> some of the LimePC UBooks are Atom-based, so if that's your logic
> for your conclusion that the Bing can't be a rebranded LimePC, it's
> erroneous.

You are right in this. I stand corrected, thanks.

> You're not living up to your reputation as the link master.

I'll catch up on this ;-)

http://www.limepc.com/bookp10a.shtml seems to be the Atom based LimeBook that Cherrypal were going to rebrand as "Bing".

> And wow, "probably rebranded?" You're really going out on a limb
> there. After all, there's at least at 0.00000014 percent chance Max
> Seybold is running a motherboard fabrication press and plastic mill
> out of his apartment. Consider being more cautious in your
> statements, eh?

You don't need to run your own "motherboard fabrication press and plastic mill" to sell your own non-rebranded netbook. There are companies out there which you can pay for doing the manufacturing side of things for you. That really wouldn't count as rebranding in my book.

> I'm well aware that the Efika is based on the 5200B

I'm aware that you're aware. The reason I added the "'s 5200B" was just that in your sentence you were comparing a CPU to a mainboard whereas you really wanted to compare two CPUs, I guess.

> which requires a gfx card.

Yes, the Efika 5200B requires a gfx card. But a mainboard with MPC5200B wouldn't necessarily require a gfx card, namely if it has an onboard gfx chip.

> As I am that the device Genesi once announced was NOT a 5200B, as
> it had onboard gfx.

Why should onboard gfx mean that the CPU couldn't be MPC5200B? What about a mainboard with MPC5200B and an onboard gfx chip? In fact, Genesi once announced exactly that (MPC5200B plus onboard Volari gfx chip), and you very well know that fact. At least you would if you read and understood what I wrote.

> And if you look back in these threads

Which I did.

> you will see me originally discussing the device as one with
> onboard gfx

You're still playing dumb, right? In said thread, you were originally discussing a fantasy and not even announced nor planned Genesi device with both MPC5121e and onboard Volari gfx (which would result in two redundant onboard 2D/3D gfx cores). Is it that you simply cannot grasp the fact that there were plans/announcements by Genesi for an MPC5200B based device with onboard Volari gfx chip as well as later plans/announcements by Genesi for an MPC5121e (with on-chip PowerVR gfx included) based device, but *no* plan/announcement for your fantasy device?

> hence not the 5200B.

This conclusion is pure nonsense. See above.
Why do you think that MPC5200B plus onboard gfx chip is impossible when you at the same time fantasize about MPC5121e plus redundant onboard gfx chip? Care to explain this "logic"?

> The CherryPal is different from the 5200B.

Yes, a computer is definitely different from a CPU.

> It's better.

If you mean that the C114('s mainboard) is better than the Efika 5200B or that the MPC5121e is better than the MPC5200B, I'm completely with you.

> Granny's comment the last time (or was it the time before last?)
> you mischaracterized me was right in its generalities.

No, it was not. See my reply to his comment. Furthermore, I don't think I mischaracterized you.

> But I think it was incorrect that the device Genesi worked with and
> announced that became the CherryPal was based on the 5200B.

He didn't state anything like that. His comment wasn't about the device that became the Cherrypal C114.

> Agreeing with Granny on one point does not mean I agree with
> everything he says or that we had the same breakfast that morning.

In my book, citing a certain part of someone's posting that states alleged factual information (as opposed to pure opinion) and answering that part with "thanks" clearly classifies as agreeing with all alleged factual information he stated in that very part.