Why do people care that this is on a 32-nm process vs. a smaller process? That doesn't make it inherently bad, and power-consumption is relative. What's to say a 32-nm based mobile Atom is less power-efficient than, say, a Tegra-based or Qualcomm-based system for how it's intended to be used? I'm not saying that the Atoms do not have power-consumption issues, but might it be a good idea to just wait and see?
[citation][nom]kartu[/nom]I'm not sure about you guys, maybe some do video encoding or some SETI calculations, but the most frequent operation I do with my phone (besides, ahem, talking) is CHARGING it (first Galaxy S). And oh eh, occasionally I use Opera browser, Skype, google mail, maps app. None of the mentioned would improve much from "mear powa!!!"So who is looking for "OMG OMG MOAR POWAAAAR!!!" in smartphones, please show up and explain, what on earth are you doing with it.[/citation]
Because without pushing the hardware, the software won't advance. Would you rather be lugging around a cellular brick from the '80's?
[citation][nom]saturnus[/nom]“640K ought to be enough for anybody.” -Bill Gates (1981)[/citation]
This must be the most incorrectly-used and incorrectly-quoted statement. Gates never said that, nor did he ever imply it. In fact, Gates often voiced opposition to the low amount of RAM that the systems at the time supported, and advocated for a larger RAM support for the chipsets.