Intel to Sell Off XScale Division?

Lenovo? Why not? They're on a kick lately!

Pilot 1000-->Pilot 5000-->PalmPilot Pro-->IIIe-->Vx-->m505-->T|T-->T|T2-->T|C-->T|T3-->T|T5-->TX

>> "they let inferior AMD take market share."

They let "inferior" AMD steal market share by allowing their own products to fall behind in the face of competition. Right now AMD's dual core desktop and server architectures are way ahead of Intel offerings. Last November I built a new workstation and chose AMD's dual core x64 processors because the Intel Pentium D is such a shitty performer. I'm surprised AMD has stolen MORE share than they already have. Intel's only stategy to stave off bleeding market share has been to undercut AMD pricing. Pathetic.

Now, with that said, just wait until next month when Intel finally catches up with, and possibly surpasses, AMD with its new 64bit chip design; Conroe (Core 2). I'm waiting with baited breath, and credit card in hand, for Apple to integrate this chip into to its revised PowerMac line this August. *Drool*

-------------------------------
Elitist Snob, www.elitistsnob.com

anybody drooling for MSFT VISTA????

>> "anybody drooling for MSFT VISTA????"

More like vomiting. I was accepted into the MS Beta program a few months ago and have been running various builds of Vista since then. Paul Thurrott said it best when he described it as a "warmed over copy of OSX". There's nothing innovative about this software at all, and it copies nearly ever feature found in Apple's OS; Vector graphics, Aero interface, translucent GUI elements, animated window behaviors, icons, dashboard widgets. What's new here? I've already been using this technology for over five years now...it's called OSX. In a nutshell, if you've been living under a rock for the past half decade, having never been exposed to ANY other software outside of Windows XP, yeah Vista may look revolutionary to you. For those of use who are experienced technology aficionados, this is leftover oatmeal reheated in a microwave

The other thing that galls me is the sloppy implementation Microsoft has made in copying...err, I mean mimicking the OSX desktop. If you're going to copy, do it right. The worst example is the outrageously overused translucent window frame, which visually appears like frosted glass. You can see through this box frame to other applications behind the active window. If you're running just one single app against a plain desktop background the effect is alright, but when you're in a serious work environment with applications overlapping one another the result is a horrendously hideous mess that is not only ugly, but extremely distracting and even confusing. At times it can be nearly impossible to distinguish the window in focus vs. background windows because they all look identical. You find yourself saying to yourself.."let's see, where did I drag that window?" I noticed my productivity was cut by about 25% or more based on that annoyance alone. Window management in Vista has taken a backward step for the sake of shock and awe.

I will tell you this. As a technology enthusiast I have used Windows in various beta form for over a decade, and have eagerly awaited the arrival of every new release of Windows with anticipation. Each edition of Windows, evolutionary as they sometimes may be, represented step forward, improving the PC experience. Vista is the first time I have ever found myself disliking a Windows product so strongly. As it stands now I can honestly say that I don't want Vista. It's an ugly OSX clone that breaks the user experience and is generally unpleasant to use, particularly for the reasons I've already mentioned.

Microsoft has finally managed to tackle most of the security guffaws in XP to the point that a practical level of stability and security now exists. I plan on sticking with XP for my Windows needs, but having used Vista my long-term plan is ultimately move away from Windows and on to OSX. It's simply a better desktop experience with a much nicer interface and far less obfuscating environment. I don't like the direction Microsoft is taking their platform, and see Vista as the "last hurrah" for Windows. I sincerely hope Microsoft makes some radical changes to Vista before the product goes gold later this year. If not, its arrival marks my departure from the Windows camp.

-------------------------------
Elitist Snob, www.elitistsnob.com

You can tone down the transparency, yes. The problem is the interface is optimized to look best when transparency is in place. If you disable or tone down the opacity level the interface just looks like a really homely looking XP theme. It's a crying shame Microsoft chose this UI design for its new OS. I really think they should have explored other alternatives or refined this one much further. Aside from overused transparency effects, there are a great many inconsistencies within the GUI design. Like the taskbar is black, but base application space is a sort of chrome-like grey, with mismatched grey accents. Take a look at Outlook 2007 beta (running in Vista) and you'll see what I mean. It's a mash up of different colors floating elements that don't compliment each other at all. And window frames have a strange bright green banding around the lower portion of the frame to give each window a soft of glowing effect, which looks really awful.

And that leads up to my biggest pet peeve; wasted screen real estate. In order to show off all these effects and transparencies, Microsoft has increased the frame border width surrounding application windows and dialog boxes. In Mac OSX, there are no frames around windows at all. For example, if you open say a picture in OSX within the preview app, what you see is nothing more than the picture itself with a titlebar above containing window elements (maximize - minimize - close). That's it. Open the same picture in Vista and you get a fat translucent border surrounding the entire image. Same picture, but less screen real estate to view it. I have vista running on a 20" Widescreen LCD, and with many windows and applications open it feels downright cramped, like working on an old 1024x768 resolution. I don't like it. XP is guilty of the same issue, but considerably less so.

-------------------------------
Elitist Snob, www.elitistsnob.com

Vista's Classic mode is the exact same environment as XP classic, except that you are now presented with two options. The first is the same XP classic theme which looks identical Windows 2000 Professional. The other is a new classic variation that hearkens back to a Windows 98 desktop, offering a slightly greyer look with bright blue titlebars. But yes, Vista's classic mode looks and works just as it does in XP. So no problem there.

But why would I want to go back to a desktop environment more than a decade old? Defeats the whole point of upgrading to a new platform.

-------------------------------
Elitist Snob, www.elitistsnob.com

Perhaps they want to assign mobile device chip dev to their pentium M division?
i mean with the UMPC's sporting 1.4ghz chips, why not just have an 800mhz version for pdas?


"May the potato be with you!"