HP Introduces Transmeta Thin Clients
prostoalex writes "HP will announce the T5500 and T5300 thin clients on Monday at the TechEX show in New York City, which use the 733-MHz and 533-MHz versions of Transmeta's TM5800 CPU. Prices range from $599 to $629."
When are we going to see the Transmeta chips' unique code morphing technology used for something OTHER than just making unexceptional x86 clones with questionable benefit over just a normal intel/amd chip?
It's nice to see Transmeta doing SOMETHING, but it still looks like they've been running themselves in circles since the day they first used a product.
Never mind the PC world for a minute. Is Transmeta having ANY luck selling their chips for use in embedded systems?
Most recently, the sun ray is about half the price, has cool take-your-session-anywhere technology, and last I heard isn't selling like hotcakes. So either HP knows something I don't or this is just more evidence of clueless management...
Which also runs at 733Mhz and can be made to run Linux, to act as a web server and a myriad of other apps. Granted, it's not a 'thin' client so much as a 'who's eaten all the pies' client, in physical size at least. But it's still quite compact compared to tower PCs. Plus MS supposedly loses money on each box sold which should surely encourage some enterprising admin would set up an X-Box powered office.
Very true, at 733MHz, the Transmeta chips they are using are NO WHERE CLOSE to being as fast as a PIII or Athlon of the same clock speed. In reality, the performance of these chips have a tough time matching 400MHz Celeron processors, let alone anything that has been sold by Intel or AMD in the last 3 years.
For a thin client though, this might be enough computing power. A thin client really doesn't do a heck of a lot other than display simple graphics. Power consumption (and therefore heat produced) is also quite low, though a ULV mobile Celeron would offer comperable power consumption. The real reason why HP went with these chips is because they are cheap. I have to wonder why they didn't go for a VIA C3 instead though. Similar power consumption, low cost and much more widely available/better supported chipsets.