After all, people have lapped up TFTs even though they are more expensive and generally give a poorer performance.
Poorer performance for high-fidelity gaming, perhaps. For ordinary office and home use the difference is not so critical. Also, TFT's are more energy-efficient and space-saving than CRT's, which in Europe with its cramped housing and high energy prices, are big selling points.
I left out the most important part of my argument, which is that I think that most people buy TFTs PURELY because they have a SFF; hence people will likely be interested in SFF PCs also. Admittedly, not to the same degree, as most people probably have their PC on the floor rather than on their desk, but I still think it is a compelling reason. There is a general trend in life towards miniaturisation I would suggest, apart from in certain areas such as pornography and 4x4 off roaders/trucks.
As for the image quality of TFTs, CRTs generally are MUCH better for video usage as well as having massively better viewing angles and better colour representation. I use a Hyundai (L72D) 17” TFT with a DVI connection, which is probably better than the average TFT that ships with most systems. I recently sold a Philips 15” CRT that was 5 years old for only £10, and it still had better image quality than my Hyundai in most cases. The market for CRTs is pretty dead and I think that is purely down to their size.
I personally like the fact that TFTs tend to be silent (many CRTs are not), have a SFF, produce little heat and are environmentally friendly. But, from experience, I don’t delude myself that other people buy them for the same reasons. I’d liked to be proved wrong though.
Let's be fair to AMD. They never had any intentions of building up a desktop platform around the Turion 64. It is strictly a laptop component as far as they are concerned. I am assuming that AMD is releasing the 35w Athlon 64 X2 directly at the desktop market so these CPU should show up at online stores somewhat soon. This may well be the last harrah for S939 since the entire line is to be phazed uot this year.
I wasn’t intending to refer to the usage of Turions on the desktop, but the fact that AMD released 2 different mobile CPU ranges and that the MTs didn’t seem to be that available within laptops or in the retail channel as discrete chips. It does make me slightly cynical about their abilities to deliver low power parts in quantity. Again, I REALLY would like to be proved wrong. I do find it curious though; they release desktop parts whose power ranges vary very considerably for the same part number, but, they go out of their way to differentiate between 2 mobile CPU ranges with a fairly small power difference in absolute terms, but admittedly rather large in relative terms. If Intel’s Centrino brand hadn’t been so spectacularly successful, I wonder whether AMD would have bothered to release MT and ML. It does look a bit desperate to me.
I would rather think that this is purely due to marketing bullshit, which although I hate this with a vengeance, it is still preferable for me than the thought that AMD can’t deliver. For the record, I haven’t bought Intel on the desktop since purchasing a Northwood 1.6A in 2002; I’m no Intel fanboy.