You are absolutely right WLS.

Interesting! I agree. McCaslin was more about producing a low cost UMPC solution so the old Pentium M based chips could be retired and to have an alternative to the Via 7. Performance was never the driving factor. I see it now as a temporary solution for Intel while they complete their Menlow design. They have said that will be ready now by the end of the year. I think the prudent thing would to be to wait at this point in time untill the Menlow based products become known. I have generaly been unimpressed by what I have seen so far- A 12″ Core2 laptop is still a better solution in my opinion. I’m hoping Menlow will change that.Interesting! I agree. McCaslin was more about producing a low cost UMPC solution so the old Pentium M based chips could be retired and to have an alternative to the Via 7. Performance was never the driving factor. I see it now as a temporary solution for Intel while they complete their Menlow design. They have said that will be ready now by the end of the year. I think the prudent thing would to be to wait at this point in time until the Menlow based products become known. I have generally been unimpressed by what I have seen so far- A 12″ Core2 laptop is still a better solution in my opinion. I’m hoping Menlow will change that.

Well I don’t see anything clever. I checked with an online store and they said to me that the Q1U was far from being a best seller. And talking about best seller. Do you want to know what UMPC according to them has been the best seller since the beginning… the R2H. And they say that the Pentium M model with Vista still sell better than the Q1U.

Disappointing yes but a clever move nevertheless.

I think the Fujitsu will sell very well at $999 compared to the oqo and sony ux

Celeron? I think they’re worse than Celeron.

Hmmmm… the anti-Shift comments here are making me jittery.

From what I understand, the VIA processors use less cache than the A1xx, which in turn uses less cache than the Pentium M.

Cache can make applications perform faster, especially when data is required, however the downside is more space is used on the CPU and more power is consumed. The Pentium M resorted to trickery to decrease the cache power consumption, and the A1xx appears to go a simpler route by just using less cache memory on the CPU.

From past experience, a CPU with a faster clock speed can only outrun a slower CPU that has more cache for a small amount of time. Once the workload increases, it balances out.

Why the A1xx then? I’m guessing it’s much cheaper than the Pentium M, while offering similar power and performance (cache and trickery cost money). This could be why the Fujitsu u810 (aka u1010) can sell for $999 US, while Pentium M based UMPCs sell for $1500-$2000. I could be wrong, but that’s my take.

Mark, do not worry, only you and me know what precious we have. :D Flies like the wind! Even with Vista. :D

I wish people would stop judging hibernation speed based on Hugo’s shift video. Something was amiss there… it doesn’t matter the cpu speed, windows simply doesn’t take that long to come out of hibernation under normal circumstances.

My Q1 was offended by the comparison to the Celeron chips. It runs just fine on a Celeron 900mhz, even with Vista, and returns from hibernation dramatically better than what I saw in Hugo’s HTC shift video.

I have to agree that the new processors are a step backward. I was technolusting for a Shift. Now I’m not so sure.

Mark

Well, in Intel’s defense (gotta stick up for the little guys!) A1xx may be a lot better on energy use but that might have just given device manufacturers a reason to shrink the battery capacity even more to make their devices even smaller and still hit that 3-hour accepted minimum runtime.