ARM and Dual-Atom Processors in New Portables

chrb writes to tell us that Dell's new Latitude Z has finally been delivered as promised, complete with ARM processor. Codenamed BlackTop, the device runs a modified version of Suse Linux, and is capable of near-instant bootup. Dell's research has apparently found that some early users spend 70% of their time in the Linux environment." Relatedly snydeq writes "Colombian computer maker Haleron has designed a netbook that combines Atom processors in an effort to provide the performance of a standard laptop at a price more affordable to Latin Americans. The Swordfish Net N102 includes two Atom N270 processors running at 1.6GHz. Haleron worked for six months to modify Intel's 945 chipset to run the two processors. The processors divide the workload, much like a dual-core processor does, the company said. The netbook, which begs the question, when does a netbook stop being a netbook, comes with Windows XP Home Edition. 'We found that it works best on the Windows XP operating system. Both Windows Vista and the new Windows 7 performed below Windows XP in the load sharing department,' the company said."

Comments

Just like in the movies!

[Shag]

The Swordfish Net N102

So if you take a couple Hollywood movies about hackers and that kind of stuff, and shove the names together, voila! Colombian computer.

Personally, I'm holding out for their upcoming Tron Matrix laptop. I hear the graphics are really good.

Why two separate procs?

[Anonymous Freak]

Why wouldn't they just have used the Atom 330? Yes, it's a "nettop" processor, rather than a "netbook" processor; but it's natively dual-core, supports 64-bit, and would use less power than two physical separate N270s.

Not to mention, it would have been a *LOT* cheaper for them to develop than to "modify Intel's 945 chipset", as they claim to have done. In fact, the more I think about it, the more I'm going to have to call BS on this. If they literally "worked for six months", on this, it wouldn't be cheap. Claiming that this is cheaper than just throwing in a dual-core Celeron is bogus. (Atom may be ultra-low-power, and ultra-cheap; but it is still slower than a Celeron.)

Re:Why two separate procs?

[FlyingBishop]

If you'd read the NYT article, you would know it's because it can run for days under the ARM Linux instant-on OS.

I'd like one of these with a full-size keyboard and no Intel chip. I'd certainly pay a good penny for it, too, if it had a decent hard drive and battery life measured in days. The wireless charging is gimmicky though, and I'd prefer a normal charger (I'm sure that's a good part of the cost, in addition to the Apple-like attention to shine.)

SMP is not a new thing

[kimvette]

A netbook with a single Atom chip "just could not support the multitasking needs of students

Skype, youtube, and porn videos aren't really essential for studies,

and professionals," it said. So it set out to build its own. It modified Intel's 945 chipset to run the two processors, which took it about six months. The processors divide the workload, much like a dual-core processor does, the company said.

Okay, all kidding aside, I would like to know what's new here? These people were clever in modifying Intel's chipset to make SMP work, but they're acting like having two discrete processors is a new thing compared to multi-core processing. Again: multiple processors is not a new thing. It's downright ancient history in the world of microcomputing.

Contract Intel to produce a multi-core Atom processor - oops, it exists already. Check out the Atom 330. could have saved yourselves a ton of effort, reduced development costs, and remained within the scope of the design specs that Intel will actually support.

Kudos for the neat hack though!

Re:When does a netbook stop being a netbook?

[Anonymous Coward]

Considering that we recently bought a laptop for someone not two months ago, with a dual-core AMD, 3GB RAM, 250GB drive, full-size keyboard with numeric keypad, 15.6" LCD, nVidia GPU and even a dual-layer DVD burner with LightScribe for only 450$CAD, I'd say that it's not a netbook if it costs above 300$CAD.

Which means epic fail for almost all so-called netbooks so far. Portability has a price, but let's keep it real.

Re:One question:

[OglinTatas]

It's a derogatory term for technology shipped from south of the border, and I would appreciate it if you didn't use that word.

Hur dur

[4D6963]

Still, Windows 7 needs to be ported to Arm to get more consideration from PC makers as a replacement for Intel CPUs, Gold said.

Yeah right, like it's gonna help to have an ARM Windows when people run Windows only so they can run their x86 binaries (Microsoft are not Apple, who gets any developer to do what they say, they can't make developers give a crap about making ARM binaries). Now I understand why people seldom bother RTFAing anymore. Also what's "Arm"?

Re:Hur dur

[Again]

Also what's "Arm"?

It is a unit of measurement used to measure cost, monetary value and desirability (often used in conjuncture with leg).

Re:summary is wrong

[SlashdotOgre]

Yeah, that through me off as well, but the Yahoo article linked in the summary clarifies, "The Arm processor is a secondary CPU that sits alongside an Intel low-voltage," so it sounds similar to the "Instant-On" provided by SplashTop http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SplashTop on some Asus machines (e.g. Eee Box).

A good start...

[Cochonou]

But wake me up when Dell starts shipping an ARM-only netbook (for roughly a sixth of the price), and then we will be talking for real !

The question was raised, not begged

[JTeutenberg]

"Begs the question" has a specific meaning related to circular arguments. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question Here the combination of two Atom processes raised a question as to what constitutes a netbook. No begging involved.

Re:The question was raised, not begged

[DragonWriter]

Begs the question" has a specific meaning related to circular arguments.

Yes, the intransitive construction "begs the question' does. The transitive constructions "begs the question <question>" is also in common use, and has a different meaning regarding calling for a resolution of a question. The meaning of the transitive form is essentially a generalization of the intransitive form such that the intransitive form is identical to the transitive form with the assumed object being the question actually at issue in the debate. This is a rather elegant rationalization of the poor translation into English of the dubious translation into Latin of the Greek phrase that ultimately turned into "begging the question".

Arguing that the use of the transitive construction is wrong because of the well-established technical definition of the intransitive construction is, IMO, one of the most inane forms of misguided linguistic prescriptivist pedantry commonly seen, as the two are distinct constructions which are impossible to confuse with each other, and have meanings that are related the way one would expect the meanings of transitive and intransitive phrases to relate to each other (even though the more general, transitive form, is generalized from the more specific, intransitive form in a way which reflects the normal use of the English words in the phrase rather than etymology of the transitive form.)

Re:The question was raised, not begged

[DragonWriter]

You claim, "The meaning of the transitive form is essentially a generalization of the intransitive form such that the intransitive form is identical to the transitive form with the assumed object being the question actually at issue in the debate." I fail to see how this is the case.

Its very simple.

People use the transitive construction to merely mean "raise the question", as the parent pointed out. There is absolutely no sense of circular argument in this case.

Correct, because the question for which a resolution is demanded in the more general, transitive use, is generally not the one that was already the subject of debate, as it would be in the more specific, intransitive use.

There is no sense of assuming the conclusions amongst your premises.

Correct. Assuming the conclusions amongst your premises is the intransitive use of the phrase "begs
the question". Doing so demands a resolution of the same question that was at issue initially. While this is not the origin of the phrase "begs the question" in its transitive use, it is an accurate description of the situation described in the transitive use and consistent with the common English usage of the words in the phrase, and it shows how the transitive use may have been generalized from the intransitive use.

In response to your second point, there is indeed a problem with the transitive use: It causes confusion when people encounter the intransitive use.

Except that it doesn't. The intransitive use is no more (and probably less) confusing encountered with experience with the transitive use than it is with no experience with either use; the reason the intransitive use is confusing on first encounter, with or without knowledge of the transitive use, is that (aside from being viewed as a specific case of the transitive use with a non-obvious implicit object) the construction isn't really connected to the current English uses of the words that make it up when encountered outside of the phrase.

My inclination would be to favor the original sense of the construction, and discourage what you call the transitive use.

If I had to prefer one use -- which I don't, plenty of words and phrases have different meanings in intransitive and transitive senses, and transitive and intransitive uses are readily disambiguated by the sentence strucutre -- I'd prefer the one that was consistent with the meanings of the words outside of the construction, especially since the other one doesn't have any benefit in clear communication (not even in terms of compactly expressing an idea that would otherwise require a longer phrase, since "assuming the conclusion", which doesn't require any words used outside of their normal sense, isn't any less concise than "begging the question".)

Dell's Own Words

[Sponge Bath]

"In traditional "thick" mode, users access data through standard Windows..."

Sounds right to me :-D

Re:Dell does a terrible job of advertising it!

[dallaylaen]

1% of users run Linux
10% of users know that "Linux is something other than Windows"
89% of users don't know what Linux is at all.

So saying "It runs Linux" it's 1% advertisement, 10% confusion (since it ALSO runs Windows) and 89% unneeded technical details.
Not saying "It runs Linux", on the other hand, is 1% wtf?, 99% unnoticed, and 100% safe from legal or commercial point of view.

Or, putting my worn tinfoil hat on, it might be a requirement from MS to not say "It runs Linux" to get their nice OEM discounts.

Re:When does a netbook stop being a netbook?

[Nadaka]

But what kind of battery life does that have? From my perspective a netbook has 5 to 8+ hours of use out of its battery. The cost is secondary, but generally under $500.

Re:When does a netbook stop being a netbook?

[Locutus]

one problem, that 450$CAD is huge compared to a netbook, heavy compared to a netbook, and probably runs 1/2 as long on batteries as a netbook.

But I do agree that when the "netbooks" start showing up at prices over $400 then there are other considerations to make besides price.

BTW, does anyone remember that netPC of the 90s? The idea there was a cheap $300 or less computer which leveraged the network for almost everything. It was supposed to be like a thin client but also with limited local processing power. That sector was gutted into oblivion by the industry quickly dropping the price of a full blown( sort of ) PC down to $300. And if you don't know, Microsoft has spent millions making sure Linux stayed off the netbooks and wants to now collect alot more for putting Windows 7 on them and so they've been causing the hardware on netbooks to rise and with it the prices. And now we are seeing many low cost full size laptops priced right around the netbook range of $400-$500. If this keeps up, the netbook segment is dead. But, there are supposed to be a dozen or so ARM based netbooks hitting the market this fall and in the sub $300 range so it should get interesting. Be prepared for a ton of Microsoft backed press reports and articles dismissing the ARM netbooks because they don't run Windows. You'll have to forget that the iPhone has been a success without Windows and a few other devices but they won't mention that.

LoB

There is an ARM in there, but what's the point?

[mellon]

Unfortunately, the ARM CPU doesn't have access to the memory you paid for, or the hard drive you paid for - it runs out of flash memory. So it delivers precisely the feature they want to deliver, using Linux, without actually making anyone who wants to run Linux for real happy. That would be a damned sweet machine if they had left out the Intel CPU. Oh well.

I'm getting to the point where I'm thinking of just gutting an existing netbook and putting a GumStix CPU in. I'm pretty sure it would fit...