Honeycomb To Require Dual-Core Processor 177
adeelarshad82 writes "According to managing director of Korean consumer electronics firm Enspert, Google's new Android Honeycomb tablet OS will require a dual-core ARM Cortex-A9 processor to run properly. That means that many existing Android tablets will not be upgradeable to Honeycomb, as they lack the processor necessary to meet the spec. Currently, Nvidia's Tegra 2 platform is the only chipset in products on the market to include a Cortex-A9, although other manufacturers have said they're moving to the new processor architecture for 2011 products."
So, system requirements-wise... (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Java strikes again...
Breakfast Cereal Computing. (Score:5, Funny)
How many cores will Total require? Probably just 1 right?
Just thread it (Score:2)
Be like BeOS, use pervasive multithreading, and those with extra CPUs win, no loss for the older ones. Why REQUIRE it?
Re:Just thread it (Score:5, Insightful)
Why REQUIRE [a sufficiently fast CPU]?
So that people don't blame Google for the molasses performance of a bargain-basement Android device.
Why REQUIRE it? (Score:2)
Because Android will fail if consumers see it as slow/unresponsive. Failure is not an option, so minimum number CPU cycles becomes a mandate.
Nexus S (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Nexus S (Score:5, Informative)
Where have you seen any announcement that Honeycomb will run on any phones? Everything we've heard is that Honeycomb will have a new interface specifically for tablets.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
But it isn't a given either that it will run on phones. They mentioned that there will be a new API for developing apps that can run on either, but there might be a new phone version coming out after Honeycomb that includes these improvements.
Re: (Score:2)
But it isn't a given either that it will run on phones.
Just like how iOS has tablet and phone versions.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, Andy Rubin said it. For what that's worth. See here [youtube.com] starting around 6:00.
Re: (Score:2)
android 2.3 hold within it flags for larger screens then 2.2 and earlier had. This allows a app to load custom graphics and such for larger resolutions and screen dimensions, adapting to the larger surface area in the process.
Hell, there is a demo out there where webos adapts the interface of the email app as the screen size (browser window, as they where using chrome to demo it) changed. Basically it went from a single pane to a 3 pane as the available space got wider.
I can see something similar be done in
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Honeycomb does have a different version number...
Re: (Score:2)
heya,
Are you referring to the G1 or the Nexus One...lol...
Beause the G1 was the first "born" from Google.
Cheers,
Victor
Re: (Score:2)
Or at least the ADP, which Google sold directly. It was left in the dust at the same time as the G1, and does not officially support even Eclair, let alone Froyo.
You could probably have bought an ADP the week before they started selling the N1, too.
Google so far has shown no reluctance to completely abandon their flagship products.
Rumour (Score:5, Insightful)
And wasn't it an equally "reliable" source within an OEM that told us about minimum hardware requirements for Gingerbread? What ever happened with that again?
Oh yeah, it was total bull.
If that's true... (Score:2)
It's not like you can swap out a motherboard/CPU/RAM and upgrade it incrementally (like the DIY PC crowd); the end user will constantly have to buy a whole new tablet in order to stay current with the next generation touch-OS.
Maybe that's the plan after all.. since it would be in the manufaturer's interest to make all of them all final devic
Probably not true (Score:2, Interesting)
The source for this is a tablet maker claiming that its competitors' tablets won't be fast enough. So there's an obvious conflict of interest. And anyways, requiring a dual core processor doesn't make any sense; Google isn't stupid, they won't release something that's too slow for the majority of hardware already shipped.
Re: (Score:2)
As far as I know Google hasnt given any tablets a thumbs up so from Googles standpoint there is no hardware and what is available is a just a big phone.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
False rumor... move along (Score:5, Interesting)
This is already been discussed at length on androidcentral. The consensus is that this stupid rumor is false. It makes absolutely no sense to require any particular number of cores to run Android.
Who is writing this stuff and what is their motive???
Re: (Score:2)
This is already been discussed at length on androidcentral. The consensus is that this stupid rumor is false. It makes absolutely no sense to require any particular number of cores to run Android.
Who is writing this stuff and what is their motive???
You do realize that androidcentral is not an official google site but rather one run by android fanboys right? I would not consider consensus at a fanboy site to be worth much.
Given the anecdotal evidence of the poor performance of the UI in current android version from the Dalvik VM when garbage collection occurs, I am not surprised by this rumour at all.
See:
http://tech.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=11/01/04/1756245 [slashdot.org]
Google needs to work on providing a HAL for graphics acceleration and fix the GC strategy of D
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Android has a HAL for GPU integration (we call it gralloc), Gingerbread brings incremental and concurrent GC in Dalvik, and the Gingerbread NDK provides for all-native development options, among other improvements. You're welcome.
http://android-developers.blogspot.com/2010/12/android-23-platform-and-updated-sdk.html [blogspot.com]
Re: (Score:2)
The rumor is just stupid on the face of it. Google would not have just released a phone that could not be upgraded to the next version of the OS, due out just a few months later.
Re: (Score:2)
The consensus is that this stupid rumor is false. It makes absolutely no sense to require any particular number of cores to run Android.
Or perhaps they are requiring a Cortex A9 instruction set and don't think the 'low power ... into cost sensitive devices' option would suffice?
What about the Battery implications of Dual Core? (Score:2)
Now, lets think about the phone side of the fence. The current crop of 1Ghz processor equipped phones are pretty snappy and sharp. I have a Galaxy S phone, and although I had concerns at first about the battery performance, I don't now. But what a
Re: (Score:2)
So, the question I have, is: Would moving to a dual processor negatively affect the batter life of a cellphone?
Dual cores will likely increase the battery life since one core can be underclocked or disabled when appropriate (saves battery life).
However, I have no idea how multi-core hardware will affect batter... Hmmm, are you planing a fast food themed competitor to "Will it Blend?"
Re: (Score:2)
That doesn't make sense. A single core.. guess what.. can be underclocked as well, and there's no second core to turn off, as it doesn't exists. In a perfect (and very simplified) world a single core CPU would use as much or less power than a multi-core of equal technology level.
However, ARM 9 multi-core CPUs are more power efficient - this means they are "faster" while using less energy than the ARM 8 generation (single core). So in practice, battery life depends on the implementation of the CPU, and ARM 9
nVidia advert? (Score:2)
Nvidia's Tegra 2 platform is the only chipset in products on the market to include a Cortex-A9
Really? Because I'm fairly sure that the PandaBoard is shipping now (and has been for a little while) and includes a TI OMAP4430, a SoC that contains a dual-core ARM Cortex A9 at 1GHz, a PowerVR SGX530 GPU, and a few other things. I've not seen anything actually shipping that includes Tegra 2, although it's been coming Real Soon Now for a year or so.
Re: (Score:3)
Well hold on here, isn't Honeycomb supposed to be a tablet OS? And since dual core mobile processors are on their way, is it unreasonable to make them a requirement?
I mean, you can restrict yourself to the capabilities of an ARM11 based processor from six years ago but then all of the performance and technological gains since then would be completely wasted. And if such a processor is your target, don't use an OS made for more capable devices.
Personally, I want an A9 based device running MeeGo. Something ev
My Two Commandments (tablet? anyone?) (Score:5, Insightful)
If an OS needs a dual processor to function properly it's a bad thing.
Re:My Two Commandments (tablet? anyone?) (Score:5, Interesting)
Google is trying to eliminate the fragmentation that everyone is complaining about, and also trying to reduce the crappy tablets out there giving Android a bad name.
By setting the minimum bar for Honeycomb at a dual-core A9 they can guarantee a certain experience and consistency for all the apps. They can probably also move to hardware acceleration for composite effects, which they can't do for all the Android cell phone hardware out there.
Re: (Score:3)
They would not do it by something as asinine as dictating the NUMBER OF CORES. They might put out a guideline about total CPU & GPU power recommended, however.
But do you really think their brand new Nexus S reference phone is going to be stuck on 2.3 because it is "only" one core? I seriously doubt it.
Finally, much of what makes most of the tablets out there crappy is just plain bad and cheap design and support. Slow CPU is not the highest on the list of what makes things like Pandigital "crappy". I
Re: (Score:3)
Google is trying to eliminate the fragmentation that everyone is complaining about, and also trying to reduce the crappy tablets out there giving Android a bad name.
And that's a fantastic thing to do, just like MS is doing with WP7, it provides a consistent experience as the developer intended.
Re: (Score:3)
Google is trying to eliminate the fragmentation that everyone is complaining about, and also trying to reduce the crappy tablets out there giving Android a bad name.
That, or lack of GPU accelerated GUI realistically requires two cores to deliver smooth experience.
Re: (Score:2)
But but but...
I thought having no single company control the whole product was supposed to be a good thing. Do you mean to say that there are advantages in having one company make both the hardware AND the software?
Well, I'll be a monkeys uncle.
How to not reduce fragmentation (Score:3)
Step one: allow a million tablet devices to be released with Android
Step two: Make a new version of Android for Tablets that runs on none of them and only on a new wave of tablets.
Step three: Developer making tablet specific software now required to target two classes of devices.
Step Four: Mu-ha-ha
So what are you to do now if you are an Android developer? Ignore millions of Galaxy Tab units sold?
If I were an Android developer I would be THIS PISSED.
"Allow"? (Score:2)
Step one: allow a million tablet devices to be released with Android
Misconceived. Android is open source; Google can't disallow anything except their own (non-open) apps & services like the Android Market (which they have been doing, on almost all released tablets).
Step two: Make a new version of Android for Tablets that runs on none of them and only on a new wave of tablets.
A bit like iOS 4 not running on older devices? Anyway, we've only got some random, non-Google suit's claim that this is even the case.
Step three: Developer making tablet specific software now required to target two classes of devices.
Hardly. An Android developer need merely target an earlier version of the OS like Froyo or Gingerbread, and their app will run just the same on a Honeycomb tablet.
Step Four: Mu-ha-ha
Huh? Is that
Re: (Score:2)
Misconceived. Android is open source; Google can't disallow anything
They could lean very heavily on vendors and tell them to wait for the tablet Android.
A bit like iOS 4 not running on older devices?
No, because iOS4 runs on devices almost three years old. Android Tablet when it arrives will not run on things an order of magnitude younger.
their app will run just the same on a Honeycomb tablet.
So they aren't taking advantage of Honeycomb features then?
Are they supposed to be pleased about this hypothetical s
kinda sorta (Score:3)
Though, I love my iPhones. My daughter runs iOS 4 on her 3G, my son runs iOS 4 on his 3Gs and my wife and I both have iPhone 4s. They're great devices and the #1 reason I like them is that my daughter's iPhone 3
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
They can probably also move to hardware acceleration for composite effects
They specifically want software compositing. I've even read threads where the core Android devs are flipped with a third party developer who didn't realize it was on purpose (as in a designed "feature") and even offered to re-write that portion of Android so as to allow for proper GPU sanity. The developer had even made some modest changes in his own code base which showed massive speed ups.
Even in recent reads, they show absolutely no sign of ever wanting to move away from software compositing. If they eve
Re: (Score:2)
Absolutely - this really kinda ticks me off - I just paid $600 for a tablet that has been effectively dead-ended. I wonder how many of the original customers they screwed on the first round will feel like bending over to take another jab when they fork out another $600 to upgrade their OS. What a freaking waste.
Re:My Two Commandments (tablet? anyone?) (Score:5, Interesting)
Why would this tick you off? Did the manufacturer promise you that Honeycomb would run on it? If so, then you have a right to complain. But realistically, you should buy a phone or tablet because of the features it has today, not because of the features it may have tomorrow or next week.
This whole "more features later" promise BS is how we got stuck with Patch Tuesdays. Microsoft sold us a buggy OS and we knew it was buggy, but we bought anyway, because of the promise that they would fix it later.
The expectation should be that your $600 tablet does, out-of-the-box, at least $600 worth of stuff. If it happens to run Honeycomb or some other OS later on, then that's a great bonus for you.
Re: (Score:2)
That model doesn't work for me. $600 is way to much to be spending on a mobile device with such a limited scope. I can get a good laptop for that kind of money.
Re: (Score:2)
That model doesn't work for me. $600 is way to much to be spending on a mobile device with such a limited scope. I can get a good laptop for that kind of money.
So you bought it under the expectation that it would be able to upgrade for how many releases? Or for how long? I mean this doesn't affect the lifespan of the device or anything.
Expectations (Score:2)
Apple's bar is that you get OS upgrades for about three years after buying a device.
Even if you ignore that bar, saying that a device just released is not getting an update just months later, is pretty harsh.
Re: (Score:2)
Agreed. Android has really dropped the ball on this one. Not supporting devices with new releases is just par for the course for android. Most phones are completely abandoned within a year of initial sale, and only months after they are no longer sold.
Half of the latest generation phones from last summer aren't even running 2.2 yet. Cyanogen was able to get that working on my G1 - there is no excuse that next-gen phones with several times the RAM/storage aren't running it. The vendors don't even have
Re: (Score:2)
The last major iPad OS upgrade was free for all iPad owners and capable of running on current hardware, and it's likely the next one will be as well.
Gingerbread for Android tablet owners is a free upgrade too. In fact many Android tablets have gone through more free OS updates than the iPad.
Re: (Score:3)
Absolutely - this really kinda ticks me off - I just paid $600 for a tablet that has been effectively dead-ended. I wonder how many of the original customers they screwed on the first round will feel like bending over to take another jab when they fork out another $600 to upgrade their OS. What a freaking waste.
But Android is open source, isn't that the beauty of it? Also you'll still upgrade to Gingerbread and who knows if there'll be a 2.4 so it's hardly 'dead-ended'. I mean Honeycomb doesn't even have a release date yet!
Re: (Score:2)
Open source does you no good if your hardware is locked down so that you can't actually install anything. Also, just because a user community CAN exist doesn't release vendors from the responsibility to support their products. Imagine if Dell sold you a computer and two months later the next windows update didn't run on it? Do you think that they would say, "well, just keep running your unpatched version of windows - after all you bought it for what it did at the time, flaws and all."
Now, vendors have ge
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm lusting after a small MeeGo-based device myself, but am rapidly losing hope that Nokia can be convinced to loosen their desperate clinging grip on Symbian long enough to put some actual effort into getting it into actual devices.
Android's okay (especially if one has a phone for which CyanogenMod is available and can get full root access), but I also would rather have a more traditional and complete Linux environment to play in on my portable devices.
Re: (Score:2)
You wouldn't want a core dedicted to UI and telephone-related operations?
Re: (Score:2)
The UI doesn't need a core of it own and phone operations are already done on a separate chip in most if not all smartphones.
Re: (Score:2)
These are not "cell phones", they're small handheld computers with cell phone capability.
Handheld computers that aren't phones (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
It's not the phone capability, it' the cell data network. Adding voice capabilities is easy and limits the number of devices you have to carry.
Re: (Score:2)
But is there a market for small handheld computers without cell phone capability? Google doesn't seem to think so, or it'd have licensed the Android Market application to Archos.
May I introduce you to the Samsung Galaxy Tab? [samsung.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It says it "supports phone functionality (as speaker phone, via provided wired ear piece or Bluetooth earpieces.)"
Isn't that essentially what the GP wrote " cell phone capability ", as opposed to the Archos tablets?
Re:Handheld computers that aren't phones (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
All this for 20 bucks a month for data and ~5 for skype number.
Do the U.S. carriers even let one get data service for such a device without voice service at that price?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
But is there a market for small handheld computers without cell phone capability? Google doesn't seem to think so
Here is my take on things.
Google announced both Android and ChromeOS. You might ask yourself, "Why do we need both?"
So far, Google has been saying that Android is a "phone OS" and ChromeOS is a "device OS". Google has also said that Android is "not really designed" for tablets.
So it looks to me like Google is trying to artificially segment the market, and is using the one tool they really have,
Re: (Score:2)
What use is a small handheld computer without Internet connection?
I mean, yeah, there'll be a bunch of basement dwellers who can think of something but that's probably not a viable business for anybody.
Nintendo DS: It prints money (Score:2)
What use is a small handheld computer without Internet connection?
What use was there for a Pocket PC, whose apps could sync to the Internet through Wi-Fi? What use is there for an iPod touch or Nintendo DS?
Re: (Score:2)
The iPod Touch would argue: yes.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
But is there a market for small handheld computers without cell phone capability? Google doesn't seem to think so...
Apple doing very well with the iPod touch proves there is a market. At first glance one would think that the competitive situation for portable phone-less versions of devices would be similar, but I see several large differences.
The iPod touch doesn't carry any AT&T-only disadvantage.
The phone-less devices don't get subsidies.
The phone-less devices would need retail distribution/space, probably a slower tougher task than working through the phone vendors.
The iPod touch and iPad are already very well e
Retail space and ads (Score:2)
The phone-less devices would need retail distribution/space, probably a slower tougher task than working through the phone vendors.
In other words, unlike Archos and Samsung products, iPod touch rode the coattails of the click-wheel iPod products to establish space on retailers' shelves and a chance for end users to try before buying.
The iPod touch and iPad are already very well established with a robust well-integrated ecosystem for product, media, and app distribution
Is Android Market not "a robust well-integrated ecosystem"? If so, then why has Google been so slow to offer it on Android-based Wi-Fi tablets and media players that compete with Apple products?
Some devices are used without a net/data connection, not a situation where Google sells ads.
You know, Google can still sell ads for display on devices with intermittent net connections. It could download a
Where can I try Galaxy Player? (Score:2)
I think you need to look up Samsungs new Galaxy Player -- it has the full market and no cell phone capability.
I've heard good things about Galaxy Player, but I live in the United States, and I haven't seen one at Best Buy or Sears. On the other hand, Best Buy has a floor model of every iPod, iPhone, and iPad. Where can I try Galaxy Player?
Re:Wrong choice (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
My point is that the performance requirement progression is pointless, useless, too fast, and stupid. Gingerbread is leaving behind almost every device already on the market.
That's a lot more forced progression than I'm used to seeing from any OS.
Re: (Score:3)
My point is that the performance requirement progression is pointless, useless, too fast, and stupid.
Why? We want more security, more stability, more responsiveness and more capability...these things don't come free. No-one's forcing you to upgrade so it's moving too fast for you then stick with what you've got.
Gingerbread is leaving behind almost every device already on the market.
That's a lot more forced progression than I'm used to seeing from any OS.
Well firstly it doesn't even have a release date yet and secondly of course at some point the OS will leave most existing devices behind, look at all the problems with the older iPhones running the latest OS, and the original 2G and early iPods don't get it at all. They want to start fresh to provid
Re: (Score:2)
Well, first, this is nothing new for Android. You could have bought an ADP from Google a week before the N1 was released, and I don't believe it ever received android v2. Ditto for any of the other 1st-gen android phones.
The only difference now is that a lot more people bought Droids, N1s, and Galaxies, and now they're feeling the pain that all the first-gen owners felt when their platforms came along.
I wouldn't throw stones at Apple though. While I prefer Android to iOS, the fact remains that Apple has
Re: (Score:2)
It doesn't seem right. It's just out of fucking line that a cellphone OS would require a dual-core processor. Somebody needs to trim some bloat.
That 'bloat' you speak of is 'applications' and people want to run applications on their devices. People want to run multiple applications on their devices simultaneously so naturally a multi-core CPU is the ideal choice.
It's funny how some people are so ignorant they just assume that because system requirements go up it means the software is wasting clock cycles. Do you think added stability, security and features all come with no computational cost?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I don't even see how this is possible. From a processor standpoint, a 1800MHz single core is *roughly* equivalent to a 900MHz dual core.
Probably going to get better battery life and responsiveness in multitasking since you'll spend less time context switching.
TFA is claiming that Google cares about the chip and not the relative performance? That doesn't make sense.
Getting the same performance for the same software out of different chips is very difficult even if they are capable of the same performance. Optimising for a particular instruction set? Optimising the scheduler and power management for multi-core CPUs?
I don't actually know, i'm just throwing out some guesses.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm just surprised dual-core would be a requirement for any OS. To the best of my knowledge, there has not been an OS (apart perhaps from research OS'es) that require more than a single core.
Sure, most OS's today can utilize a multitude of cores, but none of them actually need more than one.
What is it in the architecture of Honeycomb that would necessitate two cores?
Re: (Score:2)
Are they saying it really requires dual cores to run, as in it just won't run on a single core (which sounds like an unholy level of bloat and some seriously bad programming), or are they saying that it requires dual cores in the same way PC software system requirements do, as in "dual core 1Ghz" is a rough estimate of the amount of processing power required to run smoothly?
Re:Java overhead (Score:5, Informative)
Java is NOT slow and hasn't been for quite some time - that argument is so old it's not worth discussing anymore.
Most benchmarks put it ahead of other languages (with the exception of C and C++ to a lesser extent).
In terms of performance it's well ahead of Objective-C due to the overhead of it's dynamic dispatching (oh, and Objective-C 2 now has GC as well - it's about time).
http://www.javarants.com/2010/05/26/android-dalvik-vm-performance-is-a-threat-to-the-iphone/ [javarants.com]
The current crop of 1Ghz Android phones are every bit as fast and responsive as the iPhone4 (with it's 1Gz A4 CPU - essentially a custom Cortex-A8) so your fanbois argument just doesn't pass the smell test. Rumors are that the iPad2 and iPhone5 will ship with dual-code A4 cpus (based on the Cortex-A9), so if iOS and Objective-C are so much more efficient why does it need dual-core? It's needs it to compete against the flood of dual-core devices that will be coming in 2011 and it will need the horsepower to stave off the attack from Android which IMHO, has already surpased the iPhone in terms of features as well as usability (and I'm an iPhone user - for now).
Re: (Score:2)
http://www.javarants.com/2010/05/26/android-dalvik-vm-performance-is-a-threat-to-the-iphone/ [javarants.com]
Im not disagreeing with you, personally i don't really have an opinion on java performance as I rarely use it and where I see it is in places that you can't isolate Java as being the cause of a performance bottleneck. But it occurs to me that the linked article seems to compare message passing in objective-c to function calls in java, which isn't really a fair comparison and the overhead should be pretty low since the dynamic lookup should only occur once per method after which it should be a hash lookup, w
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
well the VM used in android is a custom one (dalvik), 2.2 introduced JIT (with noticeable speed improvements vs 2.1).
And if one really want speed, Google do provide a NDK so that one can compile parts as ARM code (basically having them sit as ARMv5, v6 and/or v7 libs in the APK).
Re: (Score:2)
As far as you objection to GC, that horse has already left the barn. GC is everywhere (.Net, JVM and in ObjC2). With multiple cores, incremental collection and other improvements in the GC algorithms the GC "pause" is hardly noticeable anymore. For truly time-critical portions of code there is the NDK. Besides, the JIT in android is fairly new and has a long way to go to catch up with that in a desktop/server
Re: (Score:2)
You mean still having your code run within the VM so it's still slower than it should be?
Re: (Score:2)
It's not slow in microbenchmarks, sure, but performance in real applications? Not there.
There's a reason there's no desktop apps written in Java ...
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
http://shootout.alioth.debian.org/u64/which-programming-languages-are-fastest.php
Java is very very fast, though its main performance problem is memory usage:
6x more memory usage than C
5x more memory usage than Go
2x more memory usage than C#
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The HotSpot beats C in many benchmarks already.
So is claimed but hardly ever backed up in anything but highly contrived examples that use poorly optimized C code.
Re: (Score:2)
Why is such a slow platform enforced in Android-OS in the first place ? You know the low-power, low-performance mobile platform.
no wonder Google needs another core to tame such a lousy system
Huh, why complain?! This is an opportunity for you my friend. Fork Android, come with another dev medium/language, make it faster and reap the benefits.
Re: (Score:2)
i just want to point out that android does NOT run java.
When you write an android app, it gets compiled into dalvik bytecode, and any android phone only has a dalvik virtual machine. The way the app runs on the phone has nothing to do with the actual java VM
Java is faster than Android (Score:2)
Perhaps if Larry wins the court case against Android, Google will be forced to license Java and Android will finally get some decent performance by using Hotspot instead of Dalvik!
In any case, these dual core ARM machines are more than powerful enough to run the desktop version for light applications.
Re: (Score:2)