can an "old" G5 iMac be upgraded to a "new" G5 iMac by simply replacing the midplane board?
At least in so far as the video is concerned?
If so, midplane failures might be more of a blessing than a curse -- provided one could persuade Apple to replace the failed midplane with a new model midplane...
... of Doom 3 on the iMac G5, and the Quartz Extreme changes in OS X 10.4 outlined by John Siracusa over at ars technica, one wonders if the G5 iMac is now a credible gaming machine -- at least for OpenGL games.
It seems like the hardware should be up to the task, and now, with OS X 10.4, the software can properly use the hardware.
I suspect that most of the trailer folk are watching TV on monster TVs, having evaluated whether they want to spend their buck$ (be they from wages, meth sales, or welfare) on a mortage or a big screen TV, and made their choices accordingly. If that turns out to be the case, they'll opt for an HDTV receiver and HDTV rabbit ears eagerly.
On the other hand, the folks who are living in trailers because they prefer to spend their buck$ on buying meth... well, they won't notice when the screen goes dark, and they've prolly hocked their TV anyhow.
It's most likely a mistake to assume that people who live in a completely different way from you will be just like you in every other way.
Yeah, I know I'm an idiot, offering a serious response to a humorous post, so what's it to you?
... because the little rug rats become ankle-biters and then before you know it are taking the car -- and the costs go up exponentially with time.
I think that once they get past the ankle-biter stage, $30K becomes a money-losing proposition for the seller. I know for a fact that as they approach college age, $300,000 would be a losing proposition for many folks.
So get with the program, people! Sell your spawn early and often!
I guess so, but an open source project that uses a proprietary framework (.NET) that targets a single platform via a closed video driver spec (DirectX) strikes me as missing the point somewhat. It's a bit like an open source project coded in PPC assembler.
Yes, it is true that there is the possibility that non-Windozers could port the source to Mono, and perhaps there exists a DirectX-to-OpenGL converter such that a sufficiently talented and determined band of coders could, in theory, create working versions of this impressive project that would run somewhere other than the indicated system requirements, but it seems like a long shot to me.
---
System Requirements
* Windows 2000, XP Home, or XP Professional
* Intel Pentium 3, 1 GHz, or AMD Athlon or higher
* 256 MB of RAM
* 3D Graphics Card
o nVidia GeForce 2 Ultra
o ATI Radeon 7500
o Intel Extreme Graphics 2
* DSL / Cable connection or faster
* 2 GB of disk space
---
And yes, I am an envious OS X user -- pretty much a first for me, being envious of a Windows software project.
... he feared that without the scintillating series guidance from Douglas Adams, he would *not* be typecast, and this regeneration of the series would suffer the same fate as "Enterprise" has, across the pond?
Routers -- Freescale does a significant amount of business [disclaimer]I believe[/disclaimer] supplying embedded PPC processors to the communications industry. Stuff like this helps to make optical fiber connection cheaper and faster. The Freescale involvement means that the photonic-to-electronic chips get a cost-effective integration with the electronic logic in the router.
Maybe eventually, we'll see direct fiber communications connecting to our home PCs, at commodity prices, through special purpose chips similar to those supporting the ethernet jacks we use today. If that is ever to happen, stuff like this needs to happen.
... even if they only collect taxes on the average offshore worker's $10 per diem, NY is looking ahead to a time when ALL the jobs will be offshore -- and lots of them, as work expands to fill the capacity available.
Billions and billions of low-paid taxable earners.
They're just planning for their future. Such visionary notions are not usually seen in the typical civil servant organizations. My hat's off to 'em
Somebody oughta tell G.W. Bush what NY is doing here. This strikes me as the solution to our Social Security funding problem. Our demographics are killing the program, we just need more wage earners to support it -- this is the answer.
Worse yet -- if Steve finds out that any piece of his thunder has been pre-empted, he's likely to hold up releasing Tiger until June 30... just because he can.
... which is almost always a tool to do something that is distinctly unique to the customer's operation.
Take the simple case of a financial model, implemented mostly (or even entirely) via a spreadsheet. This may involve integrating charts and printed reports, and maybe is kicked off on a regular basis as a cron table entry or some such thing. There may be security considerations requiring encryption of data files and/or transmissions of encrypted data.
All of these things can be accomplished using either purchased proprietary programs (which the customer may or may not have already installed) or open source programs.
Typically, the customer has some expectation of the time frame they expect this tool to function over. If it is more than about 18 months, then you are looking at the possibility of seeing new hardware or software come into play that may necessitate an upgrade of the programs used to facilitate the user's "toolware".
A prudent salesperson would point this out to the client/prospect, and note that while they cannot predict the cost of a future proprietary software upgrade, they will commit to a specific (perhaps zero) cost for any required open source upgrades with the purchase of a service & support contract.
At this point, we see some clear advantages to using open source software to earn a living in the contracting business: 1) it permits a potentially lower implementation cost. 2) it allows the contractor to offer a fixed price support agreement at a reasonable rate. 3) it clears the water regarding what is being purchased -- which is the effort involved in orchestrating the various software components toward producing a "tool" that is what the customer wants.
If the customer wanted to do what they are paying the contractor to do for them, they would, as it's not rocket science. However, most customers see this kind of effort as a nonproductive use of their time, and recognize the benefits of having an experienced professional do the job for them, especially if it is an infrequently performed task.
Using proprietary software when equivalent open source alternatives exist is usually just a means of jacking up the price the customer pays. Remember that the thing you create is what the customer is paying for, and that unless you're coding the tools you use (and if you are, you'd better have a damn good reason for doing so), it is to your and your customers' best interests to use the programs that offer the best results for the least money.
..."A decent PVR setup (with hardware acceleration) has been missing for the MacOS platform"...
I guess you're not famliar with El Gato Systems, which has a long association with Apple, produces Mac-only products and presumably turns a profit doing so, and is very well-versed on global video standards.
I'm *VERY* happy with my EyeTV 500 HDTV tuner/decoder, and am considering an EyeTV 200 to be used in concert with a Mac mini and large (~40") LCD panel as a media center supporting a variety of feeds.
[RANT]
Pardon my taking umbrage at this, but it sounds too much like the "there's no software for the Mac" mantra that is so patently false, mistaking 50,000 excellent software packages as somehow inadequate in comparison to 500,000 substandard kludges that cover the same markets in the Windoze world -- or the "Macs are too expensive" mantra spouted by those who are apparently incapable of performing an objective comparison or pricing.
1) Kid signs up for limited freebee ADC membership, knowing that it does not include access to Tiger beta, in order to have "real" developer (who should certainly know better) place a d/l seed in his area. -- mildly unethical.
2) Kid, excited with his "prize", sends it out to his web "buddies" so they can share in the radiant joy. Exceedingly stoopid.
3) A restricted beta of a product Apple intends to make hundreds of millions of $$$ from is released into the wild for free. Entirely predictable.
4) Apple gets justifiably upset, sues all in sight. About all that Apple can do at this point is make an example of them.
5) The Woz feels sorry that the Kid is getting punished for his unthinking brush with Reality, donates $1000 to his defense.
So what can we learn from this?
1) Apple needs to tighten up ability to transfer software assets between classes of ADC members.
2) Kids (or anyone) that act in an unthinking manner can expect to be educated. Think of it as Evolution in Action.
3) People will gawk at a grisly highway accident, whether on concrete or etherial roadways.
Let's take the basic notion of inflatable tubular balloons -- they need not be quite so sophisticated as those described in the article -- something on the order of 300 m long and 10 m in diameter would suffice.
Take a number of these (say, a hundred or so) and tie them together using carbon nanotube "rope" into a sheet which is then rolled into a larger cylinder and the whole shebang spun to simulate microgravity. Now you've got a structure big enough to do something with.
And instead of an orbiting habitat, a hotel for the super-rich, go ahead and make it a bit more mobile. It's going to require some sort of propulsion system to maintain/adjust its orbit. Why not go ahead and give it enough mobility to take a "slow-boat" orbit out around the Moon and back? Throw in a casino, and you have a really classy cruise liner.
Think big -- like a government (or bigger yet, like a multinational corporation) -- it's not your money being spent, is it?
*ANY* company's stock is not simply a measure of "what it's worth" -- it also includes expectations of what it might become. In the case of Apple's current stratospheric valuation, one might look at the current market share enjoyed by Apple in the personal computer world (around 3%), and wonder what if they were able to do there what they have done in the personal music player marketplace?
Let's suppose that J. Q. Publicus *is* approaching a tipping point with regard to frustration about virus/worm/adware crap. If that 3% market share were to grow to, let's say, just for purposes of illustration, 9%, then the earnings contribution by Mac sales will AT LEAST triple, due to manufacturing efficiencies, no additional development expenses, yada yada yada. Suddenly today's pricing of the stock doesn't look so extreme anymore.
That is a simple rationale. Others are based on the theory that the world market for digital music will grow A LOT -- and since Apple *owns* that market, their revenues will grow with it.
One is (or should be) always looking for instances of where the "efficient market" is out of step with reality. Many times, one is wrong. But the essence of investment theory is to search out, using various metrics (technical "analysis", Ben Graham's work on valuation, astrology, whatever works), these instances of where the efficient market isn't, evaluate the risk, take a position, and wait for reality to catch up.
Those who invest via the "driving throught the rear view mirror" approach are destined to run off the road and crash. To properly invest, one has to look ahead (as well as behind and side-to-side), and not drive faster than conditions dictate (i.e., if you leverage yourself to the hilt and can't react quickly enough to the potholes in the road...), and be cognizant that the road ahead (that would be the future) is almost always enshrouded in fog.
As to whether Apple is priced fairly today, it depends upon exactly what future unfolds for it.
BTW... I *did* buy back then (a bit later, actually), based upon valuations and the huge pile of cash Apple was sitting on. I'm still holding it, waiting to see where it will peak. I look for it to sell off a bit sometime this year, and if there are signs that the Mini Mac is selling strongly into the Windows domain, I'll probably buy some more. However, it could just as well turn out that Apple drops the ball and is unable to satisfy demand, or that the hoped-for demand never materializes.
If you can't identify market inefficiencies, or foretell the future with some degree of accuracy, stick to index funds.
I imagine Bill was struggling mightily to keep from bursting out with a lusty Bwoohahaha!!! just thinking about the windfall he'd just paid himself.
(Bill owns a bit more than a billion shares of Microsoft stock, and due to W's "tax reformation", is only going to pay at most 15% in taxes on the $3B of dividend income he paid himself in early December)
Wouldn't you have a bit of trouble maintaining composure in this situation?
From what I've read, as a cpu, the AMD64 is certainly in the same performance class as a G5 (and vice versa).
However, the mini-Mac is not a cpu, and doesn't use a G5. But from recent testing, it's close enuf for mundane purposes.
The weakest links I see are the notebook hard drive (I'm guessing the Cube fiasco prevented them (politically) from a slightly different form factor with a "real" HD), and they could have spent the extra buck and added a second Firewire port.
Looking at the mini-Mac as a computer system, rather than as a cpu, I'm hard pressed to come up with a single comparable product (and yes, I include the operating system in the context of "computer system") anywhere else in the marketplace, While it would be nice to see an x86 "Cube" with a more substantial 3.5" HD quietly sporting an AMD64 cpu, Firewire (USB2 has about half the throughput for sustained data transfer), USB2, and 802.11_+Bluetooth capability, it ain't gonna happen -- except as some bizarre sort of artificial fireplace log, merrily heating the room.
Due to the "small AND quiet" constraints I have imposed on my definition of this market niche, you're going to be looking at an Intel-based cpu, probably the recently announced Sonoma Centrino, which has a couple of low-power variants (low power means less heat to dissipate) of adequate performance.
If Intel would mass-market a Sonoma set-top box with 802.11_, Firewire (connect to camcorders and external HDs), a BT keyboard+mouse/trackball, BT media remote, component video, DVI, and HD tuner + disc player (HD disk burning is not really necessary for the consumer market, IMHO), THEN there would be some SIGNIFICANT competition in this (very large) market niche.
But I don't see this happening anytime soon for two reasons:
Intel's pathological fear of Firewire will make it push USB2 and miss the camcorder video crowd
Where are they gonna get software to match OS X and iLife? From Microsoft (and still be cheap)? Linux-based OS and GUI solutions are feasible, but where are the INTEGRATED, easy-to-use consumer apps for Linux?
Isn't this kind of architecture extremely well-suited to being managed by a microkernel, with a level of abstraction provided between the details of keeping the processors busy and the dispatching of processes by the OS?
In this manner, the microkernel becomes a sort of "Cell compiler", breaking down the work presented to it and feeding it to however many processors are actually present in the hardware.
The number of "logical processors" seen by the OS might have only a faint resemblence to the actual number of Cell processors under the hood.
Re:Sick of Microsoft's Lack of Dedication to Mac
on
Microsoft At Macworld
·
· Score: 1
Give NeoOffice/J a shot and let the rest of us know how responsive it is compared to Office X.
I find it (after a bit of a lengthy launch) to be a far larger threat to Office than iWork is likely to ever be.
If iWork had a spreadsheet component, and all components have excellent Applescript support (as I'm sure they do), then I might consider buying it. But I would continue to use NeoOffice as my interface to the Microsoft world.
Slashdot Mirror
I wonder...
...
can an "old" G5 iMac be upgraded to a "new" G5 iMac by simply replacing the midplane board?
At least in so far as the video is concerned?
If so, midplane failures might be more of a blessing than a curse -- provided one could persuade Apple to replace the failed midplane with a new model midplane
... of Doom 3 on the iMac G5, and the Quartz Extreme changes in OS X 10.4 outlined by John Siracusa over at ars technica, one wonders if the G5 iMac is now a credible gaming machine -- at least for OpenGL games.
It seems like the hardware should be up to the task, and now, with OS X 10.4, the software can properly use the hardware.
I suspect that most of the trailer folk are watching TV on monster TVs, having evaluated whether they want to spend their buck$ (be they from wages, meth sales, or welfare) on a mortage or a big screen TV, and made their choices accordingly. If that turns out to be the case, they'll opt for an HDTV receiver and HDTV rabbit ears eagerly.
... well, they won't notice when the screen goes dark, and they've prolly hocked their TV anyhow.
On the other hand, the folks who are living in trailers because they prefer to spend their buck$ on buying meth
It's most likely a mistake to assume that people who live in a completely different way from you will be just like you in every other way.
Yeah, I know I'm an idiot, offering a serious response to a humorous post, so what's it to you?
Riiight
Those who are "lazy and smart" have no excuses.
... wake me up if/when it enters the atmosphere.
Consults Homeland Defense Handbook ...
... it says here to "Duck and Cover".
I guess all that duct tape and plastic wrap will not be useful.
... because the little rug rats become ankle-biters and then before you know it are taking the car -- and the costs go up exponentially with time.
I think that once they get past the ankle-biter stage, $30K becomes a money-losing proposition for the seller. I know for a fact that as they approach college age, $300,000 would be a losing proposition for many folks.
So get with the program, people! Sell your spawn early and often!
I guess so, but an open source project that uses a proprietary framework (.NET) that targets a single platform via a closed video driver spec (DirectX) strikes me as missing the point somewhat. It's a bit like an open source project coded in PPC assembler.
Yes, it is true that there is the possibility that non-Windozers could port the source to Mono, and perhaps there exists a DirectX-to-OpenGL converter such that a sufficiently talented and determined band of coders could, in theory, create working versions of this impressive project that would run somewhere other than the indicated system requirements, but it seems like a long shot to me.
---
System Requirements
* Windows 2000, XP Home, or XP Professional
* Intel Pentium 3, 1 GHz, or AMD Athlon or higher
* 256 MB of RAM
* 3D Graphics Card
o nVidia GeForce 2 Ultra
o ATI Radeon 7500
o Intel Extreme Graphics 2
* DSL / Cable connection or faster
* 2 GB of disk space
---
And yes, I am an envious OS X user -- pretty much a first for me, being envious of a Windows software project.
... he feared that without the scintillating series guidance from Douglas Adams, he would *not* be typecast, and this regeneration of the series would suffer the same fate as "Enterprise" has, across the pond?
Let's try...
Routers -- Freescale does a significant amount of business [disclaimer]I believe[/disclaimer] supplying embedded PPC processors to the communications industry. Stuff like this helps to make optical fiber connection cheaper and faster. The Freescale involvement means that the photonic-to-electronic chips get a cost-effective integration with the electronic logic in the router.
Maybe eventually, we'll see direct fiber communications connecting to our home PCs, at commodity prices, through special purpose chips similar to those supporting the ethernet jacks we use today. If that is ever to happen, stuff like this needs to happen.
... even if they only collect taxes on the average offshore worker's $10 per diem, NY is looking ahead to a time when ALL the jobs will be offshore -- and lots of them, as work expands to fill the capacity available.
Billions and billions of low-paid taxable earners.
They're just planning for their future. Such visionary notions are not usually seen in the typical civil servant organizations. My hat's off to 'em
Somebody oughta tell G.W. Bush what NY is doing here. This strikes me as the solution to our Social Security funding problem. Our demographics are killing the program, we just need more wage earners to support it -- this is the answer.
You can start by going into the Expose preference pane and mapping that Expose function to something other than F9.
I map all my Expose activation keys to option-F9 option-F10, etc.
Now you should be able to use your Logitech preferences to map the middle button to F9 and not have Expose intervene.
Worse yet -- if Steve finds out that any piece of his thunder has been pre-empted, he's likely to hold up releasing Tiger until June 30... just because he can.
... Garry Kasparov, meet Jimmy Hoffa.
... which is almost always a tool to do something that is distinctly unique to the customer's operation.
Take the simple case of a financial model, implemented mostly (or even entirely) via a spreadsheet. This may involve integrating charts and printed reports, and maybe is kicked off on a regular basis as a cron table entry or some such thing. There may be security considerations requiring encryption of data files and/or transmissions of encrypted data.
All of these things can be accomplished using either purchased proprietary programs (which the customer may or may not have already installed) or open source programs.
Typically, the customer has some expectation of the time frame they expect this tool to function over. If it is more than about 18 months, then you are looking at the possibility of seeing new hardware or software come into play that may necessitate an upgrade of the programs used to facilitate the user's "toolware".
A prudent salesperson would point this out to the client/prospect, and note that while they cannot predict the cost of a future proprietary software upgrade, they will commit to a specific (perhaps zero) cost for any required open source upgrades with the purchase of a service & support contract.
At this point, we see some clear advantages to using open source software to earn a living in the contracting business:
1) it permits a potentially lower implementation cost.
2) it allows the contractor to offer a fixed price support agreement at a reasonable rate.
3) it clears the water regarding what is being purchased -- which is the effort involved in orchestrating the various software components toward producing a "tool" that is what the customer wants.
If the customer wanted to do what they are paying the contractor to do for them, they would, as it's not rocket science. However, most customers see this kind of effort as a nonproductive use of their time, and recognize the benefits of having an experienced professional do the job for them, especially if it is an infrequently performed task.
Using proprietary software when equivalent open source alternatives exist is usually just a means of jacking up the price the customer pays. Remember that the thing you create is what the customer is paying for, and that unless you're coding the tools you use (and if you are, you'd better have a damn good reason for doing so), it is to your and your customers' best interests to use the programs that offer the best results for the least money.
And typically, those would be open source.
... when future versions of the iPod are likely to feature BlueTooth connectivity?
I guess you're not famliar with El Gato Systems, which has a long association with Apple, produces Mac-only products and presumably turns a profit doing so, and is very well-versed on global video standards.
I'm *VERY* happy with my EyeTV 500 HDTV tuner/decoder, and am considering an EyeTV 200 to be used in concert with a Mac mini and large (~40") LCD panel as a media center supporting a variety of feeds.
[RANT]
Pardon my taking umbrage at this, but it sounds too much like the "there's no software for the Mac" mantra that is so patently false, mistaking 50,000 excellent software packages as somehow inadequate in comparison to 500,000 substandard kludges that cover the same markets in the Windoze world -- or the "Macs are too expensive" mantra spouted by those who are apparently incapable of performing an objective comparison or pricing.
[/RANT]
1) Kid signs up for limited freebee ADC membership, knowing that it does not include access to Tiger beta, in order to have "real" developer (who should certainly know better) place a d/l seed in his area. -- mildly unethical.
2) Kid, excited with his "prize", sends it out to his web "buddies" so they can share in the radiant joy. Exceedingly stoopid.
3) A restricted beta of a product Apple intends to make hundreds of millions of $$$ from is released into the wild for free. Entirely predictable.
4) Apple gets justifiably upset, sues all in sight. About all that Apple can do at this point is make an example of them.
5) The Woz feels sorry that the Kid is getting punished for his unthinking brush with Reality, donates $1000 to his defense.
So what can we learn from this?
1) Apple needs to tighten up ability to transfer software assets between classes of ADC members.
2) Kids (or anyone) that act in an unthinking manner can expect to be educated. Think of it as Evolution in Action.
3) People will gawk at a grisly highway accident, whether on concrete or etherial roadways.
Move along folks.
... why not something a bit more grandiose?
Let's take the basic notion of inflatable tubular balloons -- they need not be quite so sophisticated as those described in the article -- something on the order of 300 m long and 10 m in diameter would suffice.
Take a number of these (say, a hundred or so) and tie them together using carbon nanotube "rope" into a sheet which is then rolled into a larger cylinder and the whole shebang spun to simulate microgravity. Now you've got a structure big enough to do something with.
And instead of an orbiting habitat, a hotel for the super-rich, go ahead and make it a bit more mobile. It's going to require some sort of propulsion system to maintain/adjust its orbit. Why not go ahead and give it enough mobility to take a "slow-boat" orbit out around the Moon and back? Throw in a casino, and you have a really classy cruise liner.
Think big -- like a government (or bigger yet, like a multinational corporation) -- it's not your money being spent, is it?
... the midichlorian counts of those persons using the device?
*ANY* company's stock is not simply a measure of "what it's worth" -- it also includes expectations of what it might become. In the case of Apple's current stratospheric valuation, one might look at the current market share enjoyed by Apple in the personal computer world (around 3%), and wonder what if they were able to do there what they have done in the personal music player marketplace?
Let's suppose that J. Q. Publicus *is* approaching a tipping point with regard to frustration about virus/worm/adware crap. If that 3% market share were to grow to, let's say, just for purposes of illustration, 9%, then the earnings contribution by Mac sales will AT LEAST triple, due to manufacturing efficiencies, no additional development expenses, yada yada yada. Suddenly today's pricing of the stock doesn't look so extreme anymore.
That is a simple rationale. Others are based on the theory that the world market for digital music will grow A LOT -- and since Apple *owns* that market, their revenues will grow with it.
One is (or should be) always looking for instances of where the "efficient market" is out of step with reality. Many times, one is wrong. But the essence of investment theory is to search out, using various metrics (technical "analysis", Ben Graham's work on valuation, astrology, whatever works), these instances of where the efficient market isn't, evaluate the risk, take a position, and wait for reality to catch up.
Those who invest via the "driving throught the rear view mirror" approach are destined to run off the road and crash. To properly invest, one has to look ahead (as well as behind and side-to-side), and not drive faster than conditions dictate (i.e., if you leverage yourself to the hilt and can't react quickly enough to the potholes in the road...), and be cognizant that the road ahead (that would be the future) is almost always enshrouded in fog.
As to whether Apple is priced fairly today, it depends upon exactly what future unfolds for it.
BTW... I *did* buy back then (a bit later, actually), based upon valuations and the huge pile of cash Apple was sitting on. I'm still holding it, waiting to see where it will peak. I look for it to sell off a bit sometime this year, and if there are signs that the Mini Mac is selling strongly into the Windows domain, I'll probably buy some more. However, it could just as well turn out that Apple drops the ball and is unable to satisfy demand, or that the hoped-for demand never materializes.
If you can't identify market inefficiencies, or foretell the future with some degree of accuracy, stick to index funds.
Why certainly!
I imagine Bill was struggling mightily to keep from bursting out with a lusty Bwoohahaha!!! just thinking about the windfall he'd just paid himself.
(Bill owns a bit more than a billion shares of Microsoft stock, and due to W's "tax reformation", is only going to pay at most 15% in taxes on the $3B of dividend income he paid himself in early December)
Wouldn't you have a bit of trouble maintaining composure in this situation?
However, the mini-Mac is not a cpu, and doesn't use a G5. But from recent testing, it's close enuf for mundane purposes.
The weakest links I see are the notebook hard drive (I'm guessing the Cube fiasco prevented them (politically) from a slightly different form factor with a "real" HD), and they could have spent the extra buck and added a second Firewire port.
Looking at the mini-Mac as a computer system, rather than as a cpu, I'm hard pressed to come up with a single comparable product (and yes, I include the operating system in the context of "computer system") anywhere else in the marketplace, While it would be nice to see an x86 "Cube" with a more substantial 3.5" HD quietly sporting an AMD64 cpu, Firewire (USB2 has about half the throughput for sustained data transfer), USB2, and 802.11_+Bluetooth capability, it ain't gonna happen -- except as some bizarre sort of artificial fireplace log, merrily heating the room.
Due to the "small AND quiet" constraints I have imposed on my definition of this market niche, you're going to be looking at an Intel-based cpu, probably the recently announced Sonoma Centrino, which has a couple of low-power variants (low power means less heat to dissipate) of adequate performance.
If Intel would mass-market a Sonoma set-top box with 802.11_, Firewire (connect to camcorders and external HDs), a BT keyboard+mouse/trackball, BT media remote, component video, DVI, and HD tuner + disc player (HD disk burning is not really necessary for the consumer market, IMHO), THEN there would be some SIGNIFICANT competition in this (very large) market niche.
But I don't see this happening anytime soon for two reasons:
Intel's pathological fear of Firewire will make it push USB2 and miss the camcorder video crowd
Where are they gonna get software to match OS X and iLife? From Microsoft (and still be cheap)? Linux-based OS and GUI solutions are feasible, but where are the INTEGRATED, easy-to-use consumer apps for Linux?
Isn't this kind of architecture extremely well-suited to being managed by a microkernel, with a level of abstraction provided between the details of keeping the processors busy and the dispatching of processes by the OS?
In this manner, the microkernel becomes a sort of "Cell compiler", breaking down the work presented to it and feeding it to however many processors are actually present in the hardware.
The number of "logical processors" seen by the OS might have only a faint resemblence to the actual number of Cell processors under the hood.
I find it (after a bit of a lengthy launch) to be a far larger threat to Office than iWork is likely to ever be.
If iWork had a spreadsheet component, and all components have excellent Applescript support (as I'm sure they do), then I might consider buying it. But I would continue to use NeoOffice as my interface to the Microsoft world.