"Perhaps before opening your smelly mouth, you should understand
what relevance means."
I can brush my teeth. You can't change being dumb. But nice job
bringing the conversation down to an even lower intellectual level than
it was before.
"The chip is still 100% slower than the Atom no matter how you slice
it."
And thanks for showing how totally ignorant you are of processor
architectures. First, raw clock speed has NOTHING to do with relative
speeds, it just indicates what frequency the clock circuit is firing off
square waves.
But funny you should spout off with the next line:
"The clock speed portion is idiotic because intell was not talking about
an 800Mhz cpu."
Intell [sic] wasn't "talking about" anything. And I was not talking about
an 800MHz chip either, I was talking about a 1GHz Apple A4 and the
various speeds of the Cortex A9. The 800MHz was for ease of math in
calculating the upscale. And 800MHz A9 would be over 2 times faster
than a 1.6GHz atom. Faster A9s would be, well, faster still.
"In other words, as I said, listen closely, the intel chip is still seriously
faster and are you saying the evolution of the atom chip is done."
And again, no it is not. Please provide benchmarks to backup this
statement, as, as already shown, this is completely not true. The Atom
is considerably slower. Period. Atom can evolve all they want. The x86
architecture will continue to be a boat anchor holding the chip back
(in terms of speed, not market.) And this is not even taking into
account the fact that the A9 architecture can easily run at 3GHz. Per
core.
"Please send me a link to the number of Linux netbooks going out
with ARM processors...k?"
I would have thought that even you wold realize that such a link
would serve no logical point, but apparently you never actually took a
course in logic. Both the chips and the market segment (netbooks) are
new, so such market data is irrelevant. That said, market projections
are another matter,. From "Information Network":
"Analyst Robert Castellano from The Information Network believes
future netbooks based on the upcoming ARM Cortex-A9 architecture
and running Linux could create a market for netbooks at price points
Intel and Microsoft simply won't be able to match. Not only would the
multicore A9 be cheaper than a 2012 Atom (at least, according to
Castellano), the assumed ubiquitousness of cloud computing would
supposedly eliminate (or almost eliminate) the need for local storage."
Besides which, your question just highlights your ignorance. To wit:
"Then we can see whether they Linux + Apple and not just Apple, ARM
market can contend with Microsoft. You see, you phrased it wrong, or
you changed the point of the topic to fit your new argument.
hmmmm, wonder which it was."
Talk about wrong phrasing. You do realize that MS already DOES run
an OS on ARM architecture, right? The emergent market for ultracheap
(sub $150) WinCE netbooks is just ramping up, and the vast majority
of these machines run WinCE from Microsoft.
You were saying?
"Yes, anything you can't respond to tends to be NBM whatever."
Please point out what it was that I did not respond to. I replied to
EVERY single pseudo-point you made.
"I think anyone that is totally ABM, such as yourself, thereby reducing
your credibility as a non biased objective source of information to
zero, automatically thinks anyone who doesn't agree with them and
conform to their way of thinking is automatically an "NBMer"."
OK, fist, nice grammar. Ramble on incoherently much? Second, why do
you assume I am ABM? Although I do NOT like the company, or their
business practices, I own and use and number of MS products, and am
MCSE certified.
Assumptions are the killer, huh. BTW, FAIL.
"That logic sir, is borderline schizophrenic."
Indeed.
"End of story."
One can only hope... .
(To be continued, I'm sure.)
