This discussion is going on at TabletPCreview.com and might be of some interst to the people here.

http://forum.tabletpcreview.com/showthread.php?t=7784

HerDinky:

This discussion is going on at TabletPCreview.com and might be of some interst to the people here.

http://forum.tabletpcreview.com/showthread.php?t=7784

I have been saying that from day one!

I personally think the best thing to do for most of us will be to sit tight until Menlow platform comes to the market in 1 half of next year and skip the McCaslin/Stealy UMPCs of 2007.

ctitanic:

HerDinky:

This discussion is going on at TabletPCreview.com and might be of some interst to the people here.

http://forum.tabletpcreview.com/showthread.php?t=7784

I have been saying that from day one!

I personally think the best thing to do for most of us will be to sit tight until Menlow platform comes to the market in 1 half of next year and skip the McCaslin/Stealy UMPCs of 2007.

That's a long time to wait for those of us who don't currently have a UMPC, but want one. That being said, I'm going to Fall IDF this year, so hopefully I'll get some hands-on time with the 2008 platform in person.

That being said, the form-factor and battery life of the Q1 Ultra is about perfect. For general web browsing/email (which I will be using it 95% of the time for), it's perfect.

Mazda_3s:

That's a long time to wait for those of us who don't currently have a UMPC, but want one. That being said, I'm going to Fall IDF this year, so hopefully I'll get some hands-on time with the 2008 platform in person.

Especially when you throw in likely delays, plus it will take time for OEMs to mature their designs with this new platform. Intel's shift to target smaller MIDs with this platform may not help those of us wanting a stable windows platform with a 7"ish 1024x* screen.

The way I see it (and this is a personal opinion based on my own needs), we won't see stable, quality, feature filled units on the new platform until Q1 2009 - unless an OEM gets a whole lot braver in the design front than they have been thus far.

I could make significant use of a UMPC now, which is why I am interested in getting a Q1U-EL to use for a couple years. This will give me the patience to wait for the "real" UMPC platform to mature so I can make an informed purchase of a rock-solid unit rather than being pushed to adopt early.

Mazda_3s:

That being said, the form-factor and battery life of the Q1 Ultra is about perfect. For general web browsing/email (which I will be using it 95% of the time for), it's perfect.

when you work in a very slow machine where you have to wait a lot, that time is battery time used doing nothing!

ctitanic:

Mazda_3s:

That being said, the form-factor and battery life of the Q1 Ultra is about perfect. For general web browsing/email (which I will be using it 95% of the time for), it's perfect.

when you work in a very slow machine where you have to wait a lot, that time is battery time used doing nothing!

What are you waiting for if you email client and web browser are always running? It's not like I'm going to be editing in Photoshop or playing Doom 3.

I think people just need to get a grip and stop being so overly negative. I mean, sheesh!   

My normal workday consists of Thunderbird running in the background while I use Firefox for browsing duties. And I have Notepad and Word open to handle my writing tasks. That's about it.

So please, don't try to lump everyone into your idea of what should be "ideal" or slow for everyone. If it's too slow for you, fine. But please don't try to rain on everyone else's parade if the original Q1 is faster for you.

whatever you say.

What I find dissapointing in the critique of the McCaslin platform is that it has the same speed as the P-M which runs just about anything on first generation machines and adresses the most heard complaint about those first generation machines, the short battery life and many fall over each other to barate it for being to slow.

A notebook is faster there is no need to deney that but on my R2H I can do everything I want to do on my notebook with only a few times I would like it to do faster. Only one time did I find the slowness absurd. This was when I connected a USB mouse and the R2H tried to recognize it and install drivers for it. That took about ten minutes which is rediculous. At no other time have I found the speed of the Celeron M at 900Mhz with no level 2 cach too slow.

Sure, more speed would be nice but the McCaslin has adressed other issues. A choice I can more then live with.

HerDinky:

What I find dissapointing in the critique of the McCaslin platform is that it has the same speed as the P-M which runs just about anything on first generation machines and adresses the most heard complaint about those first generation machines, the short battery life and many fall over each other to barate it for being to slow.

A notebook is faster there is no need to deney that but on my R2H I can do everything I want to do on my notebook with only a few times I would like it to do faster. Only one time did I find the slowness absurd. This was when I connected a USB mouse and the R2H tried to recognize it and install drivers for it. That took about ten minutes which is rediculous. At no other time have I found the speed of the Celeron M at 900Mhz with no level 2 cach too slow.

Sure, more speed would be nice but the McCaslin has adressed other issues. A choice I can more then live with.

Yes, a voice of reason. To the people picking on the Q1U's speed: WE GET IT. You think it's too slow. OK, fine. You don't have to complain about it in every single thread about the Q1U.

It'd be like me complaining about my GF's 2004 Honda Civic EX being too slow. Sure, my Mazda3s Hatch is faster in just about every conceivable measure, but her Civic is about 20 - 30% more fuel efficient than my vehicle and serves her needs.

But for the rest of us, I seriously don't think that the Q1U will be a main PC for any of us. If it is, more power to you!! I personally have a dual-core desktop that I use at home along with a 22" monitor. The Q1U will be used when I go home to visit family, go on vacation or am at trade shows around the world.

HerDinky:

What I find dissapointing in the critique of the McCaslin platform is that it has the same speed as the P-M which runs just about anything on first generation machines and adresses the most heard complaint about those first generation machines, the short battery life and many fall over each other to barate it for being to slow.

Correction, the McCaslin does not have the same speed than the C-M and P-M used in the same generation. This is what is all about. We  have been talking (at least trying) about how Intel cut down the old P-M and C-M to release the McCasling which have a worse performance but a better battery life. That to me seems like a move to gain time against the VIA's competition but not in any case a real solution which should be delevered next year with Menlow processors that are supposed to deliver a better or the same performance as in the first generation but with a better battery life.

BTW, AMD is supposed to release a new processor next year specially designed for UMPC.

Mazda_3s:

Yes, a voice of reason. To the people picking on the Q1U's speed: WE GET IT. You think it's too slow. OK, fine. You don't have to complain about it in every single thread about the Q1U.

Correction, I DO NOT CARE about the Q1U speed. My goal is to let Intel know that we, consumers, know that what they have delivered this time is not more than a cut version of what we had before and that we, consumers, are smart enough to notice that, and that we, consumers, are expecting a real solution to the performance/battery life issue. We don't want less performance to get better battery life. We want to keep the performance going up while the battery life goes up as well. That's what we, the ones criticizing the McCaslin platform want.

I accept that there is a group of users that is happy with actual performance but even that group admits that would be happier if they get more performance with the same or better battery life.

Hm... based on the few benchmarks I've seen - and I admit it's not a big enough sample from which to extrapolate a conclusion - but it's all I have, the McCaslin looks like it's exactly the same performance as the C-Ms.

The benchmarks that were shown earlier in this forum showed that a McCaslin at 800MHz was around 80% of a 1GHz Celeron Mobile. That means it's right where it should be. So what they focussed on was better battery life, which means they actually *have* improved performance since they kind of go together.

I can't speak for others, but I've already put off buying a UMPC for a year waiting for it to 'get better', and I'm not really ready to wait another year because of course, next year, Intel and AMD will announce the next really hot CPU and I'll have to wait yet another year.. and another...

OR.. I could just buy this one now with the understanding that in a year or two, I'll get another one that'll be better. (Ok - more likely two)...

As someone once said 'Right now, the super-whizbang 3Ghz Pentium that's coming out next year is exactly 0 times faster than the 2.5GHz one you have in front of you...'

Actually, (and kind of contradicting myself a little here), it doesn't give you the same performance with improved battery life.

People here have been obsessing about performance, but missing something: the McCaslin is running at 80% the speed and delivering about 80% of the performance - which means it's exactly the same as the C-M chipset... they just underclocked it to get better battery life.

Now, from what I've read it does run cooler, so there have been some improvements, but overall - while I wouldn't slam it for being weaker than a C-M, I'm not prepared to congratulate Intel either.

What's really annoying is that Apple has fine tuned their OS for laptops to the point where it actually microsleeps the CPU between keystrokes. By doing this, they eke out every last milliwatt of battery life. That's why Macs have long battery lives. This is using essentially the same hardware any PC laptop has in it. (Contrary to what a lot of Mac fans believe - the hardware in a Mac isn't exceptionally different from that used in any PC.)

Microsoft has to do a LOT more to improve battery life.

TheWerewolf:

The benchmarks that were shown earlier in this forum showed that a McCaslin at 800MHz was around 80% of a 1GHz Celeron Mobile. That means it's right where it should be.

Sorry, but the Celeron M in UMPC are running at 900 MHz, so if you see them (McCaslin) running at 80% they are running no where they are supposed to.

ctitanic:

My goal is to let Intel know that we, consumers, know that what they have delivered this time is not more than a cut version of what we had before ]

Im not sure what kind of consumers you're representing but dont count me in please.
2nd gen intel based umpcs represent far more than what you're referencing.
They represent a coming together of improvements across the board. Cooler running , LED backlit screens, better graphics (taking processing load from cpu) , new deep sleep mode, keyboards, accesories, optimised software (there are many companies working with Intel now), and best of breed radios. McCaslin is a small part of a fresh ecosystem that has brought to market one of the best engineered umpcs so far.
If you want to represent consumers it might be best to let them have the whole picture first.

Cheers
Steve