Intel Atom is early success, could care less about this recession thing
Things are looking rosy in Intel's land of Atom, the little chip that could. Early reports from the chip maker indicate that Atom sales are brisk. After declaring a 25% rise in quarterly profit, Intel noted that the MID, netbook, and embedded-friendly Atom isn't cannibalizing sales of its traditional processors. In fact, it notes that Atom chips are creating a completely new money machine. Intel calls Atom a "perfect recession product" as it plays well into people's desire to pick up a second PC or a low-cost small computer for kids. Meanwhile, the embedded market hasn't even been reported yet. Once those numbers come in, it will probably be time to call Atom a success.
Filed under: Laptops
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
brickwood @ Aug 13th 2008 9:20AM
what's the price diff between the atom and the via nano?
a12ctic @ Aug 13th 2008 2:10PM
It doesnt matter since nobody is offering netbooks with the nano ):
wooptywoop @ Aug 13th 2008 9:22AM
"couldn't"
LondonConsultant @ Aug 13th 2008 10:42AM
Being British, I couldn't care less - but I suspect some Americans could care less...
J. Baker @ Aug 13th 2008 11:11AM
Why do so many get this wrong!
'I could of' is just as bad.
sr @ Aug 13th 2008 1:24PM
I just don't get it. Why is english so hard for some people? I mean read the statement. To say you could care less means that you DO care at least somewhat.
Loonie @ Aug 13th 2008 2:13PM
Up, up, UP the ranking ladder you go!
paul-engadget @ Aug 13th 2008 4:02PM
me too! could have cared less is clearly CLEARLY pathetically so wrong
RyanTV @ Aug 13th 2008 4:55PM
such a huge pet peeve. Please correct the title, Joshua Fruhlinger, you sound like a moron.
broli @ Aug 13th 2008 9:23AM
So does this mean we're getting closer to that 200$ netbook?
Phil Perman @ Aug 13th 2008 9:23AM
It's couldn't care less people, not could.
Could not care less, as in you care about it so little that there is no way you could care any less about it. If you could care less, it means that you do still care about it a bit.
fred @ Aug 13th 2008 10:59AM
And for the record, you need two back-to-back quarters of negative economic growth to be is a recession.
Just saying...
hemmy @ Aug 13th 2008 5:23PM
@fred:
A modern recession can't be quantified in terms of negative growth anymore. Businesses, for example, banks and such that have been going under these days have been hiding debt in creative ways that simply don't show up in their statements, painting a false picture. This practice is quite widespread, and a great many financial institutions are nearly or technically insolvent right now.
Bear Stearns was thought to be worth $18 billion right when it tanked, if I'm not mistaken.
maveric101 @ Aug 13th 2008 9:34AM
this kindof annoys me. isn't/shouldn't the phrase be "i couldn't care less"? meaning it's impossible for you to care less. could care less doesn't mean anything.
Kris @ Aug 13th 2008 9:38AM
It's couldn't care less you dolt
Shotgun @ Aug 13th 2008 9:43AM
Future high school English teachers of the world unite! Find something better to do with your time than nitpick spelling and grammar.
Joel @ Aug 13th 2008 9:54AM
High school English teachers? nah... Grammar Nazis? Yes... I'm very insulted at your comment
Besides, someone has to correct the people who are wrong on the internet. Because, people are never wrong on the internet.
Abe Froman @ Aug 13th 2008 9:58AM
It's not about nitpicking, it's about trying to educate people so that they write what they mean.
It's like how many times I've seen people misspell (or maybe a product of misspelling in such a way that spellchecker only gives the best intended match) "definitely" as "defiantly". As in, "I defiantly love you." It has the complete opposite meaning of what you intend, as does the title Joshua wrote here.
Charles @ Aug 13th 2008 11:36AM
This isn't a spelling or grammar issue - it's a case of saying pretty much the exact opposite of what you intended to say. Small spelling or grammar mistakes will generally be ignored but "could care less" is total idiocy and is an slap in the face to the reader. To see it in the comments is annoying but for a supposedly professional journalist to use it us a disgrace.
Shotgun @ Aug 14th 2008 11:26AM
Thank you for proving my point, get a life.
John @ Aug 13th 2008 10:03AM
I'm not saying I don't agree that "could not" would be the semantically correct phrase, but I will say that I think we got the point the first time. Also, I think the Atom processor is pretty over hyped and considering Asus put it into a desktop machine, kind of over-used.
DaveTheKnave @ Aug 13th 2008 10:16AM
I just came in to post a correction to the "could care less..." usage, but I'm happy to see there are other anal-retentive bastards out there.
Cheers everyone!
Chanzo @ Aug 13th 2008 10:29AM
I was just about to do the same, I didn't count on Engadget readers being so quick to point this - shockingly pervasive - grammar error out. It's so common that often when the correct "couldn't care less" is used, people think the opposite is meant (as in _could_ care less).
But you knew that already didn't you smarty-pants...
Greg Legowski @ Aug 13th 2008 10:50AM
Heh -- that's EXACTLY why I came in here as well.
daveofferson @ Aug 13th 2008 12:41PM
Ditto!
zsxzsx @ Aug 13th 2008 2:10PM
Thank you! Of all the mistakes people make on the internet, this has got to be one of the most annoying, mainly because it means exactly the opposite of what the person writing it thinks it should mean.
That and "loosing" when people really mean "losing"!
Jon Doe. @ Aug 13th 2008 10:27AM
Shhhhhh. Don't say the R word around Shrub. His handlers don't like to spook him. If he gets all riled up before noon he makes a huge mess of his cage and starts flinging poo.
Abe Froman @ Aug 13th 2008 10:30AM
For the record, I came here to correct this one, the only time I've felt the urge to correct a typo (and there are many daily) in the year that I've been coming here.
Typos are one thing, misunderstanding the meaning of a phrase is another. For the most part, people only hear phrases like this spoken so when it comes time to put them into print, they just don't know how.
How many times have you seen these in print (which are all wrong by the way):
Couldn't care a less
irregardless
spitting image
For all intensive purposes
Anyway....
LondonConsultant @ Aug 13th 2008 10:53AM
"spitting image" is correct...
John @ Aug 13th 2008 11:17AM
if spitting image is wrong, what do you think the correct one is?
o29 @ Aug 13th 2008 12:13PM
http://www.grammarphobia.com/blog/2006/10/why-do-we-say-spitting-image.html
Or, ideally, we could avoid the situation altogether by not using the stupid idiom.
sr @ Aug 13th 2008 1:26PM
Nice post, and I hate for people say "for all intensive purposes".
Anyway spitting image is correct: http://64.233.169.104/search?q=cache:2-PwUwApxuMJ:en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spitting_Image+spitting+image&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us&client=firefox-a
Rick @ Aug 13th 2008 10:31AM
I thought a couple of weeks ago Intel's Big Cheese said they didn't think much of the Atom because of their low profit margins on it.
I guess they hoped to make a lot more on the Montevina Unobtanium 2 CPUs they just released rather than the low cost Atoms.
digitallysick @ Aug 13th 2008 10:53AM
I have an Eee pc 1000H , at first i was worried the atom would be like a celeron, which always seemed to slow to me. But shocking, its fairly quick, the eee pc has an overclock type tool for "performance" and things are very speedy. Battery life is amazing , i simply love it. I can't wait to see dualcore atoms.
emailtabs @ Aug 13th 2008 10:56AM
Its not your job to correct people on the interwebs, Stop it.
I hate you all!
Starnerf @ Aug 13th 2008 11:10AM
It's*
:)
Arsenal @ Aug 13th 2008 11:14AM
This and "addicting" are my two major pet peeves.
Can i now assume that you will do your best to fit both into a headline in the next week?
J. Baker @ Aug 13th 2008 11:15AM
Maybe it's meant to be 'could'. Maybe the atom is so cheap that it is a good product to combat recession.
Hence: "Intel calls Atom a "perfect recession product" as it plays well into people's desire to pick up a second PC or a low-cost small computer for kids."
Mike Rosenberg @ Aug 15th 2008 4:28AM
If you look at the gaggle of cheap laptops that have come out recently (Acer Aspire One, Asus, and now Lenovo and Dell) there is clearly an active push towards older users and offering a "second" (or fourth or fifth) computer at a low cost.
But I think the more interesting story here is in the emerging markets - countries whose economies are continuing to grow, such as Nigeria, South Africa, and Indonesia - where power-outs, diesel generators, and enormous UPSs are ubiquitous for whom power is of a paramount concern. Atom is great from a cost perspective, but its really the low power consumption of an Atom-powered system with laptop components (such as our Aleutia Williwaw PC) that will give Intel a formidable edge in these robust economies.
We've learned that Via (or even AMD) just doesn't have the brand power. IT is so relatively expensive in emerging markets that purchasers tend to be enormously conservative and again, Intel garners has an advantage there.
WilfordBrimley @ Aug 13th 2008 1:06PM
$80 for Intel's D945GCLF motherboard with the Atom 230 processor included is a steal. Granted, it has 945 chipset, GMA 950 graphics (just barely capable of running Aero in Vista -- remember the GMA 900 debacle) with analog-only output, parallel, serial, and PS/2 style keyboard/mouse ports, but it's still a steal. For about $200 you can build a great PC for Grandma to check her email and forward all those false chain letters about camel spiders and harvested kidneys to you and everyone else she knows.
kccboy2004 @ Aug 13th 2008 5:45PM
Hey Wilford,
I own a D945GCLF. It cost $59. Good choice but you did get screwed on the price.
It runs Aero perfectly well. What configuration do you have yours set to ?
therpham @ Aug 13th 2008 1:37PM
I came here to be a grammar Nazi, but I see that my work here is done.
Minilap @ Aug 13th 2008 2:12PM
We better have a real competition soon or else Intel will not improve Atom as fast as they should.
w00t @ Aug 13th 2008 3:23PM
While you're right, they probably could care a whole lot less and are probably paying attention to the economy, I don't think that's what you intended to say! :)
crsh @ Aug 13th 2008 9:39PM
The little processor that could.. It's also a funny reminder that standard desktop/laptop CPUs are so powerful they aren't fully used by the average user to begin with. That goes for even the weekly special PC at Walmart at this point (the one that's choking to death because it's trying to run Vista on 256 MB of RAM).
Yes, Mom, I'm looking at you; you don't need a quad-core to write an email and play Solitaire. Atom all the way.
Abe Froman @ Aug 14th 2008 2:45AM
Ok so maybe that's a more obfuscated case, since it's probably been "spitting image" for so long that it has become an acceptable spelling.
Anyway:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spitting_Image
"The roots of this expression can be traced through British history as far back as the Middle Ages [2] and is [...] "He is his father's spit and image"."
http://www.bartleby.com/68/73/5673.html
A hundred years from now, "he could care less" may end up meaning "he couldn't care less". =)
Hegemon @ Aug 14th 2008 10:15AM
Couldn't.
Just needed to throw my hat into the ring. Glad to see people still care about the English language.
Mike Rosenberg @ Aug 15th 2008 4:35AM
Where did you buy a D945GCLF board for $59? Cheapest I've seen was NewEgg for $75...of course UK-side they're about $110 with shipping and VAT :-(.
themoonman @ Sep 5th 2008 12:28PM
Soon intel launches Atom 2 .. based on 32nm tech. allso dualcore even with this older 45nm tech. wait and see.
The Atom 2 will be sweet