The reason why I like my MSI Wind Netbook with the 1.6 GHz Intel Atom is that it can be powerful with the right kind of applications and games.

As you all know, all these new applications and games emerging from the market, are just damn bloated because they add new and uninteresting features to their product and they do no effort in optimizing their code for the application to run as efficiently as possible.

Games made on or before 2005 performs well in a netbook. My netbook performs at par with my 1.7 GHz Pentium 4 computer. The most common tasks, like ripping music and movies, can be performed by netbooks (although it is slower compared to modern laptops and desktops, it doesn't really matter because the difference is only a matter from a couple of seconds to a few minutes)

The problem with todays applications that they become so bloated. Games focus more on cheesy graphics and realism instead of replayability. Utilities add more bloat to their programs. A good classic example is Nero.

If you use the Netbook with the right kinds of applications and games, they are just as capable as modern PCs and Laptops.

"But, perhaps Intel still realises it's still a better option to cannibalize one's own products than let others in the market do it for it."

I would have expected so much better writing from a Brit - maybe next time try something like:

"But, perhaps bloody Intel still bloody realises it's still a better bloody option to cannibalize one's own bloody products than let others in the bloody market do it for it."

Quote from the article "Connie Brown, the firm claims it's 'not seeing cannibalizing, but rather that they [Netbooks] are being added as secondary devices'." I know that an anecdote is not data, but this Xmas my friend and his wife both bought Samsung NC10s /WinXP(Atom based Netbooks), my other friend bought an MSI Wind U100 (Atom based netbook) /WinXP, and I bought my girlfriend an Asus EEE 701 /Linux (Celeron based netbook). br No one bought a laptop.

AMD is missing the boat on this one. Netbooks are a new, growing market. They cannot afford to leave Intel do its own thing there. AMD could crank out a 45 nm chip with on-chip graphics and on-chip memory management that would blow away Atom. Why don't they? Netbooks and thin clients can take 100 million of these in a few years. In the age of Web 2.0 and server-centric computing, the CPU power of the client is almost irrelevant. It has been for several years already. The world is not going to Vista and not everyone is a gamer. There is a market for these more efficient chips and AMD is squandering an opportunity.

Sad.

I'm with you on this.

I'm sure there's an application out there (weather forecasting?) that requires quad core processors on a desktop machine, but come on.

Most of the time a single core CPU is playing cards with its mates waiting for you to do something that causes it to get off its behind.

My AAO is a perfect little beasty, and annoyingly, although my main machine runs KDE 4.2 (RC to be precise) and I think it's beautiful, love it, want to marry it etc., Linpus, damn, is quite useful too.

As with so many things, once one has bought into 16 core 10 THz processors with 4 Petabytes zero latency RAM, in a sweet titanium and white gold case, it's a bit difficult to own up to only playing minesweeper on it.

Does any of you have a netbook?
No? try the MSI U100, once you tried it you simply love it.
Heck it replaces my desktop and big notebook most of the time.
Why? as it has a decend keyboard and screen and it's very portable.
The netbook like the U100 is here to stay forgood.

Intel can't afford to throttle back its efforts too much. In this low-power space, it's competing against ARM, which is already firmly established. Anything Intel holds back will simply be ceded by default to ARM.

ARM doesn't run Windows, but then in this market segment that doesn't matter so much. Web browsing and other common Internet connectivity tasks work just as well on Linux. Or even better, because of its lower overheads.

http://digg.com/hardware/Tom_s_Hardware_Atom_230_vs_Celeron_220_vs_Sempron_1100

Is it really possible that an AMD Sempron outperforms the new Intel by Atom by 43% yet only 4 watts higher in idle power

HP had already bunged Sempron into BT factor board mini-towers with (strangely) Nvidia, Vista basic, and then flogs it to rural grams for $200 or $10/month added to DSL connectivity charges over a year. Still a lot of dosh for an obit viewer; but it saves trees from the newspaper barons.
Sylvie makes a good point that we'll see more and more of diminished chip returns. "She drives me crazy
And I cant help [meself]"

Netbooks are like overgrown PDAs. Most of the time they are supplementary to other, larger, computers.

It's fine for AMD to choose to prioritize for higher margins, but Intel is just expanding their product line into ultra-large handhelds, not cannibalizing their laptops.

Also, give AMD credit for directing Intel's attention to this new market as an outgrowth of the OLPC fiasco.

I've seen similar commentaries on the web, though in fairness this is one that admits it's not sure how much cannibalization is taking place.

But folks need to understand the difference between PROFIT MARGIN and REVENUE. If ASP's diminish you will have lower revenue (unless you have higher unit volume to offset that); but it doesn't necessarily mean lower profit margin.

So if atom is "cannibalizing" the low end notebook market (like celeron?); it would likely IMPROVE Intel's profit margin due to the vastly lower unit cost of the atom vs the celeron (even though you are selling it for less money). If it is cannibalizing Core2 notebooks then there is the possibility it is eating into profit margins.

Regardless these simplistic analysis on this that float around on the web are amusing.

The atom is attempting to compete against risc and surprisingly, people are buying it. dammit understands risc processors are superior to anything x86 and is thus leaving that fight to intel.

i honestly think the analysts cant see where the financial slump ends and atom's market begins. people arent buying these things as anything other than supplementary systems to existing desktop or larger laptop hardware. ultra portability and low price is the main draw here. try and fit atom into a desktop format and marketed as a serious solution wont work, microsoft will make this certain with their bloatsoft(tm) OS OEM agreements. there is a potential massive market for atom, but its not going to hurt intel so much as modify their mobile platform strategy. AMD already admitted that they will not directly compete against atom - which is tantamount to rolling open the welcome mat for intel to utterly dominate this ultra portable market....