Atoms are still comparable in price, its an issue but not the major one. They probably have spare old fab tech to make these.
The main problem with this is that A15s are more powerful than atoms, both absolute and per watt. Also, the graphics in these is likely to be terrible to top it off.

Maybe it is the name. X got stuck on 11 as well.

The race to the bottom as complained about by tech reviewers (get the product for free), is the quality and value of the high end is reduced because the market is smaller due to people choosing a cheap option. With less competition and economy of scale in the high end there are less options with lower value.

Hypothetically if the cheep options were removed from market and you could only buy laptops that meet the ultabook spec, you would see a lot more diversity and value of Ultabooks.

These are strong brands like Apple that have universal brand recognition, OEMs don't really have this. Yes, some are more reliable than others but to the general public its still a windows laptop.

Just in case it did not come through, I think the race to the bottom is a good thing for the average consumer and me personally.

It's Win (x86) vs ChromeOS and Android vs RT. ChromeOS is cheaper because ARM hardware is much cheaper than x86 and Android is cheaper because it has lower hardware requirements and no office bundling.

MS has to do something about lowering the storage and other requirement for windows if it wants to compete at the 250 dollar point with a useable offering.

But can an OEM reliably sell them in MacBook like numbers and make significant margins. The hardware spec is the easy part.

Yes but it would be limited to the people who understand and tolerate or work around the DPI issues with windows who are willing to fork out the money to buy it when you can something that can the job for a quarter of the price.

Its not my hypothesis, its the biasing way of saying most consumers would prefer a significantly cheaper product that can still do the job, and that this hurts the options for people buying expensive computers.
I think the evidence of the "race to the bottom" is the amazon top sellers:
http://www.amazon.com/Best-Sellers-Computers-Accessories-Laptop/zgbs/pc/565108
No windows PCs over 600 dollar on the first page right next to Macbooks for about double the price.

Yes the amazon results are not unbiased but just because companies are selling Ultrabooks it does mean they are being bought buy the general population and are reaching MacBook sales numbers. There are some Lenovos and ASUSs on the next page that reach 1000 but the average person appears to be happy with a 400 to 600 dollar laptop.

The race to the bottom happens because the consumer wants and will buy cheap products. The only reason they will pay more is if the cheap product is not good enough. The problem is that Android and ChromeOS can go far lower than windows can. Future generations of ARM chromebooks are far more of a threat to Microsoft than Apple will ever be.

The apple brand is too strong for OEMs to make significant sales at that price-point so they need to go lower. If you can go lower than everyone else while still providing an adequate product then you corner 30 to 50 percent of the market. If the race to the bottom is not happening then anti trust laws should be brought out.

Because that's two steps instead of one.
VPNs are no more secure than SSH, just make SSH as secure as you need it.

I'm not. The OS you chose is independent from raw computational performance. This is about you saying that phone has enough power to run win 7 and do something useful at the same time. ARM has only just reached Atom level performance, which is capable of running windows 7 but struggles to justify it over an OS with generic applications, such as basic chromeOS/Linux installs.

Your CPU is massively more powerful than your phones, that's my main point. The average speedup of a quad core is well under 200%, they are only really useful for batch jobs. I would think you memory bandwidth is higher as well.
The latest Samsung processors are better than atoms i remember now.

Graphics are for games and desktop effects that you can turn off.

Because in almost all complex user-level applications are still bound by single core performance.
Sure you can multitask and get some application a little faster but actually using all those 4 cores at once is pretty rear on a desktop/cellphone. Quad cores on phones is a marketing gimmick or a niche area.

I said difficult, not that you could not. There's probably some context based permissions that benjy is referring to.

Restart Manager is and installer api for restarting services while updating files to prevent restarting the whole OS. Linux deb/rpm installers can just call syscontrol and restart the service using the same call as the user.

I don't think Linux has a nice "clicky" interface to any of these things but to suggest that it does not have solid equivalents to the first 3 (the rest appear to assume Linux has the same problems as Windows).
Group polices are probably difficult to fully replicate on Linux but its due to flaws in windows that it even needs a restart manager. Maybe SSV is more permission friendly than LVM also.
You are just another windows user who assumes that a proper OS should function the same Windows. There are better lists than this for things Linux is missing on the desktop but the one is the lack of third party applications.

Unless you have the first P4 process (Willamette (180 nm)) and the low end version.
Your single core performance is most likely double that of your phone. Those memory and pipeline speeds look slow but they still will be very competitive with your phone.

Explain this... I don't believe it.
Unless you have an atom netbook ARM is just not there yet. Sure the processor might be close but everything else is still has much lower specs.