Hasta La Gadget!

I’m an avid reader, studied literature in school, and nerd out over tech, yet past ebook readers have left me cold. The Nook is the first reader I really want, and I won’t be alone. Here’s why.

It’s cost-effective. Yeah, at $260 it’s the same price as the Kindle 2, but you’re getting so much more for your money: Wi-Fi, native PDF support, an SD slot and that crazy second screen makes it seem out of the Kindle’s league. It makes the Sony Reader and iRex look absurdly overpriced and the Plastic Logic Que look like a shot in the dark.

Lending and Sharing. One of my main objections to the Kindle and other readers is that most of my books come from friends, rather than bookstores. The Nook realizes that and integrates a 2-week lending period—plenty of time for a quick read. Plus, you can lend to tons of different devices: Mac, PC, iPhone, iPod Touch, PC, Mac, BlackBerry, or Windows Mobile (soon).

Sharing is also done really well: As opposed to the Kindle, which only lets you read purchased ebooks on a same-account iPhone or iPod Touch, the Nook lets you read on any device supported, the most important of which are PC and Mac. So you and your significant other could read the same book at the same time, on whatever devices you each prefer. The Kindle, in contrast, doesn’t support PC and Mac at all—but we’d be willing to bet Amazon is rethinking that decision right about now. Plus, the Nook syncs both your place in the book and any highlights or annotations you’ve made, which could be great for students.

Free in-store reading. You’ll be able to take the Nook to any of Barnes & Noble‘s gajillion stores and read one ebook, for free, each time—the same way you might wander into the store, pick up a book and read it for an hour or two. Barnes & Noble is really thinking about how people actually read, which is a great sign: This kind of feature makes the Kindle feel like it’s forcing you to change your reading habits rather than adapting to them.

And potential Nook customers will be able to go into a retail store with which they’re comfortable and play around with the actual device, an advantage not shared by the Kindle. Given Matt’s impressions of the Nook, I think seeing the hardware in person will convince a lot of people to buy it.

Head-turning looks. The Kindle 1 was, um, distinctive, and the Kindle 2 is inoffensive and sleek enough, but the Nook has legitimate style. As Matt said, “it makes even the relatively benign-looking Kindle 2 seem like it was beaten with an ugly stick.” It was clear from the first leak that we were dealing with something very different.

Android. There are two things to be excited about when it comes to Android. First is the legit apps, which B&N seems open to—in today’s presentation, John wrote “They, ahem, ‘haven’t announced’ anything about app development, but they’re comfortable using the phrase “when we do,” which is veeeery promising.” My personal most-wanted app? Pandora (or Slacker, or Last.FM).

Secondly, there’s the more, well, illicit possibilities: The Nook both runs Android (which we already know is easily and enthusiastically modified) and has a microUSB jack, which should make for easy hacking. Imagine user-created skins, apps, games (in case reading gets boring)—the possibilities are just about endless. The Nook already supports PDF natively (yes!) but we could definitely see it hacked to embrace other formats like Word docs.

The second screen. Yeah, it’s weird, and we wouldn’t have believed it if it didn’t, you know, exist, but it just makes so much sense: Browsing for books on e-ink is an exercise in frustration, and touchscreen e-ink is even worse. With its capacitive touchscreen, the Nook offers a keyboard and Cover-Flow-esque browsing without the awkwardness and lethargy of e-ink, but it also opens the door for multitasking. You’ll be able to read a book and control your music at the same time, and because the music browser will be on the LCD screen, it won’t look like e-inked crap. It should also support photo browsing and the ability to set your own wallpaper.

Battery life. The Nook’s 10-day battery life may not be quite as long as the Kindle 2’s 14 days, but 10 days is still insane—especially if we think about the tablets that will vie to make ebook readers obsolete. Whenever the Apple tablet is announced, you can bet its battery life will be measured in hours, not days. Plus, the Nook’s battery is replaceable, always a welcome decision (you could have a spare battery, and when yours does eventually die, it’s easy to replace).

Both 3G and Wi-Fi. I’m not exactly sure about the benefits of Wi-Fi right now (besides international travel, where AT&T may not work), but given the possibilities of Android, it’s essential that the Nook includes it. In the future, we may want to download files bigger than ebooks—apps, games, videos, whatever—and Wi-Fi will be vital once the potential of the Nook is unlocked. Plus, there could well be Wi-Fi-only features of the kind AT&T wouldn’t support: Streaming content, web browsing, VoIP, whatever. Wi-Fi is a killer feature not for what it does right now, but for what it could allow the Nook could do in the future.

Syncing your Zune in Mac OS X, running Word in Linux, giving Linux a go within Windows 7: just a few of the things you can do with virtual machines. And setting one up isn’t just easy—it’s free.

The word virtualization conjures images of the dank nerd lairs, populated by lonely network admins, scattered with miles of gray wire, grimy PC towers, processed food packaging and tiny tumbleweeds woven from human hair. It sounds like the domain of the software nerd, the Gentoo jockey, and most importantly, not you. Today, though, virtualization has become mainstream: modern software makes running virtualized operating systems amazingly easy, and undeniably useful.

Intimidating erminology aside, here’s what desktop virtualization means today: You can run just about any OS, Mac OS X excluded, inside any other OS. Ubuntu in Mac OS? Sure. Windows 7 within Windows XP? Why not? Windows ME within Snow Leopard? Nobody’s going to stop you, I guess! And these aren’t patchy, half-assed experiments we’re talking about here—these are fully-functioning installations that’ll connect to USB peripherals, access the internet, share files with your host OS, and run almost any software, short of 3D games. You can set up as many of these things as you want, and delete them in a matter of seconds. It’s pretty great, is what I’m trying to say.

Best of all, virtualization is now something you can try—and stick with—for free, thanks to software like Sun’s VirtualBox. It’s a free download on any platform, and it does its job spectacularly. Here’s how to get started.

What You’ll Need

Free hard drive space: VirtualBox is going to create a simulated hard drive (a hard drive image, to be specific) inside your current OS’s file system. In other words, you’ll need to have space handy to hold a standard OS install, plus whatever apps you’re planning on using on the host system. 10GB is enough to play around with in most cases.

Lots-o-RAM: As efficient as modern virtualization is, running one OS inside another isn’t going to be easy on your hardware. The easiest way to ensure good VM performance is to have plenty of RAM, such that both OSes—your host and your guest—can have more than their minimum recommended amount of RAM.

VirtualBox: This is the virtual machine software, or the program in which all of your virtual OSes will run. You may’ve heard of clients like VMWare or Parallels, but these are either paid or have limited platform support. VirtualBox is a free, cross-platform alternative. Getting it is just a matter of downloading the correct version—there are Windows, Mac and Linux editions—and running an installation wizard.

A guest OS: Installing an OS as a virtual machine is almost exactly like installing an OS natively, albeit slightly easier. In other words, you’ll need a full, licensed version of your OS, in whatever form you can get it. Downloaded ISO images will work right out of the box—this is how most Linux distributions will come packaged—while OSes on a CD will work too, including your Windows install discs. If applicable, you’ll still need to enter license keys—as far as Microsoft is concerned, this is a fresh installation of an OS.

Installing Your Virtual Machine

I’ve chosen to install Windows 7 within OS X Snow Leopard for this guide, because this will be a common usage scenario, and because the processing of installing an OS in VirtualBox is nearly the same no matter what host/guest combo you’re. If you’re installing Ubuntu 9.04 within Windows XP, for example, you can still follow along. Anyway, here you go:

Installing Guest Additions

VirtualBox supports so-called “Guest Additions” in some OSes, which are essentially sets of tools and drivers that make the virtualization more seamless. If they’re available, you’ll want to install them: the guest OS will adjust to your screen resolution properly, your video performance will be smoother (and in Windows XP and Vista, possibly accelerated), filesharing will be simplified, copy and paste will work between OSes, and in some cases, you’ll even be able to run individual programs as native windows in your host OS

That’s called “Seamless Mode,” and if you’re running Windows inside Mac OS or Linux, you may as well try it out. It’s not quite perfect—the Start Menu stacked atop the Dock is a little awkward—but this way you don’t have to switch between entire desktops just to switch from one app to another. It’s a cool effect, at the very least.

To install Guest Additions, click “Install Guest Additions” under the “Machine” menu while running your virtual machine. Guest Additions should appear in your guest OS as an optical disc, which should contain an installer. Run it, then restart your virtual machine. Once Guest Additions are installed, you can access Seamless Mode from the VirtualBox menu, under “Machine.”

Shared Directories

Copy and paste will often work between the host and guest OS, but if you’re planning on using your guest OS for productivity or downloading any kind of media, a shared folder is the only real solution. In the bottom right corner of a running virtual machine, you should see a small folder icon. Clicking it will bring up a shared folder creation dialog. Select where on your host OS your shared folder should be—it can be an existing directory, like your “Music” folder—and check the box to make it “Permanent.” On your guest machine, the shared folder will show up as a VirtualBox shared directory in your local network.

(Note: I’m getting reports that some people running Windows 7 guest machines have trouble finding the network share. You may have to map a network drive manually—just right-click “Computer” anywhere in Windows—the Start Menu works fine—and select “Map Network Drive.” Choose whatever drive letter you’d like to give your directory, then enter “\\vboxsvr\myshare” as the folder path, where “myshare” is the name you’ve given your shared folder in virtualbox.)

Connecting USB Devices

One of the most common reasons for installing a virtual machine is to circumvent some kind of driver incompatibility. VirtualBox recognized most of your computer’s inbuilt components, like sound cards, extra storage or webcams, and can use them automatically. For most USB devices, though, you’ll need to tell it when to take control.

In most cases, this just means making sure your device isn’t in use by your host OS (a flash drive will need to be unmounted, for example), and clicking the small USB plug icon in the bottom right corner of the screen. This will bring up a list of available connected devices; simply click the one you want, and you’re good to go.

Odds and Ends

Virtualizing isn’t just a good way to get around some kind of nagging compatibility problem, it’s a fun way to wile away a few hours experimenting with weird new OSes. Setup is just about the same no matter what you’re installing, so there’s really no reason not to try some of the more esoteric software out there—anything with an ISO available for download will do. For a taste, try the Haiku Project—a revival of the long-dead BeOS, or see what the hell FreeBSD is.

If you have more tips and tools to share, please drop some links in the comments-your feedback is hugely important to our Saturday How To guides. And if you have any topics you’d like to see covered here, please let me know. Happy virtualizing, folks.

On your feet all week? Maybe you just want to spend the next couple of days sitting on your ass. If you had these 7 gadgets, you wouldn’t have to get up for anything.

If you are serious about staying off your feet on the weekends, you are going to need a serious home automation system. And they don’t get much more serious than TrueImage Control from Savant. Unlike traditional systems, TrueImage simplifies your interface by allowing you to interact with actual photos of individual rooms instead of confusing menus:

Savant’s TrueImage technology gives you fingertip control via a simple tap on a wide angle image of each room in your home. Each touch allows you to dim and turn on/off lights, lower or raise shades, even turn on/off your audio and video components. Instead of interacting with confusing icons, TrueImage allows you to simply touch the actual light or shade in that room. Not only does the light in the room turn on or dim (if you press and hold the represented light), but it also illuminates on the touch panel confirming your command.

[Savant via Link]

Wheelchairs are one thing, but nothing blends man, machine, lazy and nerdy like The Hubo FX-1 chairbot. Hit the link to see it in action. [Link]

Maybe you are too lazy to get up, maybe you are too drunk, either way those beers aren’t going to get themselves. Fortunately for you, it only takes a little effort with the control pad on the RC Cooler to transport ice cold beverages wherever they are needed. [Firebox via Link]
Dogs are great, but instead of playing with them, maybe you want to spend the weekend sitting on your ass drinking beer out of a remote controlled cooler. This Automatic tennis ball fetch machine would allow you to do both. [Hammacher Schlemmer]
It’s Sunday, the game is on, and you are far too comfortable to get up and go all the way to the bathroom. If you are not quite ready for an adult diaper, there are several handheld toilet designs on the market that would eliminate at least half of your problem. [Biorelief]
You’re sitting down and seconds are all the way over there. A fork with a telescopic handle will help you get more food without getting up. [Prank Place]
Your cellphone is ringing, but it’s just out of reach. Neodymium magnets, some of the most powerful made today, could help you bridge the gap. Of course, your kitchen sink might come along with it. Oh, and it can also chop your fingers off (NSFW).

It’s uncanny. When known software gets repackaged for iPhones and iPod Touches and passes through the hallowed gates of the App Store, something happens: Almost invariably, it gets cheaper. Waaay cheaper. Good right? Well, not always.

The App Store is a strange new place for developers. Veterans and newcomers engage in bareknuckle combat, driving prices down to levels people wouldn’t have imagined charging just a few years ago. Margins drop to razor-thin levels while customers expect apps to get cheaper and cheaper, but with ever increasing quality and depth.

For developers, for other software platforms and potentially for the increasingly fickle customers themselves, it’s uncharted, and treacherous, territory. But the most bizarre thing of all is—in an effort to keep people in the App Store, and to prevent competitors from getting a toehold in the mobile app business—Apple’s charting a course straight into it.

“The App Store is a very competitive environment,” says Caroline Hu Flexer, co-founder of Duck Duck Moose, an indie developer of children’s edutainment apps like Itsy Bitsy Spider. “As an independent developer without a large PR budget or well-known brands, it can be very challenging, and you’re pretty much at the mercy of Apple.”

The Problem

Most iPhone apps had no life before the App Store, and currently have no life outside it. But with those that did, you start to see a pattern. App prices could reasonably be expected to fall over time—an older game is worth less to customers than a newer game, and with other types of software, a late-stage price drop is a great way to scoop up late adopters. What’s strange, though, is how prices dramatically collapse after hitting Apple’s store.

Two weeks ago we flagged some bizarre differences in pricing between equivalent PSP and iPhone games. Big titles, like Tetris and Fieldrunners, were inexplicably cheaper on the iPhone, even in cases where it was executed better. This didn’t make a whole lot of sense. As it turns out, it had nothing to do with Sony and the PSP, and everything to do with the App Store.

As you can see in the chart above, many apps and services take a price dip in the App Store. Zagat’s premium To Go guides cost a healthy $4/month for Windows Mobile phones, but sell for just $10/year on the iPhone. CoPilot 7, a navigation app, used to set you back a full $200 on a Microsoft-badged device (later lowered to $100); the much-improved version 8 sells in the App Store for a measly $35 today. The premium version of WeatherBug runs $5 for people who happened to buy BlackBerry’s touchscreen phone, but just $1 for anyone who bought Apple’s. VR+ voice recorder, a full-featured dictaphone app, runs $30 on BlackBerry, and an incredible $2 in the App Store. So how can this little App Store, itself a subsection of the iTunes store, squeeze so many developers to the point of near-suffocation?

Update: The BlackBerry Weatherbug app boasts a few extra features over the iPhone app, including push notifications. This accounts for some of the price difference

The Economy

Some of this is pure Econ 101: The store serves a massive, captive audience that’s pre-trained to spend money in iTunes. The promise of higher volume makes it easier for developers to lower prices, which they use, along with interesting features and clever marketing, to set themselves apart from the competition.

If things work out just right, the App Store can move a lot of software for you. Spread your lower margins over tens of thousands of sales, and your $2 app could make just as much, if not more, than your old, slower-selling $30 app did. The App Store recently passed the 2-billion-download mark, and there are likely well over 50 million App-Store-ready devices in peoples’ hands right now. A vast majority of these downloads—averaging an insane 35 per device—will likely have been free. Only Apple knows just how many. But even if just 5% of the 2 billion downloads were paid for, that’s one hell of a market.

It’s true that prices are falling as more and more iPhone and iPod Touch owners enter the market. But prices won’t stop falling. And more and more developers from all over the world are submitting apps, too, so fewer devs are guaranteed visibility. Not all of the people investing time and money in their products are reaping the return they (reasonably!) expected.

Newsweek’s exposé on the end of easy money at the App Store goes a long way toward making the case against going all-in as an iPhone dev. Not only are development costs high, while success appears to be basically randomized. But the story doesn’t explain exactly what happened to make the situation so grim.

The Culture

Giz stories rage about app prices all the time, and in your own private way, so do most of you. Buying $1 songs and $2 TV shows has given us an expectation that apps should be cheap, no matter what their use. The glut of free apps you see filling out the app charts every day doesn’t help either. Software is worth less to us now, even though we use it more.

I spoke with Steve Andler of Networks In Motion, the company that makes Gokivo. It’s an app that we savaged for its introductory price of $10 a month, which then dropped to $5 a month a few weeks ago.

Andler explained reaching the unrealistically low costs with one thing: diminished features. Their app pulls up-to-date map, traffic and POI data from NIM’s servers in real time, meaning that—beyond developer costs—they have to constantly pay for new, fresh data to pass on to their customers. But even at $5 a month, it’s just about impossible for Gokivo to compete with an app like MotionX GPS Drive, which is $3 a month, or $25 per year.

Andler says there are subtle differences in services offered, which is true—MotionX, for example, doesn’t yet read street names aloud when it gives you directions—but your average user probably doesn’t know this, and there’s a good chance MotionX might add it in an update later on, as their market share and revenues grow. But the damage is done. The app-buying customer is spoiled: As far as we are concerned, turn-by-turn GPS apps should now cost no more than $3 a month, period. This is the new retail, and it’s weird.

Loren Brichter, father of Tweetie, is used to getting yelled at by jaded app shoppers. He’s charging $3 for Tweetie 2, an update—but a whole new version, really—of his well-established Twitter app. Offering the software as a free upgrade isn’t realistic for him:

I priced Tweetie at $2.99 not based on how much work I put into it (it would have been more), or to try and undercut other apps (it would have been less), but simply because I felt like $2.99 was a reasonable price to pay for a Twitter client. Impulse purchase, but not bargain-basement. I never liked playing pricing games either—a popular pastime of other App Store devs. It’s always been $2.99, and will probably always be $2.99.

His decision wasn’t easy. And even though his app is the darling of the tech press, and has hundreds of great user reviews, he’s being lambasted for charging three measly dollars for a high-quality app that people will use again and again and again. Before the App Store, a complaint this petty wouldn’t have even made sense.

Apple

From the outside, it appears that Apple is encouraging a race to the bottom. The top 10 lists in each App Store category—one of the only ways for an app to get any meaningful amount of iTunes visibility—are almost exclusively the territory of low-priced impulse buys, and are hard to cling onto for more than a few weeks at time. Flexer, of Duck Duck Moose, says she’s experienced it firsthand:

The ranking by volume (as opposed to revenue) on the App Store seems to drive the prices of apps down. Aside from being featured by Apple, exposure of an app is dependent on its ranking in the top lists, so developers lower prices to obtain a higher ranking.

This is echoed and amplified by the makers of Twitterific, an app that, in a bid to stay competitive, saw its price fall from $10 to $4, despite active development and a growing featureset:

While these changes represent perks for users, it also means that sustaining profitability for a given piece of software in the App Store is nearly impossible unless you have a break-away hit.

And if things don’t change?

Myself and others like me will have no choice but to focus our development efforts elsewhere.

With yesterday’s announcement that Apple is allowing free apps to include in-app purchases, things just got even more tumultuous. Depending on how this is handled, the top “free” apps could all be paid apps in disguise. Either that or the paid app rankings will be dominated by free-on-a-trial-basis teasers. In either case, the rankings open themselves up for opportunistic abuse, and the highest goal for any honest, talented app developer—to just crack that list—just became more uncertain.

This is disastrous for developers, even if it’s mostly incidental, and a function of Apple trying to sell apps like they’ve been selling music for years, despite a totally different set of product types and customer needs. But Apple’s effect on pricing goes well beyond incidental. At least in some cases, Apple calls the shots.

A high-profile dev team that has sold a number of apps in the store since the earliest of days, and who accordingly wishes to stay anonymous, told us as much. When they approached Apple with their first app, they had a price in mind. Apple told them it was too high, and that they’d need to cut it to succeed. They chopped it in half. Even then, Apple told them to “be careful.”

This company made out fine, since they were in a position to adapt. However, to play the volume game, they had to restructure their entire philosophy around a pricing structure that, just months before, would’ve seemed ridiculous.

With over 2 billion data points to graph and filter to their heart’s content, Apple understands the App Store climate better than anyone else possibly can. As such, their advice is probably golden. Which is okay if you’re a relatively nimble, single-purpose company, and you can afford to risk restructuring everything you do around their store, and your costs can be covered at whatever price you evidently need to set to sell at a certain volume. But you’ll just want to keep in mind that their advice is self-interested. Apple wants cheap apps, to keep people buying them, and to keep other stores firmly in the second tier—and they’re not afraid to say it. From Apple’s last quarterly report to investors, a line they’ve been echoing since the store opened:

[Apple] also expects competition to intensify as competitors attempt to imitate the Company’s approach to providing [digital app distribution] seamlessly within their individual offerings or work collaboratively to offer integrated solutions…While the Company is widely recognized as a leading innovator in the personal computer and consumer electronics markets as well as a leader in the emerging market for distribution of third-party digital content and applications, these markets are highly competitive and subject to aggressive pricing.

You don’t need to look back any further than the launch of the iTunes music store to see an Apple that will do everything it can to push other peoples’ prices down for their benefit. Of course, they can’t really fix prices for apps—they’re not songs or movies, and each one does something different—but they can nudge like hell.

What Happens Now

So what does the App Store Effect mean, right now? In the short term, we’ll get lower prices. This is great. But in the long term, it might not be sustainable.

The promise that sales volume will make up for the rock-bottom prices you need to charge just to be seen in your app category seems increasingly hollow, and to put it bluntly, if developers don’t have a chance in hell of recouping their fees, they’ll stop trying. And I’m not talking about 99-cent iFart app spammers here—I’m talking about big players who already make money selling software. If the navigation companies, the big game studios and the premium content providers can’t thrive in the App Store, they’ll have to leave; even playing in Apple’s sandbox threatens and undercut their (sometimes much more crucial) product lines elsewhere.

And don’t forget, Palm and Android fans, this App Store Effect sends ripples well beyond the App Store. Customers expect to see functionally identical apps priced the same way across platforms, because to us, that’s what makes sense. Can devs really afford to port an app to the webOS to sell to the tens of thousands of Pre owners, when they’re expected to tag it with iPhone prices, calculated for a base of millions? Whether by Apple’s design or totally by accident, everyone who doesn’t own an iPhone will suffer for it.

The App Store Effect illustrates a new kind of economy, and it’s not going to go away. In fact, it’s going to get worse. Developers will either adapt, die or leave. But where will they go? Until there are 50 million Android handsets and 50 million Pre offspring out there, the rest of the mobile software world is pretty much screwed.

Intel makes a lot of processors. Too many, maybe. Don’t know what the difference a Core i7 and a Core 2 Duo? A Bloomfield from a Wolfdale? A Sasquatch from a Yeti? You’re not alone.

Chips, Chipsets and Damned Chipsets

Okay, so the first thing to understand is that an Intel brand, like Core 2 or Core i7, actually refers to a whole bunch of different processors. Although they generally have the same basic microarchitecture (in other words, chip design), the brand envelopes both desktop and mobile chips, chips with radically different clock speeds, that use different motherboard sockets, etc.

Because of these differences, each particular chip is given a codename, chosen for obscure geographical locations (seriously, plug just about any codename into Google Maps). For instance, the original mobile Core 2 Duo processor was Merom, and it was replaced after about two years by Penryn, which was manufactured using a new 45-nanometer process to be more efficient. Quite different, these two, but Intel pimped both as Core 2 Duos nonetheless.

View Intel in a larger map
Although Intel doesn’t market chips according to their codenames, the individual chip gets a model number that gives you an idea of how it compares, spec-wise (clock speed, cache size, etc.), to other chips in the same group. So, a Core i7-950 is gonna be faster than a Core i7-920, and a Core 2 Duo P8600 isn’t going to quite stack up to a Core 2 Duo P9600. The difference between a P8400 and P8600 is obviously less than the difference between a P8600 and a P9600. To match a particular chip codename to a particular model number, though, you probably have to do some Googlin’ (or Bingin’).

In some cases, Intel pushes chips with a ULV designator for “ultra-low voltage,” which doesn’t mean anything in particular in terms of chip design, since it includes several brands of chips, from Core 2 to Celeron. The point is that these chips power notebooks that are almost as portable at netbooks, but are more expensive, so computer makers (and Intel) make more money.

While we’re at it, I might as well explain what the hell Centrino is. It’s not a single chip, it’s a platform. That is, it’s a combo meal for notebooks with a mobile processor, a chipset (essentially the silicon that lets the processor talk to the rest of the computer) and a wireless networking adapter. Typically, Intel releases a new combo meal every year, though they’re all been called Centrino, with the most recent making the leap to being called Centrino 2.

The reason we decided to tell you all this stuff now is that Intel is gradually phasing out the Core 2 family, like Pentiums before that, and is moving Core i7, Core i5 and Core i3 up to take its place. This is how all the families relate to each other…

Nehalem Rising: Core i7, Core i5 and Core i3

Core i7 systems use a totally new microarchitecture called Nehalem, and it’s badass.

The first set of Core i7 chips, codenamed Bloomfield, launched in November 2008 for high-end desktops. They’re the most outrageously fast Core i7 chips, with triple-channel memory (meaning they’re able to use memory sticks in triplets rather than pairs) and other blazing accoutrements.

The new Core i7 chips, launched last month, are for desktop and mobile. The desktop variant is codenamed Lynnfield, and it more closely resembles its mobile equivalent, codenamed Clarksfield, than it does the Bloomfield monster—dual-channel memory, not triple, for instance.

You’ll be seeing a lot more Clarksfield in the next couple weeks, like in the HP Envy 15, since most computer makers were holding off for Windows 7 to drop their new laptops. All of the Core i7 processors are quad-core, even the mobile Clarksfield, so you’re not gonna see it in anything like Dell’s skinny Adamo.

Core i5 is going to be Intel’s more mainstream Nehalem-microarchitecture chip brand, and as a broader brand, the chip differentiation gets a little more confusing. Core i5 actually includes some, but not all, of the desktop Lynnfield processors. For now, the only Core i5 chip is quad-core, but you’re going to start seeing dual-core Core i5 chips, and soon enough they will make up the bulk of Intel’s mainstream processors. In English: Unless you’re looking for a crazyfast new computer, your next machine will probably run an Intel Core i5 CPU.

Eventually, dual-core Core i3 chips will come out, and as you can guess by the number, they won’t be quite as fast—or expensive—as the Core i5 or i7 chips.

Netbook’s Best Friend: Atom N and Z

Atom is probably the Intel chip you hear about second only to Core 2 Duo: It’s essentially the CPU that goes inside of netbooks. There are a couple of different variations out now, the N series (codename Diamondville) and the Z series (codename Silverthorne). The Diamondville chips are for nettops and netbooks (though as pointed out, nettop don’t use the N prefix, just the chip number), and can handle full versions of Windows Vista and 7. Silverthrone is used in netbooks but was designed for smaller connected devices like UMPCs and MIDs. (This is why Sony shoving an underpowered Atom Z in the Vaio P, and trying to run Windows Vista on top of it, was retarded.)

The next generation of Atom is more interesting, and more confusing, in a way. The CPU is codenamed Pineview, and it’s actually got the graphics processor integrated right onto the same chip, precluding the need for a separate GPU tucked into the netbook’s overall chipset. The benefit is longer battery life, since it’ll take less energy to crunch the same visuals. We’ll start seeing Pineview netbooks sometime early next year, most likely.

Oldies But Goodies: Core 2 Duo, Quad and Extreme

Intel’s Core 2 chips have been out three years now, an eternity in computer years. Because of this, and because they’re the main ones used in most personal desktop and laptop systems, there is a metric shitton of different Core 2 chips.

It’s also more confusing because there are way more codenames to wade through. Let’s start from the top: Core 2 Solo has one core, Core 2 Duo two, and Quad has four (as does Extreme). From there, you have two distinct generations of chips within the Core 2 family.

In the first generation of Core 2 Duos, the main desktop chip was Conroe (with a cheaper variant called Allendale), while the main mobile one was called Merom. There was also a branch of Core 2 Quads called Kentsfield.

The next generation (that is, the current generation, unless you’re already on the Core i7 bandwagon) arrived with a new process for making chips with even smaller transistors. Among other more technical differences, they were more energy efficient than their predecessors. With this generation of Core 2s, the mainstream desktop chips are Wolfdale, the desktop quad-cores are called Yorkfield, and the mobile chips are Penryn—if you’ve bought a decent notebook in the last two years, it’s probably got a Penryn Core 2 inside of it.

Ancient History: Pentium and Celeron

Pentium is dead, except it’s not, living on as a zombie brand for chips that aren’t as good as Core chips, but aren’t as crappy as Intel’s low-end Celeron processors. If you see a machine with a sticker for Pentium or Celeron, run.

Okay, I hope that helps, at least a little—you should probably thank me for staying away from clock speeds and other small variations, like individual permutations of Core i7 Bloomfield processors, to hopefully give you a broader overview of what all’s going on. Intel told me it’ll all make more sense once their entire road map for the year is out on the market, but I have a feeling it’s not gonna help my mom understand this crap one bit better.

Top image via soleiletoile/Flickr

Thanks to Intel for helping us sort all this out!

Still something you wanna know? Send questions about sweet potato chips, pumpkin pie or turduckens to tips@gizmodo.com, with “Giz Explains” in the subject line.