B) The Processor in question is only 1Ghz, SINGLE CORE!!! please people, its going to run slower than snail slime.
On Mac OS X it will
which is one of the main reasons why I do not think this netbook/mini-tablet will run Mac OS X.
I'd rather see Apple extend the current Mobile OS to encompass the noted desires of the bulk of the users. That is the better move would be to implement copy and paste, a full BluTooth stack, a USB stack, printer support and whatever other components the developer world needs to deliver new unique products.
Multi-tasking, tabs, iLife/iWork, they would all be welcome on such a device.
That would not be very smart in my mind. The problem is ARM still beats the best that Intel can offer for low power devices even when those ARM systems are built on much older processes.
On the topic of processes, apparently Intel is pushing the smaller CPUs (Atom) first into 32 nm, due to the simpler CPU. Not that it negates your point.
ATOM biggest advantage, or I should say its successors, is that eventually they will be 64 bit devices. At the rate of technology growth, 64 bit processors might be needed in handhelds a lot sooner than many may want to admit to. Some will dismiss this out of hand but lets face it on the desktop a 32 bit only environment will soon be a thing of the past. In the handheld environment the constraints are of course power draw, but RAM density is increasing quickly and there are alternatives on the horizon that might displace DRAM and SRAM. I see Atom as a long term solution if Apple is really looking that far out into the future. Even then Intel still has to deal with ATOMs significant power draw.
Some time ago, I read an Ars Technica article about the Atom. It compared the Atom's foray against ARM CPUs to the Pentium Pro's foray into the RISC-dominated server market. Intel had the muscle to improve the Pentium Pro enough so that the RISCs (at least some, I think) were pushed out. We may see the same thing happening with the Atom, with future generations closing the gap between the Atom and ARM. However, that same article points out that the Atom is facing a higher wall to climb than the Pentium Pro did, due to heat and other factors.
Since I expect the mini-tablet to have multitasking and media editing features as well as media viewing features, I would think 64-bit would come to it a while before it would come to the iPhone.
I'd almost think they would need a price point in the $400 dollar range as to much higher puts the device into laptop range. Also the cost of the iPod Touches have come down a bit and really there isn't much of a change in component pricing. It comes down to just how much performance they want to sell and the actual screen sizes and density.
Yeah, a lot of it depends on display size and flash memory. I'd say about $200 more than an equivalent capacity iPod touch, so $400 might be the bottom end of such a device. Of course if the entry-level mini-tablet is 5.5" instead of 7"/9", that would make it easier to hit $400. On the high end, I can easily see this device hitting $699/$799 with 4 flash chips.
And I'm stepping out on a limb here
maybe the iPhone OS is moving up? The rumors of mini-tablets and other in-between devices running iPhone OS and not Mac OS X seem to push the iPhone OS further than just for devices for viewing media. The increase in price of the lower-end Mac lines (Mac mini, $499 » $599, iBook/MacBook, $999 » $1099 » arguably $1299) kinda falls in line too, as a mini-tablet could easily fall in-between. That mini-tablet would fall in a lineup free of cheap notebooks or netbooks (as far as we know).
