Even Moorestown looks to be too big and power hungry for a phone device of the slimness that Apple like to create. Look at the size of the iPhone motherboard - that's all of the phone functionality. Look at the size of Moorestown - 333mm^2 motherboard allegedly, and that's without the phone specific stuff.
It just can't compete with integrated SoC ARM-based products.
If Samsung gets tardy or too expensive, then Apple just switch to TI OMAP, etc, as the base platform, or Freescale, or one of the other ARM licensees - there's so many to choose from.
Intel can use their 45nm node to their own advantage of course, but it seems like they're already using that advantage to get to where they hope to be with Moorestown, which is still too large, too power hungry, etc, for the iPhone or iPod Touch. 32nm in 2010 seems to be their best hope.
But consider that ARM is not standing still, and people do like to compare Intel's 2010 offerings with today's competitor's offerings. Samsung's iPhone CPU is 90nm and still works extremely well with good battery life. It also could feature more integration, and I'm sure Samsung are incorporating some of the functionality of the other chips in the iPhone into their next generation SoC design, which will be smaller, lower power, but more powerful.
No. If Apple use Silverthorne it will be for other devices, bigger than an iPhone, smaller than a laptop. Apple TV, almost certainly the next generation will use Silverthorne, it boasts full HD decode of H264. Make WoW an AppleTV download as well, with bluetooth keyboard and mice, and sales will actually get to being okay. Maybe Apple will release their own TV range, with built-in Apple TV functionality.
What else? I think that Apple will want to stay at least dual-core for all full Mac OS X based products. However a tablet with reduced functionality, or a very small notebook (smaller than the rumoured one) would also be ideal.
You can speculate all day however. Silverthorne will be a very popular products amongst many device makers, and should kill off VIA's x86 hopes.
Life as well as product design are full of trade offs.
While ARM has it's advantages keeping all the software x86 will help Apple down the road as it will decrease costs associated with essentially two system softwares to support. the article makes it sound its an advantge haveing both x86 and ppc code but I doubt apple see it that way. I suspect they'll be glad to drop support for ppc code.
Silverthorne doesn't have to be better than ARM , only just as good.
This is close to a full sized tablet, and I just don't see a market for such a thing. I can't imagine what it would be used for in a general sense. It's simply too big to carry around, and too small for any serious work that Mac people do, such as graphics. The CPU/GPU won't be powerful enough for that. For fun, where would you take it?
I think the idea of the Newton-like device would be the largest device people would be willing to take everywhere with them, as it could be worn on the belt.
Anything larger has to be carried somehow. People will think, "Do I really want to carry this now?" The answer will be no, more often than one would imagine. Once it isn't taken, it becomes easier to think that way the next time, until it's being left at home most of the time.
In order for something like this to be used often, it must be with one. Only if it can be taken without using one's hands, or having some case over the shoulder which has to be put down, and then watched, will it be taken all of the time, the way we take our cells or iPods.
i just don't see any practicality in an in-between device such as an 11" screen model.
I see, you're talking more about the size than the concept.
I just know that I would love to have a sub-laptop-size device with no hard drive or optical drive, that could output keynote presentations, plug into a keyboard and mouse if necessary, and had a more advanced multitouch OS with multitouch versions of iLife and iWork.
But if one with, say, a 6" screen had the same functionality, I'd take that over the larger one any day.
This is close to a full sized tablet, and I just don't see a market for such a thing. I can't imagine what it would be used for in a general sense. It's simply too big to carry around, and too small for any serious work that Mac people do, such as graphics. The CPU/GPU won't be powerful enough for that. For fun, where would you take it?
I think the idea of the Newton-like device would be the largest device people would be willing to take everywhere with them, as it could be worn on the belt.
Anything larger has to be carried somehow. People will think, "Do I really want to carry this now?" The answer will be no, more often than one would imagine. Once it isn't taken, it becomes easier to think that way the next time, until it's being left at home most of the time.
In order for something like this to be used often, it must be with one. Only if it can be taken without using one's hands, or having some case over the shoulder which has to be put down, and then watched, will it be taken all of the time, the way we take our cells or iPods.
i just don't see any practicality in an in-between device such as an 11" screen model.
I think the biggest you could get with such a device would be 5.5"x8.5". This would put it right in the sweet spot of the majority of paper-based planners.
I think the biggest you could get with such a device would be 5.5"x8.5". This would put it right in the sweet spot of the majority of paper-based planners.
This is about what you BRussell, and I are talking about.
I also think that the 11" model would cost far too much, and would have very poor battery life.
Even the small UMPC's out there have poor battery life. For good battery life in a larger model, OLEDS would be needed, but that size isn't practical yet, and may not be until sometime 2009.
Life as well as product design are full of trade offs.
While ARM has it's advantages keeping all the software x86 will help Apple down the road as it will decrease costs associated with essentially two system softwares to support. the article makes it sound its an advantge haveing both x86 and ppc code but I doubt apple see it that way. I suspect they'll be glad to drop support for ppc code.
Silverthorne doesn't have to be better than ARM , only just as good.
Even at the low end, it's still 3-7 times more power hungry than ARM at 90nm. ARM11 is somewhere between .18 and .43 mW/Mhz which 620Mhz. At iPhone speeds it's about .07 to .17W as opposed to the .5W quoted for Silverthorne's lowest at 900Mhz which is almost certainly overkill.
That's leaving aside any gains that can be made by integrating ARM11 cores with other features. Intel still has a way to go.
But anyway, the fanboism was obvious as soon as you knew the author of the article.
An iphone/ipod with x86 and 3d party apps would be amazing. Still, you obviously cant just drag and drop applications from osx onto your iPhone, but we would be "closer" to being able to do so.
good battery life would come in the 4th generation
The Eee PC does not have a stylus or any touchscreen. While there are examples online of people hacking one together they are not sold this way.
The only way you can hack a touchscreen is if the device has a physical touchscreen already, but no software to allow its use, which would make no sense. Otherwise, you need to get a kit that adds a touchscreen to the front of the screen, plus install the software for it.
The only way you can hack a touchscreen is if the device has a physical touchscreen already, but no software to allow its use, which would make no sense. Otherwise, you need to get a kit that adds a touchscreen to the front of the screen, plus install the software for it.
Actually, the guy ripped out the LCD panel and stuck a touchscreen he bought on eBay that was the same size. Then used XP on it but I'd guess a Linux driver wouldn't be out the question either if you're prepared to hack hardware that way.
Life as well as product design are full of trade offs.
While ARM has it's advantages keeping all the software x86 will help Apple down the road as it will decrease costs associated with essentially two system softwares to support. the article makes it sound its an advantge haveing both x86 and ppc code but I doubt apple see it that way. I suspect they'll be glad to drop support for ppc code.
Silverthorne doesn't have to be better than ARM , only just as good.
Well it's going to be like 5x the power consumption, 10x the motherboard area, 2x the cost, requiring more discrete components due to a lack of integration and functionality for phone use. And Samsung's next generation ARM based SoC will be out in the same timeframe - possibly in time for the 3G iPhone - redefining the competitive landscape again.
At least Apple have a common platform for both platforms. They've done all the hard work now. It's probably a different build script for "make iphoneos" "make appleos" "make macosx" etc. That's disregarding the benefits of having to have your code tested against different architectures, it helps to reduce bad code. Nevermind that the majority of the support is down to the different APIs, interfaces, etc that the software provides, and that won't change if it switches to x86.
Actually, the guy ripped out the LCD panel and stuck a touchscreen he bought on eBay that was the same size. Then used XP on it but I'd guess a Linux driver wouldn't be out the question either if you're prepared to hack hardware that way.
The Eee PC does not have a stylus or any touchscreen. While there are examples online of people hacking one together they are not sold this way.
Probably got his wires crossed with a similar project by a different manufacturer. The Via NanoBook reference design. One variant of their proposal includes a touchscreen option.
I think the biggest you could get with such a device would be 5.5"x8.5". This would put it right in the sweet spot of the majority of paper-based planners.
Absolutely 100%.
The 5 x 8" Moleskine notebooks are a perfect size for instance; Something that's 'carry-able' in that mid-sized Filofax/organiser area would be a viable, and more importantly a desirable product anything bigger might as well be a laptop.
This is close to a full sized tablet, and I just don't see a market for such a thing. I can't imagine what it would be used for in a general sense. It's simply too big to carry around, and too small for any serious work that Mac people do, such as graphics. The CPU/GPU won't be powerful enough for that. For fun, where would you take it?.
I have an application which has a limited market, but I think it would be invaluable. I attend a lot of trade shows. As an exhibitor, I'd like to have all my company's videos, data sheets, literature, etc on a moderate size tablet (10-12", perhaps larger) which I could show to prospective customers in real time. Properly configured, you could email the customer the data sheets they wanted as they stood there.
I have an application which has a limited market, but I think it would be invaluable. I attend a lot of trade shows. As an exhibitor, I'd like to have all my company's videos, data sheets, literature, etc on a moderate size tablet (10-12", perhaps larger) which I could show to prospective customers in real time. Properly configured, you could email the customer the data sheets they wanted as they stood there.
That's not something that would require a tablet. It can be done just as well on an ultralight, perhaps even better. Weight wouldn't even matter, as you are showing from a booth.
Even if it were a good idea, it wouldn't sell more than a few. We're talking about sales that need to be 100 thousand a quarter, at least.
I'm not saying I don't LIKE it. I do. I just don't think it will happen.
So you like the idea? Sounds like you may like the actual product then. You say it wont happen, but if it did I'd bet you think about buying one. Therefore if Apple is thinking like that, they will want to get on producing these things.
"Take some work with you." I want to.
I'd pay $1199 for one of these things, and I reckon a lot more people would too, "at least" enough to warrant Apple producing it. Done right, this device could be a "HUGE" hit. And a revolution!
Comments
I know you do. You keep putting it up.
I'm not saying I don't LIKE it. I do. I just don't think it will happen.
I don't think this will come to pass, either. I think the device will need to be more laptop-like than iPhone to succeed.
Why do you say that? I think something like it is pretty likely, if not now then sometime in 2008.
It is 2008.
Even Moorestown looks to be too big and power hungry for a phone device of the slimness that Apple like to create. Look at the size of the iPhone motherboard - that's all of the phone functionality. Look at the size of Moorestown - 333mm^2 motherboard allegedly, and that's without the phone specific stuff.
It just can't compete with integrated SoC ARM-based products.
If Samsung gets tardy or too expensive, then Apple just switch to TI OMAP, etc, as the base platform, or Freescale, or one of the other ARM licensees - there's so many to choose from.
Intel can use their 45nm node to their own advantage of course, but it seems like they're already using that advantage to get to where they hope to be with Moorestown, which is still too large, too power hungry, etc, for the iPhone or iPod Touch. 32nm in 2010 seems to be their best hope.
But consider that ARM is not standing still, and people do like to compare Intel's 2010 offerings with today's competitor's offerings. Samsung's iPhone CPU is 90nm and still works extremely well with good battery life. It also could feature more integration, and I'm sure Samsung are incorporating some of the functionality of the other chips in the iPhone into their next generation SoC design, which will be smaller, lower power, but more powerful.
No. If Apple use Silverthorne it will be for other devices, bigger than an iPhone, smaller than a laptop. Apple TV, almost certainly the next generation will use Silverthorne, it boasts full HD decode of H264. Make WoW an AppleTV download as well, with bluetooth keyboard and mice, and sales will actually get to being okay. Maybe Apple will release their own TV range, with built-in Apple TV functionality.
What else? I think that Apple will want to stay at least dual-core for all full Mac OS X based products. However a tablet with reduced functionality, or a very small notebook (smaller than the rumoured one) would also be ideal.
You can speculate all day however. Silverthorne will be a very popular products amongst many device makers, and should kill off VIA's x86 hopes.
Life as well as product design are full of trade offs.
While ARM has it's advantages keeping all the software x86 will help Apple down the road as it will decrease costs associated with essentially two system softwares to support. the article makes it sound its an advantge haveing both x86 and ppc code but I doubt apple see it that way. I suspect they'll be glad to drop support for ppc code.
Silverthorne doesn't have to be better than ARM , only just as good.
This is close to a full sized tablet, and I just don't see a market for such a thing. I can't imagine what it would be used for in a general sense. It's simply too big to carry around, and too small for any serious work that Mac people do, such as graphics. The CPU/GPU won't be powerful enough for that. For fun, where would you take it?
I think the idea of the Newton-like device would be the largest device people would be willing to take everywhere with them, as it could be worn on the belt.
Anything larger has to be carried somehow. People will think, "Do I really want to carry this now?" The answer will be no, more often than one would imagine. Once it isn't taken, it becomes easier to think that way the next time, until it's being left at home most of the time.
In order for something like this to be used often, it must be with one. Only if it can be taken without using one's hands, or having some case over the shoulder which has to be put down, and then watched, will it be taken all of the time, the way we take our cells or iPods.
i just don't see any practicality in an in-between device such as an 11" screen model.
I see, you're talking more about the size than the concept.
I just know that I would love to have a sub-laptop-size device with no hard drive or optical drive, that could output keynote presentations, plug into a keyboard and mouse if necessary, and had a more advanced multitouch OS with multitouch versions of iLife and iWork.
But if one with, say, a 6" screen had the same functionality, I'd take that over the larger one any day.
It is 2008.
Whaaaa...?
This is close to a full sized tablet, and I just don't see a market for such a thing. I can't imagine what it would be used for in a general sense. It's simply too big to carry around, and too small for any serious work that Mac people do, such as graphics. The CPU/GPU won't be powerful enough for that. For fun, where would you take it?
I think the idea of the Newton-like device would be the largest device people would be willing to take everywhere with them, as it could be worn on the belt.
Anything larger has to be carried somehow. People will think, "Do I really want to carry this now?" The answer will be no, more often than one would imagine. Once it isn't taken, it becomes easier to think that way the next time, until it's being left at home most of the time.
In order for something like this to be used often, it must be with one. Only if it can be taken without using one's hands, or having some case over the shoulder which has to be put down, and then watched, will it be taken all of the time, the way we take our cells or iPods.
i just don't see any practicality in an in-between device such as an 11" screen model.
I think the biggest you could get with such a device would be 5.5"x8.5". This would put it right in the sweet spot of the majority of paper-based planners.
I think the biggest you could get with such a device would be 5.5"x8.5". This would put it right in the sweet spot of the majority of paper-based planners.
This is about what you BRussell, and I are talking about.
I also think that the 11" model would cost far too much, and would have very poor battery life.
Even the small UMPC's out there have poor battery life. For good battery life in a larger model, OLEDS would be needed, but that size isn't practical yet, and may not be until sometime 2009.
Life as well as product design are full of trade offs.
While ARM has it's advantages keeping all the software x86 will help Apple down the road as it will decrease costs associated with essentially two system softwares to support. the article makes it sound its an advantge haveing both x86 and ppc code but I doubt apple see it that way. I suspect they'll be glad to drop support for ppc code.
Silverthorne doesn't have to be better than ARM , only just as good.
Even at the low end, it's still 3-7 times more power hungry than ARM at 90nm. ARM11 is somewhere between .18 and .43 mW/Mhz which 620Mhz. At iPhone speeds it's about .07 to .17W as opposed to the .5W quoted for Silverthorne's lowest at 900Mhz which is almost certainly overkill.
That's leaving aside any gains that can be made by integrating ARM11 cores with other features. Intel still has a way to go.
But anyway, the fanboism was obvious as soon as you knew the author of the article.
good battery life would come in the 4th generation
The Eee PC does not have a stylus or any touchscreen. While there are examples online of people hacking one together they are not sold this way.
The only way you can hack a touchscreen is if the device has a physical touchscreen already, but no software to allow its use, which would make no sense. Otherwise, you need to get a kit that adds a touchscreen to the front of the screen, plus install the software for it.
The only way you can hack a touchscreen is if the device has a physical touchscreen already, but no software to allow its use, which would make no sense. Otherwise, you need to get a kit that adds a touchscreen to the front of the screen, plus install the software for it.
Actually, the guy ripped out the LCD panel and stuck a touchscreen he bought on eBay that was the same size. Then used XP on it but I'd guess a Linux driver wouldn't be out the question either if you're prepared to hack hardware that way.
http://jkkmobile.blogspot.com/2007/1...ch-screen.html
Life as well as product design are full of trade offs.
While ARM has it's advantages keeping all the software x86 will help Apple down the road as it will decrease costs associated with essentially two system softwares to support. the article makes it sound its an advantge haveing both x86 and ppc code but I doubt apple see it that way. I suspect they'll be glad to drop support for ppc code.
Silverthorne doesn't have to be better than ARM , only just as good.
Well it's going to be like 5x the power consumption, 10x the motherboard area, 2x the cost, requiring more discrete components due to a lack of integration and functionality for phone use. And Samsung's next generation ARM based SoC will be out in the same timeframe - possibly in time for the 3G iPhone - redefining the competitive landscape again.
At least Apple have a common platform for both platforms. They've done all the hard work now. It's probably a different build script for "make iphoneos" "make appleos" "make macosx" etc. That's disregarding the benefits of having to have your code tested against different architectures, it helps to reduce bad code. Nevermind that the majority of the support is down to the different APIs, interfaces, etc that the software provides, and that won't change if it switches to x86.
Actually, the guy ripped out the LCD panel and stuck a touchscreen he bought on eBay that was the same size. Then used XP on it but I'd guess a Linux driver wouldn't be out the question either if you're prepared to hack hardware that way.
http://jkkmobile.blogspot.com/2007/1...ch-screen.html
That's the kind of thing I'm talking about, but much more drastic even.
Interesting for a hobby, but not much real world use.
The Eee PC does not have a stylus or any touchscreen. While there are examples online of people hacking one together they are not sold this way.
Probably got his wires crossed with a similar project by a different manufacturer. The Via NanoBook reference design. One variant of their proposal includes a touchscreen option.
I think the biggest you could get with such a device would be 5.5"x8.5". This would put it right in the sweet spot of the majority of paper-based planners.
Absolutely 100%.
The 5 x 8" Moleskine notebooks are a perfect size for instance; Something that's 'carry-able' in that mid-sized Filofax/organiser area would be a viable, and more importantly a desirable product anything bigger might as well be a laptop.
This is close to a full sized tablet, and I just don't see a market for such a thing. I can't imagine what it would be used for in a general sense. It's simply too big to carry around, and too small for any serious work that Mac people do, such as graphics. The CPU/GPU won't be powerful enough for that. For fun, where would you take it?.
I have an application which has a limited market, but I think it would be invaluable. I attend a lot of trade shows. As an exhibitor, I'd like to have all my company's videos, data sheets, literature, etc on a moderate size tablet (10-12", perhaps larger) which I could show to prospective customers in real time. Properly configured, you could email the customer the data sheets they wanted as they stood there.
I have an application which has a limited market, but I think it would be invaluable. I attend a lot of trade shows. As an exhibitor, I'd like to have all my company's videos, data sheets, literature, etc on a moderate size tablet (10-12", perhaps larger) which I could show to prospective customers in real time. Properly configured, you could email the customer the data sheets they wanted as they stood there.
That's not something that would require a tablet. It can be done just as well on an ultralight, perhaps even better. Weight wouldn't even matter, as you are showing from a booth.
Even if it were a good idea, it wouldn't sell more than a few. We're talking about sales that need to be 100 thousand a quarter, at least.
I know you do. You keep putting it up.
I'm not saying I don't LIKE it. I do. I just don't think it will happen.
So you like the idea? Sounds like you may like the actual product then. You say it wont happen, but if it did I'd bet you think about buying one. Therefore if Apple is thinking like that, they will want to get on producing these things.
"Take some work with you." I want to.
I'd pay $1199 for one of these things, and I reckon a lot more people would too, "at least" enough to warrant Apple producing it. Done right, this device could be a "HUGE" hit. And a revolution!