Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Intel Portables Hardware

Intel's Atom — First Benchmarks and a Full PC Review 155

Posted by timothy
from the nuclear-power dept.
Barence writes "PC Pro has received, benchmarked and discussed the first Intel Atom processor to be seen in the wild. A full analysis of the Atom processor itself is accompanied by a full review of the first PC — yes it's a PC, not a laptop — to use one. The benchmark results are pretty much as expected, but it's the power savings that really excite. And as a rep from the PC maker, Tranquil, joked — they could have left the Atom CPU uncooled if they'd really wanted to prove a point, as it's the old graphics chip that produces 70% of the heat coming from the motherboard. Exciting times ahead for the upcoming Atom-based Eee and friends." MojoKid was one of several readers, too, to mention the upcoming Eee Box mini-desktop from Asus (also Atom-based), which is supposed to start from $299, writing "although the actual dimensions are listed, the image from ASUS' booth really gives a sense of scale. In the picture, the Eee Box is standing next to a paperback book."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Intel's Atom — First Benchmarks and a Full PC Review

Comments Filter:
  • by morgan_greywolf (835522) * on Tuesday June 03, 2008 @07:59AM (#23636869) Homepage Journal
    I think AMD's competitive processor should be called the 'Eve'.

    That is all.

  • by IYagami (136831) on Tuesday June 03, 2008 @08:03AM (#23636919)
    More info and benchmarks at http://anandtech.com/systems/showdoc.aspx?i=3321 [anandtech.com]
    • The Atom benefits hugely in multithreaded tests, where it can make use of HT to keep the pipeline full.

      The single 128-bit SSE unit in the Atom compares favorably with the dual 64-bit SSE units in the Pentium M, which is why the Atom approaches performance parity with the similarly-clocked Dothan in the media tests (video, audio). The only processor to maintain a significant lead is the one with TWO 128-bit SSE units, the Celeron. Media performance is one place the Atom will not falter; it is very impressi
  • Small Server (Score:1, Insightful)

    by bhima (46039) *
    Someone wake me up when theyâ(TM)re selling a board which has a few GigE network ports (and can really saturate them), at least 4 SATA II ports, and one PCIe Slot. I don't really want some old inefficient 3D video accelerator either.
    • Re: (Score:1, Insightful)

      by oodaloop (1229816)
      How does a 5-digit /. user ID talking about desired computer specs qualify as troll? What the hell is going on around here lately?
      • Re:Small Server (Score:5, Insightful)

        by thanatos_x (1086171) on Tuesday June 03, 2008 @09:00AM (#23637631)
        Probably because...

        1. There is a correlation between seniority and intelligence/common sense in many things. There may and can be outliers. Out of 99,999 users, you'd be bound to find a few trolls.
        2. More likely it's because the poster seems to not care at all about a tiny 2W processor with reasonable performance. It's a fairly big step, but his choice of wording suggests he's completely... indignant.

        "Car manufacturer comes out with car that gets 230 mpg"

        Pfft. I'll care when they do that and give me a nice 0-60 time and 120 top speed. Oh, and when they seat 4 people.
        OR
        That's impressive, but the real test will be to see if they can make the vehicle usable, maintaining enough appeal to overcome American bias to large, powerful cars.

        They say the same things, but there's a world of difference between how they come off.
        • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

          by bhima (46039) *
          No... I don't really get mating a 2 watt processor (which I want) with a inefficient 3D video chip (which I do not want). I do recognize that what I want network & storage wise is probably a tiny fraction of the atom market but I still hold out hope that some more enthusiastic slashdot reader will jump in and link to the board I want buy. It certainly has happened before... more than once.

          BTW: VW is claiming they will be making their "1 Liter Car" in 2010... 1 liter per 100km is just over 235 MPG. I
          • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

            by Missing_dc (1074809)
            The pictured unit from TFA looks to be just small enough to fit in the trunk of that "1 liter car"(which btw, does look good. I want one.)
          • by powerlord (28156)

            BTW: VW is claiming they will be making their "1 Liter Car" in 2010... 1 liter per 100km is just over 235 MPG. I plan to buy one. I think they're very cool and if you haven't seen it you should check it out

            Okay ... I'll admit, I don't work with metric units regularly, so I was curious.

            100 KM = ~62.1371192237 Miles.
            1 Liter = ~0.219969248299 Gallons.

            So, a full gallon should go ~4.54609 times the distance or ~282.48093633 Miles.

            Thats almost 50 Miles "Just over 235 MPG"!

            Yes, I know there are probably other fac

          • Ah. Well, that's a third option that makes a fair amount of sense. Hopefully they'll pick out a better graphics chipset at some point.

            And yes, I didn't pluck 230 randomly out of the air, though I did mis-remember the number slightly :) It's an incredible vehicle, and depending on the cost it would make a good every day city car. At that efficiency, gas could go to 20$ and you would still pay less per mile than most mid-sized cars do today.

            It'd be nice, but safety will be a concern. It's fairly safe for it's
      • by lysdexia (897) on Tuesday June 03, 2008 @09:19AM (#23637921) Homepage
        That's the problem with young geeks these days. No respect for their elders. What with their "pwned" and their "kthxbye" and their fancy-dan slidey-outie phones, why some of them barely have guts! And their beards! Little whispy things ... Makes me want to bust the keyboard off my Kaypro and come out swingin'! Just be glad papaw had his adderall this morning.
        • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 03, 2008 @09:28AM (#23638081)
          Wow, I didn't know there were any 3-digiters left alive. Since there's only a few WWI vets left, I figured you were all long since dead.
        • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

          by Missing_dc (1074809)
          That's the problem with young geeks these days. No respect for their elders. What with their "pwned" and their "kthxbye" and their fancy-dan slidey-outie phones, why some of them barely have guts! And their beards! Little whispy things ... Makes me want to bust the keyboard off my Kaypro and come out swingin'! Just be glad papaw had his adderall this morning

          Ooooh, tell us another story, Grandpa! Maybe about walking to school or making electricity from lemons, then making lemonade cause wasting is a sin.
      • by Shelled (81123)
        Lately?
    • by Tomba (176108)
      Have you checked VIA's Epia SN? Don't know about the saturate part though =).
      • by bhima (46039) *
        As I understand things currently VIA doesn't have something that has a few GigE ports and will honestly saturate them.

        Maybe someone will prove me wrong!?
        • by jabuzz (182671)
          Have you looked at the VIA NAS 7800 [via.com.tw]?

          I don't know if it honestly saturates the dual GbE ports, but it does have either 4 or 8 SATA ports, and a compact flash socket for good measure. Unfortunately it has a Integrated VIA UniChromeâ Pro graphics with 2D/3D and MPEG-2 video accelerators, a serial console would be far more useful.

          Even more unfortunately I can only find it on sale as part of a development kit for 300GBP, which is rather expensive.

          Mind you it has occurred to me recently that even if it could
    • In the subject you say "Small Server" and further you say you want efficient 3D video acceleration. I don't get that. Why does a server need 3D video acceleration? Isn't a serial console enough for you?
      • by bhima (46039) *
        I *don't* want some old inefficient 3D video accelerator! A console is all I need!
        • I thought you implied, by saying that you *didn't* want an "old inefficient 3D video accelerator", that you wanted a "modern efficient 3D accelerator". Especially, because you specified it, and they said you needed PCIe. What's the PCIe going to be for?

          I understand the need for a low-power, multi-GigE-NIC, multi-SATA server... However, I was a bit mystified that you needed an extra PCIe. Oh, a few USB would be nice to use USB harddisks for backup or something....

          So, contrary to what you might think, we

          • by bhima (46039) *
            This is what happens when I post in meetings. Now to clarify:

            These boards described have the intel GMA950 (which as far as I know isn't meant to be a low power device). I don't really get that... some super efficient low power chip, with a desktop chipset. I would have expected them to use some laptop or MID chipset, however owing to the multitude of Intel chipsets I don't really know which one that would be.

            Personally I would be happiest with a micro watt 2D VGA sort of device.

            Now as far as PCIe goes...
    • by drsmithy (35869)

      Someone wake me up when theyÃ(TM)re selling a board which has a few GigE network ports (and can really saturate them), at least 4 SATA II ports, and one PCIe Slot. I don't really want some old inefficient 3D video accelerator either.

      Here. [justfuckinggoogleit.com] Get yourself a Core2 capable Mini-ITX motherboard with two gigE ports, 6 SATA ports (port-multiplier capable as well) and a PCIe x16 slot.

      If you need more, you're well beyond "small server". Heck, that's more than enough grunt for the average office fileserver.

      • by bhima (46039) *
        Core2 isn't doing 2 watts... yet.

        but I'll probably windup with something similar.
        • by drsmithy (35869)

          Core2 isn't doing 2 watts... yet.

          Low end and mobile derivatives, however, are in single figures (or damn close to it) - and they provide a lot more processing power, which you're going to need if you want to get anywhere near "saturating" multiple gigE links.

          Which brings up another point. For that sort of network bandwidth, you're going to need 2-4 drives, depending on how much redundancy you want. At ~15W each, they're going to chew up a fair swag of electricity on their own. At least, I assume you're

          • by bhima (46039) *
            I recognize that my requirements are contradictory. However... I require that the server be available pretty much all the the time and for the most part it is not connected to mains power. It's only sometimes that a few workstations connect to it via both wired and wireless network and want to transfer multiple gigabytes of data in short order.

            I also recognize that other solutions may offer a better alternative but felt that those were no really on topic. If it can be done at 2 watts great otherwise I'll
          • by jabuzz (182671)
            My home server with 100GB RAID1, draws about 22W or about 30W at the wall because it has a cheap mains to 12V adapter while I do a battery backed PSU.

            There are 320GB 2.5" drives at 7200RPM with a 24x7 rating coming on the market now. The power consumption for these is about 2~2.5W in use, with 5W at spin up.

            If I could get an Atom based board with no audio, no video, no PS/2 etc. I could probably shave another 5W of the total.

            As for CPU, I had a dual processor 2.8GHz Xeon at my last place of work, proper ser
            • by drsmithy (35869)

              There are 320GB 2.5" drives at 7200RPM with a 24x7 rating coming on the market now. The power consumption for these is about 2~2.5W in use, with 5W at spin up.

              At twice the price of a 3.5" hard disk. How much is eleectricity where you live ?

              Not to mention, if performance isn't important (which it clearly isn't in a discussion about Atom-based machines and 2.5" hard disks) and power consumption is, why wouldn't you just get a cheaper 5400rpm drive that uses less power ? For the end user, it's going to gi

        • by toddestan (632714)
          Core 2 is close. Some of the Core 2 Solo processors are down to 5.5W. Sadly, I don't think they have a standard interface so you can't just buy an off-the-shelf motherboard and use it.
  • by JSBiff (87824) on Tuesday June 03, 2008 @08:13AM (#23637023) Journal
    Ok, I don't remember for sure if I have the name right, but I remember, back about 1998 or 2000, there was a company showcasing these tiny, power efficient PC's which had a form-factor somewhat similar to that Eee mini-PC in the linked image from the article. I think they used an ARM, or maybe it was Alpha, RISC processor, and came with some Linux distro.

    I think the main downfall of that endeavor was that 1) the computers weren't Intel compatible, or Mac compatible, so you had to use Linux or BSD on them (and would have needed an Intel emulator on top of that to run any binaries compiled for Intel), I think, in order to keep them small and relatively cheap (they were still, I think, like 600 bucks, so kind of expensive, considering you could get generic PC's for about 400) and 3) the company that produced them was too small and simply lacked the funding necessary to survive in any case.

    Still, I've always thought tiny-form factor PCs were nifty. If you could get one that was powerful enough, with decent enough video, you could use them as the basis for your own set-top boxes, routers, and things like that, or even just a small, low-power, inconspicuous server.
    • by maxume (22995)
      Generic PCs were not $400 in 1998. A piece of average cost upwards of $1,000, something decent quite a lot more. Maybe $800 in 2000.
      • by bhtooefr (649901)
        I distinctly recall my parents getting a Cyrix MediaGX-based system from Micro Center for $499 in November of 1997. ;)

        And that was the regular price.

        Not saying that it was any good, mind you, but it was $499. And I think the lowest-end model was $399.

        (166MHz CPU that's slower than a 60MHz Pentium? Check. 16 MB RAM... but 2 MB was stolen by the integrated graphics? Check. Proprietary 3" Western Digital hard drive (not 3.5", not 2.5"?) Check.)
    • by bhima (46039) * <Bhima.Pandava@gma i l . com> on Tuesday June 03, 2008 @08:19AM (#23637075) Journal
      It was pegasus
      • by bhima (46039) *
        I didn't mean to be funny I just misspelled it. I meant "pegasos" as in: www.pegasosppc.com
    • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

      you could use them as the basis for your own set-top boxes, routers, and things like that, or even just a small, low-power, inconspicuous server.

      Ever heard of Soekris [soekris.com]? That's what you are asking for....

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by isfry (101853)
      those were the DEC boxes I think they were 166 Mhz Alpha's and they shipped with NT Alpha which was pretty much worthless unless you really liked to re-compile all programs. and didn't need support past SP4. so most boxes ended up with Linux pretty soon. Didn't Slashdot run on one in the early years?
      • You're thinking of the Multia. It supported Windows NT, Digital Unix (what we now call Tru64), and OpenVMS. When Linux was ported to Alpha, it was supported too. NT on Alpha had support all the way to SP6a. With the exception of Outlook, most of the Microsoft products of the day were available in both i386 and Alpha.
    • by johnw (3725) on Tuesday June 03, 2008 @08:47AM (#23637427)
      I think you're thinking of the NetWinder. They were ARM based. I have a couple in my store.
      • They were cool looking little boxes. I might have to buy me one someday soon (before you can't find em anymore). I think I remember they were bought up by Corel at some point? Did Corel do anything with the Netwinder? As far as I can tell, Corel is one of those companies where good products go to die.
    • by BJH (11355) on Tuesday June 03, 2008 @09:08AM (#23637769)
      You're mixing up two similar (in form factor) machines, that were otherwise quite different in architecture and time of availability.

      One is the Alpha-based DEC Multia/UDB [obsolyte.com], from way back in the mid '90s. LITTLE-KNOWN FACT: Slashdot was originally run on one of these.

      The other is the StrongARM-based Netwinder [linuxjournal.com], which appeared around the year 2000.

      They did have one thing in common other than their size - they both tended to overheat if they weren't stood up vertically.
      • I wasn't really mixing up the two. In fact, somehow I hadn't noticed the DEC Multia before. I was thinking of the Netwinder, but just misremembered the name. I remember going to a Linux conference somewhere, and seeing the Netwinder's being demod. Part of me lusted after it, because it was so small and power efficient. But, ultimately, I remember looking at the price and thinking to myself I could get a pretty decent PC with significantly better specs than the netwinder (in terms of graphics, RAM, HDD) for
    • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

      by coredog64 (1001648)
      You've made a horrible mistake. You've used "Alpha" and "power efficient" in the same sentence without including a "not" ;)

      The Sidewinder was based on an ARM processor.
  • by BACPro (206388) on Tuesday June 03, 2008 @08:20AM (#23637095)
    From TFA

    Microsoft won't allow PCs to be sold with > 80GB HDDs preloaded with Windows XP and thus the top end configuration is only available with Linux.


    Anybody have any idea why Microsoft would want to limit the amount of HDD space on a machine?
    • Anybody have any idea why Microsoft would want to limit the amount of HDD space on a machine?

      They probably assume people will go for the most hard-drive space when they purchase their computer. So it is probably a ploy to get these people to buy a copy of XP separately and raise sales.
    • by RManning (544016) on Tuesday June 03, 2008 @08:44AM (#23637367) Homepage

      Anybody have any idea why Microsoft would want to limit the amount of HDD space on a machine?

      I have no URL to back this up, but I know M$ only allows XP to be preloaded on low-end PCs. This is to keep the Vista numbers up. Maybe that's why?

    • by harry666t (1062422) <(moc.liamg) (ta) (t666yrrah)> on Tuesday June 03, 2008 @08:45AM (#23637389)
      > Anybody have any idea why Microsoft would want
      > to limit the amount of HDD space on a machine?

      Don't you know? MS would like to encourage users to switch to alternative operating systems. Bill Gates himself said:

      > "Guys like us avoid monopolies. We like to compete."

      They're crafting a challenge for themselves (:
    • by mikeabbott420 (744514) on Tuesday June 03, 2008 @08:46AM (#23637407) Journal
      A crude way to force more powerful machines to use Vista. They can't use Vista levels of bloat in the emerging niche of MIDs ( or whatever they're called this week) but they still want to force everyone else to buy Vista. A big part of the Vista bloat and driver problems is Microsofts dream of DRM controlling our computers so they can make deals with content owners. Thus Microsoft needs to limit user choice as much as they can because XP may be good enough for your needs but its DRM isn't good enough for Microsoft needs.
    • Re: (Score:1, Redundant)

      by DavidJSimpson (899508)
      According to Microsoft spokesman Bill Gates, "80GB should be enough for anyone."
    • by TheRaven64 (641858) on Tuesday June 03, 2008 @08:54AM (#23637537) Journal
      Differentiation. They are not limiting the size of the hard drive, they are limiting the size of the hard drive you are allowed to ship to qualify for very steep OEM discounts. They are attempting to sell the idea of 'XP on small/cheap machines, Vista on big/expensive machines' to avoid the market deciding that what it really wants is Linux on small/cheap machines. They can't compete directly with Linux on price (unless they pay people to ship Windows, which would only work if they then sold these customers Office or something), but they can compete on legacy compatibility. People aren't willing to pay 50% more for a laptop to run their legacy software, but the might be willing to pay 10-20% more, and so they offer a cheap version of Windows for cheap computers in the hope that people will say 'it's $20 more, but that's probably worth it to be able to run my old programs'. Whether or not this will work remains to be seen.
    • by rsmith-mac (639075) on Tuesday June 03, 2008 @08:58AM (#23637609)

      Snarky answers aside, MS is selling XP for miniature devices at a very, very low price, far lower than XP normally goes for. This allows OEMs to hit the low prices they want, as otherwise Windows would be a very big piece of the price. But Microsoft also had to keep the OEMs from installing this version of XP in place of a full version, so they set up fairly arbitrary limitations that ensure that it's only installed in such miniature (read: underpowered) devices. It's basically the same chain of logic as to why XP/Vista Starter Editions are so cheap; cheap Windows is for cheap devices, and hardware restrictions are a way to enforce that.

      Also keep in mind that normal XP is also being retired (sales are ending) at the end of this month, MS doesn't want XP selling for so long that it's still in use in 2014 when long-term support ends, which might happen if it could be slapped on new high-powered computers after their cut-off date. This also spirals off in to the point that MS wants to retire XP sooner than later for API and security reasons.

    • by zoward (188110) <email.me.at.zoward.at.gmail.com> on Tuesday June 03, 2008 @09:05AM (#23637711) Homepage

      Anybody have any idea why Microsoft would want to limit the amount of HDD space on a machine?
      They want Vista on all larger machines. The only reason they (reluctantly) extended the life of XP was to have something to put on a UMPC-class machine to prevent Linux from becoming the de facto standard OS for that entire class of PC's. To prevent PC builders from using this as a loophole to keep pre-installing XP on full-blown PC's, they're limiting the HD size on which it can be installed. I expect this to change once UMPC's start shipping with >80GB HDD's though.
      • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

        by javilon (99157)
        So what about shipping a huge monster machine in every respect except the hard drive? it can be upgraded later on. This would make for really cheap licenses on expensive machines.
      • by RulerOf (975607)

        I expect this to change once UMPC's start shipping with >80GB HDD's though.

        I would expect UMPC's to be capable of running Vista at that point :-\
    • by Jellybob (597204) on Tuesday June 03, 2008 @09:06AM (#23637731) Journal
      Windows XP is now only available for UMPCs, and other low-spec machines that can't run Vista.

      Presumably Microsoft's idea of a low-spec machine is something with 80GB of hard disk space, which is why they won't sell it to go on machines with more.
      • by MojoStan (776183)

        Windows XP is now only available for UMPCs, and other low-spec machines that can't run Vista.

        Incorrect, but still modded up as "Informative." As others have pointed out, a special low-cost version of Windows XP has these hardware limits, specifically [techreport.com] (for laptops):

        • 10.2" screen
        • 1GHz processors (doesn't apply to Atom or C7-M)
        • 1GB memory
        • 80GB storage

        "Regular" versions of Windows XP are still available for high-end PCs, but they're getting difficult to find on "home or home office" PCs. It's still very easy to find XP on "business" PCs like Lenovo's ThinkPad/ThinkCentre PCs or on Dell's "Small

    • by Timo_UK (762705)
      80G ought to be enough for anybody
    • by johannesg (664142)
      Because this is a special, cheaper version of XP. If it were allowed on decent hardware it would eat badly into their sales of Vista.

  • by y86 (111726) on Tuesday June 03, 2008 @08:24AM (#23637129)
    Looks like I paid top dollar for old tech.

    All well, it still looks cool.
    • You're complaining? I didn't even find a EEE PC 20g... I ordered a 701 4G and it arrived today (or better said, my dad just emailed me that it arrived. I let my stuff deliver there because he's retired and as such at home)
  • by Anonymous Coward
    Now this looks really exciting.

    First, as we all know, power consumption is becoming more and more relevant. A quick google search a low-power server (meant for 24x7) draws 50 Watts, comparable to a light bulb. If we can get decent performance topping at 5 watts (leaving some margins for intel), you can save 90% of a big part of your power bill straight away. That alone predicts success for Intel, at least in the long term if we wait for the next hardware replacement cycle at the big companies.

    Also, looki
  • by confused one (671304) on Tuesday June 03, 2008 @08:48AM (#23637431)
    Their benchmarks (for which there were no details) showed Atom was ~10% slower than a Via C7 ???
    • by beelsebob (529313)
      That's what I read to -- at 50% more power usage too.
      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by confused one (671304)

        at 50% more power usage too.

        Well, the Atom is 4W TPD while the C7 is 20W. Given that the Atom is a later generation process (45nm vs 65nm), this makes sense. I'd expect Isaiah aka Via Nano is going to do better (although not quite as good as Atom) once they get it into 45nm.

        For a desktop machine, that's not as big a deal as it sounds though, because the matching "low power" northbridge and graphics tend to be a TDP of 5-20W by themselves. They mention in the article that 70% of the heat in the test system is generated by the 9

  • by Anonymous Coward
    So how long until these are in Lenovo's notebooks? Originally I heard these would be out in the begining of June, but I haven't heard boo.

    Anyone? Bueller?
  • by Lupu (815408) on Tuesday June 03, 2008 @08:56AM (#23637555)

    While the Atom certainly delivers impressive power statistics compared to our typical laptop processors, they are still far from the level of the ARM family. A recent article on Ars Technica [arstechnica.com] will explain why. ARM processors are by far the most common processor on the low power frontier and the reason seems apparent; even at 1GHz they claim to reach operational power consumption around 300mW [arm.com]. Now, granted, it is on a RISC instruction set, but their upcoming Cortex-A9 [arm.com] will support multicore and starts to sound like a very interesting alternative for a notebook processor.

    Could someone drop me a message as soon as those things start entering the market?

    • by anss123 (985305)
      Nokia already sells something akin to an Arm based computer and it'll probably use the A9 whenever it comes.
    • How is this informative? Ok, yes, it is higher power than an ARM. However it also is more powerful (as in what it can do). You ever stop to think that maybe there is a a market for more than one kind of processor? It doesn't seem like this is aimed at the Arm market. Seems like this is aimed at a market that isn't well populated with chips. You need something that's less powerful than a normal laptop processor, but more powerful than an embedded processor. Well, here you go. This would be ideal for things l
  • by lawaetf1 (613291) on Tuesday June 03, 2008 @10:06AM (#23638627)
    [rant] Why on Earth don't they publicize watt consumption of the new system? It should be required. I realize different configs and usage patterns will result in different power consumption but there's no good reason not to provide a stat that says "with config X the system consumed __ watts at idle and ___ watts at full load."
    Seriously, if everyone is going green you'd think they would want to advertise that their little box is energy efficient.
    [\rant]
  • by kcdoodle (754976) on Tuesday June 03, 2008 @10:27AM (#23638943)
    Hey, Intel is beating Transmeta at their own game.

    You remember Transmeta. Linus worked there. Stock started out around $20/share. I bought $4000 worth. The darn thing tanked, reverse split, and tanked some more. I have about $35 worth of this company now. Yep, rode it all the way down.

    But now that Intel is making a realllllly low power processor, it is big news. I hope Transmeta gets some new orders because of this.

    Oh yeah, Transmeta claims about a dozen or patents have been infringed upon by Intel in the production of this chip. So we just might have a new SCO. (At least I never bought any SCO stock.)
  • They should have found or made the extra space necessary to get a laptop-sized optical drive in there (Nintendo have with the similar-sized Wii). One of those desktop Eee's with a DVD drive would be a killer client-only box for MythTV (so long as you can turn DVI-out into appropriate TV-in).
    It's dinky, stylish enough to have in your living room, presumably pretty quiet, cheap, and more powerful than reusing an old box. What's not to like? (and if you get the bluetooth option, you can get One of these [logitech.com], or so
  • by frovingslosh (582462) on Tuesday June 03, 2008 @01:04PM (#23641221)
    In the picture, the Eee Box is standing next to a paperback book.

    That's a rather deceptive statement. The /. summary could have just said the dimensions ( 8.5" x 7" x 1" ) rather than taking more space to say they were given in the article. But the book used is not the size of what most readers have come to know as a "paperback book". While it is not a hard cover book, it is the size of a hard cover book, known as a "trade book" in the industry, not a much smaller paperback. And unfortunately, the picture doesn't give much else in the way of a reference, so may people are likely suckered into this belief that the computer is the size of a paperback. It's still a nicely compact system, I don't dispute that, but there seems to be an effort here to mislead.

    It's sad to see more and more /. "articles" just being ads for products, and it's even sadder when deceptive hype is injected and the editors don't clean it up. And I have to think this was deliberate, why else say "although the actual dimensions are listed..." when the true 8.5" x 7" x 1" would have been more more concise, more informative and less deceptive?

"Never give in. Never give in. Never. Never. Never." -- Winston Churchill

Working...