<div class="gmail_quote">On Tue, Mar 29, 2011 at 3:07 PM, Raymond Wagner <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:raymond@wagnerrp.com">raymond@wagnerrp.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;">
<br>
The Atom processor is the perfect example of the wrong product at the<br>
right time. Netbooks had just started coming out, and while some ran<br>
Linux, most people wanted to stick with Windows, which requires an x86<br>
processor. The ULV mobile processors are considerably higher<br>
performance than the Atoms while in the same power envelope, but due to<br>
all the crap Intel ripped out of the design, the Atoms were low<br>
transistor count and dirt cheap to manufacture. ARMs at the time had<br>
similar performance, with a small fraction of the power consumption, but<br>
since they couldn't run Windows, the Atom won out. Windows 8 is<br>
expected out sometime next year with ARM support. I don't expect the<br>
Atom line to survive much beyond that.<br></blockquote><div><br>It appears some companies are betting the farm on Atom surviving a little longer:<br><a href="http://www.seamicro.com/?q=node/38">http://www.seamicro.com/?q=node/38</a><br>
<br>:-)<br><br>I'll agree with your reasoning that the only reason MythTV users picked Atom was because of Nvidia's 9400M integration. I was looking at low-cost, low-power Core2 Duo before Atom+Nvidia came along and I've been mostly happy with the choice of ION frontends.<br>
<br>/Brian/ <br></div></div><br>