Slashdot Mirror
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."
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.
Village idiot in some extremely smart villages.
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.)
Another non-functioning site was "uncertainty.microsoft.com."
The purpose of that site was not known.
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.
More music, fewer hits
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"?
You just got troll'd!
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).
Sadly, PS/2 was yet another victim of USB, which doesn't care what you plug into it, the electrical slut.
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.)