<?xml version="1.0"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">
<channel>
<title>Engadget - Comments for </title>
<link>http://www.engadget.com/2007/02/07/intel-prepping-x86-based-system-on-a-chip/</link>
<description>Engadget Comments for </description>

<language>en-us</language>
<copyright>Copyright 2008 Weblogs, Inc. The contents of this feed are available for non-commercial use only.</copyright>
<generator>Blogsmith http://www.blogsmith.com/</generator><item><title><![CDATA[Comments on ]]></title><link>http://www.engadget.com/2007/02/07/intel-prepping-x86-based-system-on-a-chip/</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.engadget.com/2007/02/07/intel-prepping-x86-based-system-on-a-chip/</guid><description><![CDATA[From a programmer's point of view: we do not need another mobile architecture to support. It's bad enough that API support is not enforced (I'm looking at you, brew) and every handset model must be tested. At least we could launch a successful product while only working with one compiler, and optimizing for one CPU architecture (ARM). And Intel wants to add more variability? Intel just made mobile programmer's jobs even more difficult.]]></description><dc:creator><![CDATA[Evan]]></dc:creator><pubDate>Feb 7th 2007 9:31AM</pubDate></item><item><title><![CDATA[Comments on ]]></title><link>http://www.engadget.com/2007/02/07/intel-prepping-x86-based-system-on-a-chip/</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.engadget.com/2007/02/07/intel-prepping-x86-based-system-on-a-chip/</guid><description><![CDATA[22W power consumption in a handheld device? Well, that could work...if you have a laptop battery strapped to your back!]]></description><dc:creator><![CDATA[SweBen]]></dc:creator><pubDate>Feb 7th 2007 10:27AM</pubDate></item><item><title><![CDATA[Comments on ]]></title><link>http://www.engadget.com/2007/02/07/intel-prepping-x86-based-system-on-a-chip/</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.engadget.com/2007/02/07/intel-prepping-x86-based-system-on-a-chip/</guid><description><![CDATA[13-22W hardly makes it applicable to mobile apps.]]></description><dc:creator><![CDATA[Jack]]></dc:creator><pubDate>Feb 7th 2007 10:31AM</pubDate></item><item><title><![CDATA[Comments on ]]></title><link>http://www.engadget.com/2007/02/07/intel-prepping-x86-based-system-on-a-chip/</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.engadget.com/2007/02/07/intel-prepping-x86-based-system-on-a-chip/</guid><description><![CDATA[I'm pretty sure this is aimed at UMPCs.<br><br>I wonder how it compares to the c7 in power consumption and performance/watt.<br><br>I can't wait for UMPCs to actually be all they were promised to be.]]></description><dc:creator><![CDATA[Jonathan Sundy]]></dc:creator><pubDate>Feb 7th 2007 10:38AM</pubDate></item><item><title><![CDATA[Comments on ]]></title><link>http://www.engadget.com/2007/02/07/intel-prepping-x86-based-system-on-a-chip/</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.engadget.com/2007/02/07/intel-prepping-x86-based-system-on-a-chip/</guid><description><![CDATA["I'm pretty sure this is aimed at UMPCs."<br><br>Definitely.  This should really reduce the cost and complexity of UMPCs.]]></description><dc:creator><![CDATA[futurepastnow]]></dc:creator><pubDate>Feb 7th 2007 11:26PM</pubDate></item><item><title><![CDATA[Comments on ]]></title><link>http://www.engadget.com/2007/02/07/intel-prepping-x86-based-system-on-a-chip/</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.engadget.com/2007/02/07/intel-prepping-x86-based-system-on-a-chip/</guid><description><![CDATA[Oh, and car computer like devices would also be a good place for this kind of tech.]]></description><dc:creator><![CDATA[Jonathan Sundy]]></dc:creator><pubDate>Feb 7th 2007 10:40AM</pubDate></item><item><title><![CDATA[Comments on ]]></title><link>http://www.engadget.com/2007/02/07/intel-prepping-x86-based-system-on-a-chip/</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.engadget.com/2007/02/07/intel-prepping-x86-based-system-on-a-chip/</guid><description><![CDATA[Isn't this being used in the apple tv?]]></description><dc:creator><![CDATA[telepheedian]]></dc:creator><pubDate>Feb 7th 2007 12:05PM</pubDate></item><item><title><![CDATA[Comments on ]]></title><link>http://www.engadget.com/2007/02/07/intel-prepping-x86-based-system-on-a-chip/</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.engadget.com/2007/02/07/intel-prepping-x86-based-system-on-a-chip/</guid><description><![CDATA[I wish I could believe it would reduce the cost, but via has a system on a chip solution, atleast thats what I thought the c7 platform was, and although it's cheaper than intel it's still not the price point these things need to hit ($500 so every student can have one).<br><br>It's a great start off in the right direction though since Intel may not bring price to the game, but it sure will bring performance.]]></description><dc:creator><![CDATA[Jonathan Sundy]]></dc:creator><pubDate>Feb 8th 2007 6:58AM</pubDate></item><item><title><![CDATA[Comments on ]]></title><link>http://www.engadget.com/2007/02/07/intel-prepping-x86-based-system-on-a-chip/</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.engadget.com/2007/02/07/intel-prepping-x86-based-system-on-a-chip/</guid><description><![CDATA[Evan,<br>Intel is not trying to add complexity to mobile programmer's lives, but just the opposite.  The goal is to be able to leverage existing IA (Intel Architechture) but on the mobile platform.  ARM has limited functionality, especially on the multimedia side of things.  Being able to shrink the existing Core2Duo in both power and size (and combine it with north and southbridge functionality) would allow the HUGE amount of existing applications for x86 to be used in the UMPC market.  Intel is trying to make things easier based on existing standards.  ]]></description><dc:creator><![CDATA[xbillybobx]]></dc:creator><pubDate>Feb 8th 2007 6:12PM</pubDate></item></channel></rss>