interesting tablets

[D. Hugh Redelmeier]

| From: David Collier-Brown <davec-b-bJEeYj9oJeDQT0dZR+AlfA at public.gmane.org>

Good to see you on the list!

| I have a previous atom netbook that I use as my writing-and-dev machine,
| and it's quite good.  To replace it I'll want a machine with flash disk
| (or cache) and a wodge of memory.

Some netbooks allow for memory upgrades.  Typically Windows is
hamstrung and cannot see all you add.  But Linux can.  Generally 4G is
the limit (some of which you cannot use because some address space is
reserved for the PCI bus).  I've upgraded all netbooks that we have.

| The lack of the latter, including
| video memory, is the current bottleneck on the machine.

In what way is video memory a limit?  (It is just part of main memory
-- there is no "on board memory" for these video systems.)

| For command-line
| compilations it's as fast as a much larger machine.

That's surprising.  Perhaps you mean "fast enough".  The CPU is slower
and the disk is likely slower (but not as significantly).

| For a memory-hog GUI
| (eclipse), it's too slow at everything.

A monopolist (Intel, Microsoft, ...) has a few problems.  They want to
make the most money.  So they want to charge as much as they can,
without reducing their volume so much that their profit goes down.
The solution?  Segment the market.

The Atom used to be about selling cheap machines to folks as second
machines.  Or to folks unwilling to pay for a full-priced machine.
Oh, and to take a preemptive hit at OLPC in case it succeeded.  And a
half-hearted blocker for ARM.

Microsoft also wanted to stop Linux's inroads in the netbook market.

Intel and Microsoft walled off their main markets by restricting the
capabilities of products using the Atom.

- memory limits (hardware: 32-bit bus) (software: licensing agreements
  came with the CPU!  Win 7 Starter would not recognize memory beyond
  2G)

- horrible screen size and resolution limits (via licensing) (ones
  that made them not qualified to run Win8 when that came around!)

- speed limits (Hardware: Atom was slow, but it was sped up when AMD
  started to make a superior product, the C-50/60/70 series)

- terrible GPU.  Boosted a few times, possibly as Video became more
  important or AMD looked to be a threat.

The strategy worked.  At least for a time.

- OLPC's pioneering netbook had no mainstream penetration

- a lot of netbooks were sold (not clear to me if they cannibalized
  notebook sales)

- Linux's great start in the netbook world fizzled spectacularly.
  Microsoft accomplished this by almost giving away WinXP and Win7
  Starter.

- AMD's C-50 limped along.  It was a great choice for netbooks just as
  that market was fading.

- few people love netbooks and were soon in the market for something
  else.

Too bad for Intel and Microsoft that the something else seems to have
been tablets and smart phones with ARM processors.  So Intel and
Microsoft have been playing catch-up for a few years now.  Looks like
a classic case of the innovators dilemma.

Me?  I found uses for selected netbooks.  Ones with close to normal
screen resolution (1366x768 or close to it).  They were hard to find
or expensive but I found three exceptions for my family.  But they
weren't perfect.  Each runs Linux.

I think competition leads to improved products and Intel is having to
work hard to deliver good products to try to catch up to various ARM
products.  Luckilly for ARM, they have their own competitive market
that is improving ARM products at quite a clip.

So: I think these tablets have interesting Intel-subsidized Atom
processors.  I love being subsidized.  But if it doesn't run desktop
Linux, I don't need it (I already have and enjoy Android tablets and
don't need another).
--
The Toronto Linux Users Group.      Meetings: http://gtalug.org/
TLUG requests: Linux topics, No HTML, wrap text below 80 columns
How to UNSUBSCRIBE: http://gtalug.org/wiki/Mailing_lists