to move to higher levels of performance. In 2009/2010 with Moorestown although 200mW is only about par with what ARM has today albeit with better IPC. This is why Intel says this is the chip the iPhone wished it had and didn't say that of Silverthorne. By Moorestown Intel can claim similar power/performance number to ARM with the x86 advantage.
By then ARM will have 1Ghz multi-core versions on 65nm with 45nm in the wings. TI and others plan to go there. A lot of folks will stop at 45nm.
I dunno...WinCE/Windows Mobile is so-so and I'd guess if Intel had a power competitive x86, MS might be just as happy letting Windows Mobile slide into obsolecence and move in another direction for their Mobile OS which is more in line with the desktop technology. If OSX also moves away from ARM then ARM looks kinda meager stuck with an old version of Windows Mobile that MS isn't really working on anymore, Linux and Symbian.
Say what you want about Linux and Symbian dominance/whatever but Apple and MS are the two companies that will have good multi-touch SDKs out. Linux, Symbian and Java are gonna be muddling around without a coherent multi-touch story for a while.
I was just reading an article about Apple possibly introducing an ultralight (ULte)at Macworld. They had some sales numbers, which made me think about the ULte vs Ireland's 11" tablet.
Sales of tablets are less than 1% of portable sales. ULte's are under 8% portable sales. The estimate is that 20 million ULte's may sell in 2008, raising that percentage somewhat.
Going by those numbers, tablets will sell about 2 million units in 2007.
It seems to me that if Apple were to come out with a new format of portable for them, they would look to the larger market, which is the ULte.
If Apple came out with a brilliant ultralight, which is not beyond them, they could conservatively capture 15% (let's not go overboard) of that market. That could be 3 million machines. If the ULte stole one million sales from the MacBook and MBP, that would still net 2 million extra sales, at an average price that would be higher than the MacBooks, though lower than the MBP. This sounds pretty good.
But an 11" tablet would be quite a risk. Tablets have keyboards because manufacturers are not sure about the reception a keyboard-less model would receive. In the past, they didn't do too well.
Vinea and I have had a running disagreement about how well virtual keyboards do in comparison to keyed models. Despite our disagreement, I won't pretend to know what the future will bring. But if he is correct, the virtual keyboard is no where close to being useful for a "real" machine. That is, one where a fair mount of typing is normal.
We would do well to remember the Cube. I'm sure Apple does! I doubt they are willing to take that kind of chance again.
Even if, somehow it did sell, the market is so small that Apple would sell not much more than a couple of hundred thousand machines a year, no matter how brilliant the machine was. That's no better than the sales of the Cube, which was ditched.
If Apple does come out with a bigger machine than the iPhone/iTouch combo, I still think it would be Newton sized, abet with far better technology. That would be a much better platform for Apple to test out a bigger, more general purpose, multitouch keyboard. If that does well, perhaps at a later time, with improvements from feedback from that bigger model, they MIGHT consider a full size unit.
Or, they might add it to to a keyed model, and see what happens there. If it fails as a keyboard, it might still have enough useful advantages so that the computer itself wouldn't fail, but might be boosted from the other features the multitouch might offer.
I meant 11" diagonal screen size, not an 11" device. A 9" desktop would be just lame.
An 11" diagonal screen size would actually make the horizontal width of a device like I have in this image about 11" wide. Corner to corner it would be over 12" but who's counting. A last resort to make this thing very small I'd say would be 10", but no way 9". I still hope, say and think 11", but I would still purchase one @ 10" - no smaller though, I have an iPhone after all.
I'm liking this, my newly imagined methodology:
20" - 30" screen, power-house desktop for getting "work" done
11" Mac touch "to take some work with you"
3.5" iPhone to always stay connected, via email, the web, text and phone
What's so lame about 9" that is suddenly better with 11"? Especially with Spaces or Spaces + Multitouch. If you're running full Mac OS X....
So many people use laptops for desktop replacement that the notebook form factor isn't going away any time soon. So this device has to be appreciably more portable than a MacBook in order to define its market ('cause that's what Apple products do; they define their own market). A sacrifice of 1.5" horizontal screen real estate isn't really going to make it less productive, but the difference between an 11" diagonal device and a 14" diagonal device is huge. UMPCs failed only because they weren't versatile or powerful enough, not because we needed bigger slates.
Plus they were M$ Windoze, but that's another argument altogether. Are all device families intro'd by M$ doomed to fail until Apple makes something that works? We may never know for sure....
So why is 9" diagonal screen so very bad? I printed it out, taped it to a piece of cardboard, and played around with it - I didn't feel the need for an extra horizontal 1.5".
At 2W@600Mhz not really with ARM nearly an order of magnitude thriftier 2 process steps behind them at 0.2W@600Mhz.
Intel will be able to move to higher levels of performance. In 2009/2010 with Moorestown although 200mW is only about par with what ARM has today albeit with better IPC. This is why Intel says this is the chip the iPhone wished it had and didn't say that of Silverthorne. By Moorestown Intel can claim similar power/performance number to ARM with the x86 advantage.
By then ARM will have 1Ghz multi-core versions on 65nm with 45nm in the wings. TI and others plan to go there. A lot of folks will stop at 45nm.
I dunno...WinCE/Windows Mobile is so-so and I'd guess if Intel had a power competitive x86, MS might be just as happy letting Windows Mobile slide into obsolecence and move in another direction for their Mobile OS which is more in line with the desktop technology. If OSX also moves away from ARM then ARM looks kinda meager stuck with an old version of Windows Mobile that MS isn't really working on anymore, Linux and Symbian.
Say what you want about Linux and Symbian dominance/whatever but Apple and MS are the two companies that will have good multi-touch SDKs out. Linux, Symbian and Java are gonna be muddling around without a coherent multi-touch story for a while.
Do you know if that 2w/600MHz is correct? If it is, then, of course, it's too high. But, if it's closer to ,5W/600MHz, then it's a different story. But, MHz itself is not the wholo story either. But, I'd rather wait until we know more about products that are closer to shipping, with some testing available. I'm sure the tech sites will be delighted to make a comparison between the two competing technologies.
The only problem with this is that the idea of a "pocket keyboard" is a little bit hard to work with, since the whole point of a pocket keyboard is touch typing, and you can't actually touch type on a keyboard that's less than 7" wide and 3.5" deep. And even if the screen is pillarboxed inside speakers with a clamshell design (to allow for a greater-than 16:10 aspect ratio overall), you still need some physical margins on the keyboard, which places the physical device dimensions at 8" x 4.5" x <1"; that's only barely pocketable. Additionally, you are still restricted to a notebook form factor, which means that the switch-to-slate functionality is missing.
If you can get it to 8x4.5x <1 that would be awesome. As you noted the Journada (and NEC for that matter) is much bigger. Being "pocketable" is somewhat relative...he mentions coat pockets. I can probably get my Mobile Pro into a coat pocket...I've put it in my raincoat pocket but mine has largish deep pockets for some reason.
But really...it IS small enough to take everywhere. Its just not that useful anymore since it isn't running either real Windows or a newer version of Windows Mobile.
While a clamshell wouldn't be able to switch to slate it could switch to tablet if you wanted to get fancy with the hinge to be more like a convertible tablet.
Then you have both albeit with a thicker device. Still though, just adding a keyboard isn't going to add a lot of weight depth and you could always go to the idea of docking a slate like 7" slate to a keyboard with a battery and maybe a USB and mini-DVI port as a base.
Good enough to type a real memo/paper on the plane and show Keynote slides when you get there while having the ability to get real thin. The only gotcha is the docking hinge is likely to be tricky to get it to not suck if you want it to also move as oppose to have a fixed angle.
If you can get it to 8x4.5x <1 that would be awesome. As you noted the Journada (and NEC for that matter) is much bigger. Being "pocketable" is somewhat relative...he mentions coat pockets. I can probably get my Mobile Pro into a coat pocket...I've put it in my raincoat pocket but mine has largish deep pockets for some reason.
But really...it IS small enough to take everywhere. Its just not that useful anymore since it isn't running either real Windows or a newer version of Windows Mobile.
While a clamshell wouldn't be able to switch to slate it could switch to tablet if you wanted to get fancy with the hinge to be more like a convertible tablet.
Then you have both albeit with a thicker device. Still though, just adding a keyboard isn't going to add a lot of weight depth and you could always go to the idea of docking a slate like 7" slate to a keyboard with a battery and maybe a USB and mini-DVI port as a base.
Good enough to type a real memo/paper on the plane and show Keynote slides when you get there while having the ability to get real thin. The only gotcha is the docking hinge is likely to be tricky to get it to not suck if you want it to also move as oppose to have a fixed angle.
I really think it has to be "beltable". The Newton was, as I remember, the first really beltable computing device. a newer replacement would be thinner, and lighter, making it even more possible to carry that way.
The only problem I have with a coat pocketable device, is how does one carry it when not wearing that coat?
If you can get it to 8x4.5x <1 that would be awesome. As you noted the Journada (and NEC for that matter) is much bigger. Being "pocketable" is somewhat relative...he mentions coat pockets. I can probably get my Mobile Pro into a coat pocket...I've put it in my raincoat pocket but mine has largish deep pockets for some reason.
But really...it IS small enough to take everywhere. Its just not that useful anymore since it isn't running either real Windows or a newer version of Windows Mobile.
While a clamshell wouldn't be able to switch to slate it could switch to tablet if you wanted to get fancy with the hinge to be more like a convertible tablet.
Then you have both albeit with a thicker device. Still though, just adding a keyboard isn't going to add a lot of weight depth and you could always go to the idea of docking a slate like 7" slate to a keyboard with a battery and maybe a USB and mini-DVI port as a base.
Good enough to type a real memo/paper on the plane and show Keynote slides when you get there while having the ability to get real thin. The only gotcha is the docking hinge is likely to be tricky to get it to not suck if you want it to also move as oppose to have a fixed angle.
It's small enough to take anywhere, that's for sure.
I don't see Apple putting effort into perfecting the rotating hinge; I think it's a bad idea to begin with. It is just ultraprone to malfunction. But I could be wrong!
What's so bad about a virtual keyboard if you can touch type on it without mistakes at 60 wpm from the start (assuming you can type 70+ on a regular keyboard) and theoretically reach 100+ wpm?
I really think it has to be "beltable". The Newton was, as I remember, the first really beltable computing device. a newer replacement would be thinner, and lighter, making it even more possible to carry that way.
The only problem I have with a coat pocketable device, is how does one carry it when not wearing that coat?
Beltable would be a great goal. Can you get a screen small enough to be beltable but large enough to run a touch type virtual keyboard?
Beltable would be a great goal. Can you get a screen small enough to be beltable but large enough to run a touch type virtual keyboard?
That's the problem, isn't it?
I've found that with the iPhone, the vertical keyboard is a bit difficult, but it becomes much easier when typing in Safari with the horizontal orientation, and that will be smaller than either size machine we are looking at. But, I'm not typing as a touch typist when I try it, but two thumb Blackberry style.
60 words a minute is fairly fast, but not very. It might be possible on a somewhat larger board, but it would be a question. I do think that a second generation model will likely perform better than these first generation ones. So much is dependent on the software.
But, can you type at that speed now on one of the mid size keyboards?
It all depends on the MHz. Silverthorne's targeted TDP is 0.55 Watts. If that is at 600 MHz clock rate, it'll be within 600 MHz ARM implementations. I wouldn't expect ARM processors of equivalent performance per Hz to be much lower power consumption than Intel's attempt, and as noted, Intel has a process advantage to provide parity if they are off by a factor of 2 to their competitors. If that's a 1 GHz clock rate, I don't think ARM will be competing very well as Intel's process advantage would be too much.
If those numbers are real and include the entire chip set then they are indeed very good. One has to remember that this is a high integration shot at a SOC. The chip will be including a memory interface and a GPU - plus whatever else. So at the moment I'm taking this too mean that the total power is pretty damn good especially if it is maxing out at two watts. In any event Intels power numbers are always a bit sneaky as you really want to know what the power profile is when driving a farily intensive process(es). Say watching a movie while handling Wifi in back ground.
Either way if the chip set is half as good as is being indicated, then Intel will have made significant advancements for the i86 world. The problem is ARM isn't standing still, you should be able to implement a multiprocessor ARM solution and still end up under Intels power levels and probably end up with a better more responsive system. In any event Intel gets the slot simply because of the instruction set and being good enough.
Quote:
Having a competitive SoC on the other hand may prove to be trouble for Intel. They're going to have 2 chip solution (Moorestown). That may be one chip too many. They got a really nice Apple-ish concept device though:
The only thing that would be attractive to Apple is the x86 instruction set or a subset of that and Intel's low power processes. These features can't be underestimated though. Frankly I have to agree that a two chip solution will be a hard sell, especially in something along the lines of an iPod. However considering what they have integrated into the main chip, I have to wonder if the second support chip will always be required.
Quote:
But like everyone else is saying, where's the market? UMPC vendors are providing solutions searching for a problem.
The problem is the manufactures just don't understand people perception of value for the money. At least not until ASUS came out with the Eee PC. The simply answer is that no body would be willing to spend the money asked for the devices. Especially in the corporate world and its mind set of screw the work and buy the cheapest thing that can get the job done.
Quote:
Edit: Well, Anandtech won't show the images
As a side note I don't like the idea that Intel will get the slot simply because it is good enough and has the i86 component locked up. Alternative hardware seems too be dropping like flies. I expect Power PC to be dead in a couple of years, mainly due ot IBM dropping the ball there. Microchip is taking a shot at MIPs and then your have ARM. I fully expect that in a coule of years we will have a two horse race with Intel and ARM the only survivors. Intel will take just about anything that requires flexibility in user level software leaving the embedded world to ARM.
Comments
Is that $5Grand
or
is it $5Gazillion
?
kilo
Mega
Giga
It's Giga-dollars, or billion in English.
no offense, but this is pretty much what every naysayer says about new apple products until apple releases them.
Remember this is apple. they dont do anything the way everybody else does, and thats why they're succeeding.
I hereby predict that a tablet mac will sell at least one million units in its first year.
Apple is smart enough to understand that products are built from the user on down. There are ergonomics issues with holding a 11x8.5 device or notepad of similar size, and it gets even worse when you have to do it with a 1 lb device. A ~10" tablet will be used horizontally on a flat surface, on the lap, or resting on something as you won't be holding it up for extended periods of time. On top of this, there are still many issues about the feel of pen on touchscreen. It's just isn't fine grained enough yet. It has to be like pencil on paper.
If it is a tablet, like seen on many of Apple's patent applications, I think it'll be a limited use device, or a vertical market device (which Apple doesn't do).
Something like this, from a long long time ago, as a UMPC type device will probably prove much more useful:
A full-size laptop keyboard with a 1280x640 screen would be usable in coach class!
maybe apple should work AMD not Intel
By work, do you mean use?
Why would Apple do that? What real advantage would they gain by that? AMD can't supply its current customers. It's offerings are second rate, and well behind schedule, and its breath of offerings are nowhere close to what Intel has now, or has planned for the future.
It's also in danger financially. If it somehow fails, and is taken over, there is no guarantee it will even survive as an independant chip maker.
Apple can't afford any more chances with a company that may not be able to supply their needs for many years into the future.
The power draw of the Silverthorn is far higher than that of an ARM. Power/performance is not as critical as just power for long duration mobile devices. Intel isn't aiming at ARM's core phone market with Silverthorn except perhaps at the "more UMPC than Phone" market...aka MID.
Intel made a run with XScale and it didn't play out for them. Silverthorn is not their attempt at direct competition with ARM in ARM's own space (low power CPU for phones and other apps) where it dominates but to deny ARM the ability to move upscale into low end UMPCs arena.
ARM used to be a desktop processor in the Archimedes. Foleo sucked and the Nokia N810 'tablet" is so-so but both uses ARM so Intel isn't unaware of which way ARM intends to grow...right smack into that MID market Intel wants to flourish and, of course, dominate. The last thing they want is to share that space with ARM. My read is still that Intel will use Silverthorn to dominate that product space and defend the UMPC/Ultraportable markets for a real push against ARM's core product space with Moorestown with its 10x power reduction.
Personally, I think Intel will win and I think Apple is the strategic partner to help them win. An Eee PC with Silverthorn will be pretty nice too.
2009/2010 is not all that far away. With Intel moving to 32nm in 2009 and using 45nm fabs for Moorestown, ARM11/Cortex A8 better be killer. Unfortunately for ARM, danged few folks are going 32nm so if Intel really really wants to win it can always do a process shrink for Moorestown which ARM will be hard pressed to answer if Intel can actually make the 32nm jump on schedule.
With power draws of between .5 and two watts, this is pretty competitive. I'm willing to bet that Intel will be able to move this to higher levels of performance than ARM.
It also depends on what these small devices are going to be expected to do. As they accumulate more functions, and with people wanting them to use more complex programs, more powerful chips will be required, and Intel's platform seems to be better positioned to deliver it.
As far as the slightly bigger devices we are both talking about, I think we can agree that this will prove to be the winner.
We can argue the point about smaller phone-like devices, if you like, but I believe that Intel can better integrate functionality into these than the ARM manufacturers can.
Is that $5Grand
or
is it $5Gazillion
?
Yes!
It was a grand idea, and they wasted a gazillion.
One thing I don't think we'll see is an OS X-like GUI.....
It would be much bettrr for a subset of Word, or a part, to be used, that would be fully compatible with Word when moved to a big machine, rather than to attempt to squeeze the entire program in.
You nailed it. The we've been calling it the 'Multi-Touch Mac' and I believe it will have the same interface as the iPhone/iPod Touch.
Quick Look is suited perfectly to what you're saying about Word. OSX now natively supports (and you can write your very own plug-in's) for just about all of the 'common' file formats your likely to use on the move.
This is just anther piece of the puzzle. Pretty exciting though!
Z
It all depends on the MHz. Silverthorne's targeted TDP is 0.55 Watts. If that is at 600 MHz clock rate, it'll be within 600 MHz ARM implementations.
The 90nm ARM11 with MMU + TrustZone + cache are .43 to .45 mW/MHz. For 1Ghz that would be around 450mW. The iPhone's 620Mhz around a thrifty 279mW unless I did my math wrong or misread the specs.
http://www.arm.com/products/CPUs/ARM1176.html
Still...I recall reading that Silverthorne was 0.9W a while back so 0.55W is much better than I had expected. Of course it IS 45nm. When the ARMs go 65nm the disparity should open a bit again even if the Silverthorne should outclass the ARM11 on an IPC basis.
Half the battery life of the iPhone is clearly better than 1/4th the battery life...but not quite there yet.
IMHO, let Intel get to 55mW @ 600Mhz for an X86 CPU (10x improvement) and ARM is in big trouble in its home turf, 2 chip implementation or not.
A full-size laptop keyboard with a 1280x640 screen would be usable in coach class!
1280x720
Appleeinstein, if that device is the new Apple UMPC, that is not going to attract many mainstream users. That is too large to be jacket pocket size and looks pretty much like the huge variety of UMPC's.
The reality is why those UMPC's had such weak sales are they are too large to be mobile and be stored in your jacket pocket so they were compared to everything not jacket size. Also virtually all the articles and reviews hated the lack of a touch type keyboard. If Apple tried to sell that type of device it will likely get similar results as to all the UMPC's thus far, weak sales.
What Intel has been promoting for these chips is pocket size devices. What is really missing is the first pocket laptop that can run any desktop application. I could see their prototype device with a thin touch type keyboard more of an optional clamshell design really gain a lot of interest for laptop users wanting a simple pocket alternative.
The UMPC line sunk because it was too big for pocket size but lacked any decent degree of productivity. The DialKey system was distracting and hard to use, and no one could get any kind of speed on it. If the UMPCs had been given a simple pocket touch typing keyboard, they would have been seen as a productivity tool rather than a novelty, and their sales would have been much better.
The history of slate/pen only devices has been terrible. That is what the UMPC's did with their 7" versions which only sold 350,000 units worldwide! Same goes for the tablet pc, etc.
A device that is just small enough to fit in a large coat pocket yet is as large as possible given those restraints so that an easy touch type keybord input can be incorporated is what will really sell like hot cakes. That would be the first ever pocket laptop and if ran full windows programs, even MS fans like me would be an Apple convert.
The only problem with this is that the idea of a "pocket keyboard" is a little bit hard to work with, since the whole point of a pocket keyboard is touch typing, and you can't actually touch type on a keyboard that's less than 7" wide and 3.5" deep. And even if the screen is pillarboxed inside speakers with a clamshell design (to allow for a greater-than 16:10 aspect ratio overall), you still need some physical margins on the keyboard, which places the physical device dimensions at 8" x 4.5" x <1"; that's only barely pocketable. Additionally, you are still restricted to a notebook form factor, which means that the switch-to-slate functionality is missing.
I've been a long time MS user and business man. What most business people hoped for with the UMPC was a simple pocket laptop that enabled them to run business software typically only available in desktop OS. MS pushed everyone to build bulky bible size 7" devices. Guess what IDC just reported only 350,000 UMPC sold worldwide in 07' http://origamiproject.com/forums/thread/29265.aspx
I like that prototype length and depth but I feel a built in touch type keyboard is needed. The UMPC concept is to provide the ability to run full windows programs and thus you are not just viewing files like a PDA, etc but you want to do real computing. Thus a touch type keyboard would be what most would prefer. I would like it to have touch screen so that you have the option of using pen input and that would also eliminate the needs for a mouse.
If Apple does not make the same mistakes of the UMPC market they could really strike a blow to MS. Business users all use laptops and a large percent really do not need a super fast computer nor do they really need a huge screen. I still use an old HP Jornada and I still get business people saying what is that? can it run windows? that would be perfect if it ran windows? Those type of clamshell devices sold over 2.3 million each year and they could only run MS applications not full windows. If Apple makes a modern version that can run Windows applications that would sell tens of millions and would change the mind of many die hard MS users like me.
I've asked 50 business people what they wanted and all but one said they would love to have a modern version of my HP Jornada if it could run Windows. They also said that they prefer a touch type keyboard. If you look at the statistics of laptop sales, there are over 113 million sold this year with a huge base of users whom all prefer a touch type keyboard but a good percent just want a simple pocket laptop.
The Jornada is 5" wide - hardly pocketable. And all of Apple's patents point to a touch type tactile feedback onscreen multitouch smart keyboard.
5" is the full dimension of an iPhone. I think it needs to be a bit bigger. Personally I have been looking for a ~10" 6:9 form factor. Before anyone gags, that is essentially a steno pad notebook. Just look at a steno pad and think of the possibilities for a portable computer. Along the lines of appleeinstein's mockup, but kill all the bezels except across one end, similar to the iPhones button end. Make the bezel end symmetric, the screen flipable and you get iPhone-like bi-handedness for free too.
What do you mean "screen flipable"? And that mockup was using a high-res promo image of the iPod Touch; did you mean making the screen larger to remove the bezel or making the device itself smaller? And landscape is absolutely the way to go in physical button placement for a device of this size. The bezel won't be so large that you can't stretch your thumb over it to manipulate keys on the left edge of the screen when you are holding it in portrait "steno pad" style.
We're so used to large screens, and are always crying out for higher resolutions on even MacBooks, that I question just how many people will enjoy using devices with 768 x 480 screens. There's an interface problem at the least.
If this is a medium sized device, with a screen comfortably smaller than what Ireland wants (I know you're hiding here somewhere!), then that would be small enough to carry around almost everywhere without thinking about it.
The mockup I had was a 7.63" x 4.77" screen, so at 800x500 resolution that's only 105 PPI. At 160 PPI (iPhone) that's 1220x760 resolution. Somewhere in between, perhaps.
Here's the thing: it wouldn't be hard for the Mac Touch to have an updated version of Spaces that works together with multitouch. So you could zoom in within programs just like the iPhone zooms on webpages and such (two-finger pinch), but you could also zoom in on the overall desktop (three-finger pinch). This would take care of the screen size problem. Having a virtual workspace of 15"+ in a 9" screen is priceless. Okay, not priceless, but close to it.
Pocketable would be nice, but I just don't see how Apple is going to fit any kind of workable touch typing keyboard on a pocket-sized device. Even jacket pocket size. And I am pretty sure that a virtual keyboard (more than 7" wide) will be fine for touch typing.
The only non-slate option that Apple might be considering for a UMPC would be the clamshell posted by TMT. Not that bad. The only trouble is that A. the screen aspect ratio is totally not Apple and B. this would require a touchscreen since you have no trackpad, which is very limited if you can only use it like a laptop. I'm sure that touchscreens will start to come standard, but even so it would only be truly useful and worthy of an Apple UMPC if the screen can be used in multiple orientations. And there is no way to use something like that as a slate.
The barcode decodes to "C649WT06S0206", which is the exact same text written in a human readable font along the left side.
Would have been cool to see "Screw you rumor sites" encoded there.
A full-size laptop keyboard with a 1280x640 screen would be usable in coach class!
One of the main reasons tablet format PC's haven't worked up until now is that they were either laden with a full-size/midget keyboard which made them clunky or cramped to use OR they on screen keyboard was crap.
Apple has fixed that problem with an on-screen keyboard that is NOT crap and removed the need for a mouse completely.
If you think a tablet format Mac will have the same interface as your iMac or MacBook you're missing what this device is actually for
Z
With power draws of between .5 and two watts, this is pretty competitive. I'm willing to bet that Intel will be able to move this to higher levels of performance than ARM.
At 2W@600Mhz not really with ARM nearly an order of magnitude thriftier 2 process steps behind them at 0.2W@600Mhz.
Intel will be able to move to higher levels of performance. In 2009/2010 with Moorestown although 200mW is only about par with what ARM has today albeit with better IPC. This is why Intel says this is the chip the iPhone wished it had and didn't say that of Silverthorne. By Moorestown Intel can claim similar power/performance number to ARM with the x86 advantage.
By then ARM will have 1Ghz multi-core versions on 65nm with 45nm in the wings. TI and others plan to go there. A lot of folks will stop at 45nm.
I dunno...WinCE/Windows Mobile is so-so and I'd guess if Intel had a power competitive x86, MS might be just as happy letting Windows Mobile slide into obsolecence and move in another direction for their Mobile OS which is more in line with the desktop technology. If OSX also moves away from ARM then ARM looks kinda meager stuck with an old version of Windows Mobile that MS isn't really working on anymore, Linux and Symbian.
Say what you want about Linux and Symbian dominance/whatever but Apple and MS are the two companies that will have good multi-touch SDKs out. Linux, Symbian and Java are gonna be muddling around without a coherent multi-touch story for a while.
Sales of tablets are less than 1% of portable sales. ULte's are under 8% portable sales. The estimate is that 20 million ULte's may sell in 2008, raising that percentage somewhat.
Going by those numbers, tablets will sell about 2 million units in 2007.
It seems to me that if Apple were to come out with a new format of portable for them, they would look to the larger market, which is the ULte.
If Apple came out with a brilliant ultralight, which is not beyond them, they could conservatively capture 15% (let's not go overboard) of that market. That could be 3 million machines. If the ULte stole one million sales from the MacBook and MBP, that would still net 2 million extra sales, at an average price that would be higher than the MacBooks, though lower than the MBP. This sounds pretty good.
But an 11" tablet would be quite a risk. Tablets have keyboards because manufacturers are not sure about the reception a keyboard-less model would receive. In the past, they didn't do too well.
Vinea and I have had a running disagreement about how well virtual keyboards do in comparison to keyed models. Despite our disagreement, I won't pretend to know what the future will bring. But if he is correct, the virtual keyboard is no where close to being useful for a "real" machine. That is, one where a fair mount of typing is normal.
We would do well to remember the Cube. I'm sure Apple does! I doubt they are willing to take that kind of chance again.
Even if, somehow it did sell, the market is so small that Apple would sell not much more than a couple of hundred thousand machines a year, no matter how brilliant the machine was. That's no better than the sales of the Cube, which was ditched.
If Apple does come out with a bigger machine than the iPhone/iTouch combo, I still think it would be Newton sized, abet with far better technology. That would be a much better platform for Apple to test out a bigger, more general purpose, multitouch keyboard. If that does well, perhaps at a later time, with improvements from feedback from that bigger model, they MIGHT consider a full size unit.
Or, they might add it to to a keyed model, and see what happens there. If it fails as a keyboard, it might still have enough useful advantages so that the computer itself wouldn't fail, but might be boosted from the other features the multitouch might offer.
I meant 11" diagonal screen size, not an 11" device. A 9" desktop would be just lame.
An 11" diagonal screen size would actually make the horizontal width of a device like I have in this image about 11" wide. Corner to corner it would be over 12" but who's counting. A last resort to make this thing very small I'd say would be 10", but no way 9". I still hope, say and think 11", but I would still purchase one @ 10" - no smaller though, I have an iPhone after all.
I'm liking this, my newly imagined methodology:
What's so lame about 9" that is suddenly better with 11"? Especially with Spaces or Spaces + Multitouch. If you're running full Mac OS X....
So many people use laptops for desktop replacement that the notebook form factor isn't going away any time soon. So this device has to be appreciably more portable than a MacBook in order to define its market ('cause that's what Apple products do; they define their own market). A sacrifice of 1.5" horizontal screen real estate isn't really going to make it less productive, but the difference between an 11" diagonal device and a 14" diagonal device is huge. UMPCs failed only because they weren't versatile or powerful enough, not because we needed bigger slates.
Plus they were M$ Windoze, but that's another argument altogether. Are all device families intro'd by M$ doomed to fail until Apple makes something that works? We may never know for sure....
So why is 9" diagonal screen so very bad? I printed it out, taped it to a piece of cardboard, and played around with it - I didn't feel the need for an extra horizontal 1.5".
At 2W@600Mhz not really with ARM nearly an order of magnitude thriftier 2 process steps behind them at 0.2W@600Mhz.
Intel will be able to move to higher levels of performance. In 2009/2010 with Moorestown although 200mW is only about par with what ARM has today albeit with better IPC. This is why Intel says this is the chip the iPhone wished it had and didn't say that of Silverthorne. By Moorestown Intel can claim similar power/performance number to ARM with the x86 advantage.
By then ARM will have 1Ghz multi-core versions on 65nm with 45nm in the wings. TI and others plan to go there. A lot of folks will stop at 45nm.
I dunno...WinCE/Windows Mobile is so-so and I'd guess if Intel had a power competitive x86, MS might be just as happy letting Windows Mobile slide into obsolecence and move in another direction for their Mobile OS which is more in line with the desktop technology. If OSX also moves away from ARM then ARM looks kinda meager stuck with an old version of Windows Mobile that MS isn't really working on anymore, Linux and Symbian.
Say what you want about Linux and Symbian dominance/whatever but Apple and MS are the two companies that will have good multi-touch SDKs out. Linux, Symbian and Java are gonna be muddling around without a coherent multi-touch story for a while.
Do you know if that 2w/600MHz is correct? If it is, then, of course, it's too high. But, if it's closer to ,5W/600MHz, then it's a different story. But, MHz itself is not the wholo story either. But, I'd rather wait until we know more about products that are closer to shipping, with some testing available. I'm sure the tech sites will be delighted to make a comparison between the two competing technologies.
The only problem with this is that the idea of a "pocket keyboard" is a little bit hard to work with, since the whole point of a pocket keyboard is touch typing, and you can't actually touch type on a keyboard that's less than 7" wide and 3.5" deep. And even if the screen is pillarboxed inside speakers with a clamshell design (to allow for a greater-than 16:10 aspect ratio overall), you still need some physical margins on the keyboard, which places the physical device dimensions at 8" x 4.5" x <1"; that's only barely pocketable. Additionally, you are still restricted to a notebook form factor, which means that the switch-to-slate functionality is missing.
If you can get it to 8x4.5x <1 that would be awesome. As you noted the Journada (and NEC for that matter) is much bigger. Being "pocketable" is somewhat relative...he mentions coat pockets. I can probably get my Mobile Pro into a coat pocket...I've put it in my raincoat pocket but mine has largish deep pockets for some reason.
But really...it IS small enough to take everywhere. Its just not that useful anymore since it isn't running either real Windows or a newer version of Windows Mobile.
While a clamshell wouldn't be able to switch to slate it could switch to tablet if you wanted to get fancy with the hinge to be more like a convertible tablet.
Then you have both albeit with a thicker device. Still though, just adding a keyboard isn't going to add a lot of weight depth and you could always go to the idea of docking a slate like 7" slate to a keyboard with a battery and maybe a USB and mini-DVI port as a base.
Good enough to type a real memo/paper on the plane and show Keynote slides when you get there while having the ability to get real thin. The only gotcha is the docking hinge is likely to be tricky to get it to not suck if you want it to also move as oppose to have a fixed angle.
If you can get it to 8x4.5x <1 that would be awesome. As you noted the Journada (and NEC for that matter) is much bigger. Being "pocketable" is somewhat relative...he mentions coat pockets. I can probably get my Mobile Pro into a coat pocket...I've put it in my raincoat pocket but mine has largish deep pockets for some reason.
But really...it IS small enough to take everywhere. Its just not that useful anymore since it isn't running either real Windows or a newer version of Windows Mobile.
While a clamshell wouldn't be able to switch to slate it could switch to tablet if you wanted to get fancy with the hinge to be more like a convertible tablet.
Then you have both albeit with a thicker device. Still though, just adding a keyboard isn't going to add a lot of weight depth and you could always go to the idea of docking a slate like 7" slate to a keyboard with a battery and maybe a USB and mini-DVI port as a base.
Good enough to type a real memo/paper on the plane and show Keynote slides when you get there while having the ability to get real thin. The only gotcha is the docking hinge is likely to be tricky to get it to not suck if you want it to also move as oppose to have a fixed angle.
I really think it has to be "beltable". The Newton was, as I remember, the first really beltable computing device. a newer replacement would be thinner, and lighter, making it even more possible to carry that way.
The only problem I have with a coat pocketable device, is how does one carry it when not wearing that coat?
If you can get it to 8x4.5x <1 that would be awesome. As you noted the Journada (and NEC for that matter) is much bigger. Being "pocketable" is somewhat relative...he mentions coat pockets. I can probably get my Mobile Pro into a coat pocket...I've put it in my raincoat pocket but mine has largish deep pockets for some reason.
But really...it IS small enough to take everywhere. Its just not that useful anymore since it isn't running either real Windows or a newer version of Windows Mobile.
While a clamshell wouldn't be able to switch to slate it could switch to tablet if you wanted to get fancy with the hinge to be more like a convertible tablet.
Then you have both albeit with a thicker device. Still though, just adding a keyboard isn't going to add a lot of weight depth and you could always go to the idea of docking a slate like 7" slate to a keyboard with a battery and maybe a USB and mini-DVI port as a base.
Good enough to type a real memo/paper on the plane and show Keynote slides when you get there while having the ability to get real thin. The only gotcha is the docking hinge is likely to be tricky to get it to not suck if you want it to also move as oppose to have a fixed angle.
It's small enough to take anywhere, that's for sure.
I don't see Apple putting effort into perfecting the rotating hinge; I think it's a bad idea to begin with. It is just ultraprone to malfunction. But I could be wrong!
What's so bad about a virtual keyboard if you can touch type on it without mistakes at 60 wpm from the start (assuming you can type 70+ on a regular keyboard) and theoretically reach 100+ wpm?
I really think it has to be "beltable". The Newton was, as I remember, the first really beltable computing device. a newer replacement would be thinner, and lighter, making it even more possible to carry that way.
The only problem I have with a coat pocketable device, is how does one carry it when not wearing that coat?
Beltable would be a great goal. Can you get a screen small enough to be beltable but large enough to run a touch type virtual keyboard?
Beltable would be a great goal. Can you get a screen small enough to be beltable but large enough to run a touch type virtual keyboard?
That's the problem, isn't it?
I've found that with the iPhone, the vertical keyboard is a bit difficult, but it becomes much easier when typing in Safari with the horizontal orientation, and that will be smaller than either size machine we are looking at. But, I'm not typing as a touch typist when I try it, but two thumb Blackberry style.
60 words a minute is fairly fast, but not very. It might be possible on a somewhat larger board, but it would be a question. I do think that a second generation model will likely perform better than these first generation ones. So much is dependent on the software.
But, can you type at that speed now on one of the mid size keyboards?
It all depends on the MHz. Silverthorne's targeted TDP is 0.55 Watts. If that is at 600 MHz clock rate, it'll be within 600 MHz ARM implementations. I wouldn't expect ARM processors of equivalent performance per Hz to be much lower power consumption than Intel's attempt, and as noted, Intel has a process advantage to provide parity if they are off by a factor of 2 to their competitors. If that's a 1 GHz clock rate, I don't think ARM will be competing very well as Intel's process advantage would be too much.
If those numbers are real and include the entire chip set then they are indeed very good. One has to remember that this is a high integration shot at a SOC. The chip will be including a memory interface and a GPU - plus whatever else. So at the moment I'm taking this too mean that the total power is pretty damn good especially if it is maxing out at two watts. In any event Intels power numbers are always a bit sneaky as you really want to know what the power profile is when driving a farily intensive process(es). Say watching a movie while handling Wifi in back ground.
Either way if the chip set is half as good as is being indicated, then Intel will have made significant advancements for the i86 world. The problem is ARM isn't standing still, you should be able to implement a multiprocessor ARM solution and still end up under Intels power levels and probably end up with a better more responsive system. In any event Intel gets the slot simply because of the instruction set and being good enough.
Having a competitive SoC on the other hand may prove to be trouble for Intel. They're going to have 2 chip solution (Moorestown). That may be one chip too many. They got a really nice Apple-ish concept device though:
The only thing that would be attractive to Apple is the x86 instruction set or a subset of that and Intel's low power processes. These features can't be underestimated though. Frankly I have to agree that a two chip solution will be a hard sell, especially in something along the lines of an iPod. However considering what they have integrated into the main chip, I have to wonder if the second support chip will always be required.
But like everyone else is saying, where's the market? UMPC vendors are providing solutions searching for a problem.
The problem is the manufactures just don't understand people perception of value for the money. At least not until ASUS came out with the Eee PC. The simply answer is that no body would be willing to spend the money asked for the devices. Especially in the corporate world and its mind set of screw the work and buy the cheapest thing that can get the job done.
Edit: Well, Anandtech won't show the images
As a side note I don't like the idea that Intel will get the slot simply because it is good enough and has the i86 component locked up. Alternative hardware seems too be dropping like flies. I expect Power PC to be dead in a couple of years, mainly due ot IBM dropping the ball there. Microchip is taking a shot at MIPs and then your have ARM. I fully expect that in a coule of years we will have a two horse race with Intel and ARM the only survivors. Intel will take just about anything that requires flexibility in user level software leaving the embedded world to ARM.
Dave