soupheadbWouldn't businesses be better off with an Intel Celeron or a low power AMD Athlon (single/dual) core?
i agree, atom is way to get more money from older hardware.
sure new cpus are overkill, who needs a quad core to read their email.
people would save money and get better performance from using older amds. i still like dual cores over single cores, you get a better experience.
then again who needs vista, windows xp is much better, most businesses just dont need vista and 3-4 gb bloat tax for running vista over xp which does nicely with 512-1gb
since xp will not be an option soon, linus really gets an opportunity to deliver a desktop distribution that runs on low end amd with 512-1gb and that does things that most people do. like email, web browsing, basic word processing and spreadsheet, photos, music, ect
microsoft i think is making a big mistake dropping xp and forcing people into higher end hardware. i mean i need 2 gb just to run vista smoothly, that's nuts.
I have a few older pentium M based laptops at my desk. There running XP Pro with 2 gigs of ram. They are so slow I could double click on word and go take a walk around the block before they would launch the app. Simply forget about multitasking at all. We maybe spoiled here with nice speedy newer equiptment but it makes a serious difference on my productivity. Now I'm aware that an Atom Processor has about 1/2 to 1/4 that much power. If I was issued one of those to replace my D630 I would probably just quit.