Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

ARM and Dual-Atom Processors in New Portables

ScuttleMonkey posted more than 4 years ago | from the arms-and-atoms-and-netbooks-oh-my dept.

Portables 147

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."

cancel ×

147 comments

When does a netbook stop being a netbook? (1)

FooAtWFU (699187) | more than 4 years ago | (#29620769)

I'd say somewhere around $500 or so, just on gut instinct. Much beyond that and you just have an ultraportable.

This guy starts at $1800. So, um, no. Notnetbook.

Whoops, my mistake! (2, Interesting)

FooAtWFU (699187) | more than 4 years ago | (#29620799)

That's the Dell that's not a netbook. The Swordfish is $450.

Re:Whoops, my mistake! (3, Funny)

Ingcuervo (1349561) | more than 4 years ago | (#29620927)

I bet you had a tiny little screen so your eyes went tired before reading the entire article!

Re:Whoops, my mistake! (1)

DJRumpy (1345787) | more than 4 years ago | (#29622041)

I always considered netbooks a matter of size rather than computing power. Price fluctuates too much and doesn't really define anything about the hardware except for..well..the price. I would consider anything with a screen smaller than 13" a netbook. The average of 13" seems to be the low end of notebook screen sizes before netbooks came along.

Re:Whoops, my mistake! (1)

HiThere (15173) | more than 4 years ago | (#29622377)

OK. To me a Netbook is still a laptop that uses flash instead of a hard disk. (Notice that there aren't very many that fit this definition...but it was one of the original selling points.)

Re:Whoops, my mistake! (1)

DJRumpy (1345787) | more than 4 years ago | (#29622461)

I could possibly see that, but now flash drives are becoming more and more mainstream across all types of PC's (desktops, laptops, netbooks).

Re:When does a netbook stop being a netbook? (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29620901)

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:When does a netbook stop being a netbook? (3, Insightful)

Nadaka (224565) | more than 4 years ago | (#29621389)

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? (3, Insightful)

Locutus (9039) | more than 4 years ago | (#29622091)

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

Re:When does a netbook stop being a netbook? (1)

Attila Dimedici (1036002) | more than 4 years ago | (#29620931)

When does a netbook stop being a netbook? My answer is a netbook costs less than $300 and has a screen 12" or less (I'm not sure that 12" isn't too big).

Re:When does a netbook stop being a netbook? (1)

ducomputergeek (595742) | more than 4 years ago | (#29622057)

So, in other words, the 12.1" Powerbook I have setting on the shelf that sells for around $350 on craigslist retroactively count as a netbook? Or does the fact that it has a DVD-Rom drive and is .1" larger than 12" disqualify it?

Re:When does a netbook stop being a netbook? (1)

LarrySDonald (1172757) | more than 4 years ago | (#29621341)

I'd agree with "when people stop trying to draw artificial lines and realize hardware is hardware, only various degrees of suitable". My daughter (at six) uses an ancient laptop revived with linux and a PCMCIA WiFi off ebay. Is that a netbook? It sure works much like one - not a whole lot of power locally but enough so she can play online kids games. My sons Acer One is a lot faster and a lot smaller, though he uses it more like a laptop - MS Office and/or OpenOffice (I don't interrogate him on which he settled on) and all that - but it's mostly for online work. I use my laptop mostly online, but it's not especially powerful by todays standards which is OK because it's enough for what I need it for. There is no line - they fade seamlessly from 128x128 opera mini supporting boost phone all the way to laptops that would work fine as a small server via any device in between.

Just like in the movies! (5, Funny)

Shag (3737) | more than 4 years ago | (#29620789)

The Swordfish Net N102

So if you take a couple Hollywood [imdb.com] movies [imdb.com] 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.

Re:Just like in the movies! (0)

Ingcuervo (1349561) | more than 4 years ago | (#29620869)

thats not it, with this machine power you can enter into any secured system using excel, and just writing a couple lines into word, definitely more and more movie like!!!! PD: they should also include a gorgeous famous actress with the netbook

Re:Just like in the movies! (1)

clone53421 (1310749) | more than 4 years ago | (#29620941)

Do you get free blowjobs while you work?

Re:Just like in the movies! (2, Funny)

Ingcuervo (1349561) | more than 4 years ago | (#29620967)

No, but my boss holds a gun against my head, does that count?

Re:Just like in the movies! (1)

Abreu (173023) | more than 4 years ago | (#29620959)

Not only that, with this machine you can play the following game:
You get a blowjob while having a gun pointed towards your head and you just need to start typing the world's ten most common passwords before the a) gun blows, or b) you blow...

Re:Just like in the movies! (1)

soundhack (179543) | more than 4 years ago | (#29621379)

Really? I heard the opposite, that they are going to use Vector graphics

Re:Just like in the movies! (2, Interesting)

indi0144 (1264518) | more than 4 years ago | (#29622125)

He he I'm surprised too, I have EVER heard of such Colombian manufacturer. We have other "manufacturers" and all they do is build clones and stick a logo, yet they're better machines/$ than the DELL or Compaq we can order online. But here, unless you're buying a PC for your business, you go to a shop and request the better machine you get for X money. Prices here are on par with the USA prices btw.

A quick look at http://www.haleron.com/ and I can't see a word in spanish or a reference to Colombia or any city or an "about us"

Is it really a Colombian manufacturer? I'd like to know, would be kind of nice to shop for a local netbook.

Why two separate procs? (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Freak (16973) | more than 4 years ago | (#29620803)

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? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29620975)

More importantly, why the hell did they feel it was necessary to make an analogy to a dual core processor. Its like saying a horse drawn carriage is a car with a horse instead of an engine.

The analogy is just completely unnecessary.

To reply to parent, IIRC, Intel isn't allowing OEMs to use the Atom 330 in portables. This is an idiotic and expensive way to get around that.

Re:Why two separate procs? (3, Informative)

FlyingBishop (1293238) | more than 4 years ago | (#29621087)

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.)

Re:Why two separate procs? (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29622367)

If a western company were to put a little attention and R&D into an ARM-only netbook, I don't see why they wouldn't be able to break it in under the $300 mark. You can buy some decent ARM development boards in single quantities for less than $100, and those manufacturers don't have nearly the ability to produce on a large scale like Dell or HP might.

Shit, if 70% of the buyers use only Linux, that looks like a hugely untapped market to me. I suspect they're limited by some contract with MS on what and how they can produce Linux computers, so maybe they could come up with a new "market segment". Personally, I'd love to have a smartphone-sized Linux computer with a touchscreen, but also mini-DVI/HDMI-out, USB host, and the like with >512M RAM. It'd be a truly "do anything, anywhere" platform that would be awesome for mobile computing, embedded projects, and the like.

Re:Why two separate procs? (2, Informative)

Jesus_666 (702802) | more than 4 years ago | (#29622585)

Wrong notebook. TFS talks about two notebooks. The first has one Intel and one ARM processor and only uses one of them at a time. The other has two Atom processors, using both simultaneously.

The GP wondered why someone would go through the trouble of creating a dual-socket netbook when Intel offers a processor that already offers two cores, needs less energy and wouldn't have required them to hack dual-socket support into the chipset. That's a justified question.


As for your ARM-only netbook: Those should surface within the next few months. If they don't, a homebrew project involving an old laptop and a Beagle Board will.

Re:Why two separate procs? (1)

FrankieBaby1986 (1035596) | more than 4 years ago | (#29622781)

Well, they may be charging for the gimmicky nature of the wireless charging, but it's pretty cheap to implement. See many models of electric toothbrushes.

Re:Why two separate procs? (1)

FlyingBishop (1293238) | more than 4 years ago | (#29622811)

It's actually some of the people in their testing group use Linux 70% of the time, not 70% only use Linux. And it doesn't clarify whether that "some" was most or a few people, etc.

This one looks promising, but I really want a larger keyboard. (The fact that the keyboard has an integrated backup battery is nice, but I don't want a child-sized keyboard.)
https://www.alwaysinnovating.com/store/home.php [alwaysinnovating.com]

Re:Why two separate procs? (2, Interesting)

bhtooefr (649901) | more than 4 years ago | (#29621111)

The Atom 330 is two Atom 230s duct-taped together.

The "modifying Intel's 945 chipset" was probably figuring out how Intel duct-taped two Atom 230 dies on one package hooked to an i945GC, and then doing the same thing to two separate N270 or whatever they used hooked to an i945GSE.

Re:Why two separate procs? (1)

Ecuador (740021) | more than 4 years ago | (#29621545)

They were probably too busy getting two N270s on one board to go through Intel's product catalogs.

Sure, two N270s cost about twice as much as a 330, offer similar performance and only save 3W (5W vs 8W), but a 330 would just be too easy wouldn't it? :) Plus they now have free slashvertisement!

Re:Why two separate procs? (1)

Anonymous Freak (16973) | more than 4 years ago | (#29621867)

Intel can't stop OEMs from doing anything. They can withhold advertising subsidies, and they can refuse to sell directly, that's it. That's all that they can do. (For example, when they told OEMs to stop making big-screen netbooks with Atoms, most OEMs cowed; but a few just gave Intel the finger, and gave up the benefits.)

Intel doesn't want OEMs using nVidia's "ION platform", either. But they can't stop it. Anyone can go buy Atom processors from a distributor, and put them in whatever they want. They may not qualify for the advertising and branding licensing, so can't put Intel's shiny "Atom" sticker on the case, but they can make the computer. (Look at Apple. They don't qualify for "Centrino" branding, but do you think they care?)

The Atom 330 should work just fine on the 945GSE chipset. It would probably be easier to make that work than to force the chipset to recognize two physically separate chips. Which is why I think this is bogus.

(Yes, I'm replying to myself instead of separating into replying to three of the other people that replied to my TLP.)

Re:Why two separate procs? (1)

ultrabot (200914) | more than 4 years ago | (#29622189)

Intel doesn't want OEMs using nVidia's "ION platform", either. But they can't stop it. Anyone can go buy Atom processors from a distributor, and put them in whatever they want.

They can make the cpu more expensive than the "discount" version that comes with chipset. They are doing this to undercut Ion.

One question: (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29620823)

What the fuck is a netback?

As a followup, how long until we see a netmainframe?

Re:One question: (5, Funny)

OglinTatas (710589) | more than 4 years ago | (#29620923)

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.

Re:One question: (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29620971)

It seems a bit strange with your moniker, that you'd in fact be super sensitive about race, but not so much about gender.

Be that as it may, cool nick and thanks for the definition.

Re:One question: (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29621577)

Just don't confuse it with a nethack: a modified netbook that has been eaten by a grue.

Re:One question: (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29621211)

Hey, I didn't use it; I just saw it in the summary and didn't know what it meant.

Anyway, I think it would be better to go with a Niggerbook (paired with Niggerbuntu, of course).

Re:One question: (2, Interesting)

bhtooefr (649901) | more than 4 years ago | (#29621411)

Well, a netmainframe would be small and relatively cheap... so I think IBM did one a while back. Well, it was a bit DIY, but...

IBM PS/2 P75 (486-based luggable) plus an IBM Personal/370 Adapter/A... equals a portable mainframe running OS/2 on the x86 side, emulating all the mainframe I/O, with a real mainframe processor accessible via a 3270 emulator on OS/2.

Re:One question: (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29621979)

how long until we see a netmainframe?

SGI offers the Octane III with 19 Atom 330s. Thanks to the disgusting chipset, it doesn't support ECC memory, though. The I/O and the management are somewhat lacking as well.

I guess it's rather "netcluster" (1)

dallaylaen (756739) | more than 4 years ago | (#29622315)

As a followup, how long until we see a netmainframe?

This particular one would probably evolve into a "netcluster". See: 1 instant-on Linux/ARM, 1 Linux/ARM in the network controller [technologyreview.com] , 1 Linux/GPU in the videocard [brightsideofnews.com] , and 1 Linux inside the BIOS [splashtop.com] .

Oh, and I forgot the dual-core Atom running Windows.

what is a netback? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29620835)

So editors, what the hell is a netback? Is that what we get with net neutrality? Then we get our netback? Seriously - a spellchecker is built in to Firefox...

Re:what is a netback? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29621311)

It's the retarded racist term 'wetback' rebranded for high tech imports used by completley clueless morons who think anywhere outside their little backyard is a barely functioning primitive tribal mud-hut village and not a technological and engineering equal.

Shame on you slashdot, sure you can't edit for shit but for fucks sake at least attempt to edit once in a while ok?

Re:what is a netback? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29621627)

Well I will grant you that Mexico was first in figuring out how to get 87 people into a Ford Contour. That's some serious engineering skills there.

Wait... lemme get this straight. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29620843)

'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.

*snort*

I could'a told them that.

summary is wrong (2, Informative)

Nadaka (224565) | more than 4 years ago | (#29620851)

A quick look at that Dell link shows me the Latitude has a Core 2 processor, not an atom?

Re:summary is wrong (5, Informative)

SlashdotOgre (739181) | more than 4 years ago | (#29620957)

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 [wikipedia.org] on some Asus machines (e.g. Eee Box).

Re:summary is wrong (1)

Nadaka (224565) | more than 4 years ago | (#29621369)

Thats not nearly as impressive as I would have hoped.

Re:summary is wrong (1)

Abreu (173023) | more than 4 years ago | (#29620973)

A quick look to the article tells me that the Latitude has an additional mini-motherboard with an ARM processor running Linux

ARM, not Atom (1)

Rix (54095) | more than 4 years ago | (#29620999)

But yes, it has a Core 2 processor *and* an ARM system on a card that boots instantly.

There is an ARM in there, but what's the point? (3, Insightful)

mellon (7048) | more than 4 years ago | (#29623573)

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...

SMP is not a new thing (4, Insightful)

kimvette (919543) | more than 4 years ago | (#29620873)

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 [intel.com] . 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:SMP is not a new thing (1)

bhtooefr (649901) | more than 4 years ago | (#29621471)

Atom 330 has an 8 W TDP and 9.3 W peak power consumption.

Atom N270 has a 2.5 W TDP and 3 W peak power consumption. Multiply by two, that's still 3 watts less heat to deal with (and over a larger area,) and 3.3 W less power consumption.

Also, Intel refuses to sell Atom 330s for laptop applications.

Re:SMP is not a new thing (1)

clarkn0va (807617) | more than 4 years ago | (#29621759)

Atom 330 also has hyperthreading and 64-bit support. Not worth the extra wattage, perhaps, but still a consideration.

Re:SMP is not a new thing (1)

Locutus (9039) | more than 4 years ago | (#29622019)

it is probably price. Intel is building Atoms on 45nm processes right along with their top of the line desktop and server CPUs instead of how they used to do it. So, they are using expensive wafer space for very low cost products and they have to do this to be a player in this segment. they probably charge more than 2x the cost of a single core Atom for the dual-core Atom so like the old Celeron BP6 days, you can sometimes get a huge bang for less bucks depending on how you mix the tech.

LoB

Latitude Z (2, Informative)

characterZer0 (138196) | more than 4 years ago | (#29620899)

No trackpoint mouse.
Only two mouse buttons.
No mouse buttons reachable with your hands on the keyboard.

I'll keep my Thinkpad.

Re:Latitude Z (1)

cmdr_tofu (826352) | more than 4 years ago | (#29621625)

No trackpoint mouse.

Are you talking about the IBM "clit? those things are murder on my hands. My Thinkpad has one I never use it.

Only two mouse buttons.

Enable chordmiddle!

No mouse buttons reachable with your hands on the keyboard.

I'll keep my Thinkpad.

Hey to each their own. I do agree with you on that one, I hate interfaces that make me take my hands off the keyboard. Be a great laptop for running ratpoison [wikipedia.org] though ;-)

Re:Latitude Z (1)

Jesus_666 (702802) | more than 4 years ago | (#29622603)

You forgot "Less space than a Nomad".

Hur dur (5, Insightful)

4D6963 (933028) | more than 4 years ago | (#29620935)

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 (5, Funny)

Again (1351325) | more than 4 years ago | (#29621109)

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:Hur dur (1, Troll)

jimicus (737525) | more than 4 years ago | (#29621275)

Also what's "Arm"?

It's a processor architecture [wikipedia.org] which was originally developed by a UK company called Acorn to power a range of computers back when a personal desktop computer didn't mean "PC or Mac".

Acorn, along with most computer companies that were building non-PC compatible computers at the time, failed. Long before they failed, they had spun off the processor division into a separate company which flourished.

The processor architecture has enjoyed quite a bit of success and is now found in a lot of embedded systems.

Re:Hur dur (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29621401)

Also what's "Arm"?

It's a processor architecture [wikipedia.org] which was originally developed by a UK company called Acorn to power a range of computers back when a personal desktop computer didn't mean "PC or Mac".

Acorn, along with most computer companies that were building non-PC compatible computers at the time, failed. Long before they failed, they had spun off the processor division into a separate company which flourished.

The processor architecture has enjoyed quite a bit of success and is now found in a lot of embedded systems.

Whoosh. The GP knows what an "ARM" is, he was asking what an "Arm" is...

(An "Arm" - of course - is the German version of an "arm"... Duh.)

Re:Hur dur (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29621445)

+1 *whoosh*

Re:Hur dur (1)

tlhIngan (30335) | more than 4 years ago | (#29621641)

Acorn, along with most computer companies that were building non-PC compatible computers at the time, failed. Long before they failed, they had spun off the processor division into a separate company which flourished.

The processor architecture has enjoyed quite a bit of success and is now found in a lot of embedded systems.

Actually, Apple needed a low-power RISC chip for their new tablet platform - I believe it was called the Einstein, no, sorry, the Newton. They saw potential in the Acorn processor and invested a bit of money in the whole thing, enough to be spun off, renamed (Acorn -> Advanced RISC Machines, then ARM Inc.) and produce a useful processor that has caused it to become one of the best-selling architectures. There's probably more ARM chips sold than x86 these days (especially since most x86 PCs come with several ARM processors...).

Yes, I was surprised that Apple had a hand in it. It's probably why Apple has the other architecture license (DEC owned it, produced the StrongARM used in the Newton, which was sold to Compaq when Compaq bought Digital, and through various licensing/patenting things, ended up at Intel, who I think sold it to Marvell). All other licensees must license the core as designed by ARM, which is why they have ARM9, ARM11, Cortex A8/A9 cores, but (formerly Intel) Marvell has XScale (and StrongARM). Apple has yet to produce their own ARM core chip, though.

Acorn (0)

tepples (727027) | more than 4 years ago | (#29623491)

[ARM is] a processor architecture which was originally developed by a UK company called Acorn to power a range of computers

But does this Acorn have anything to do with the President of the United States? (Oh wait, that's another Acorn [acorn.org] .)

Old TA joke (2, Informative)

dallaylaen (756739) | more than 4 years ago | (#29621331)

Sorry, couldn't resist.

Also what's "Arm"?

Arm is Core's antagonist [wikipedia.org] . Lighter, cheaper to build, but a bit less powerful.

looking forwards to quad core arm 9 (1)

Nadaka (224565) | more than 4 years ago | (#29620939)

personally I am looking forwards to the proposed quad core arm 9 architecture cpu's. Should be able to match or exceed the power of a modern laptop at a tiny fraction of the wattage.

Re:looking forwards to quad core arm 9 (1)

bhtooefr (649901) | more than 4 years ago | (#29621531)

The quad-core ARMs will be competing with dual Atoms and the CULV (Core 2-based low-voltage low-cost) chips. Not the latest and greatest.

Re:looking forwards to quad core arm 9 (1)

Svartalf (2997) | more than 4 years ago | (#29622223)

Heh... Comparing close matches:

Cortex-A8 -> Atom
Cortex-A9 -> CULV

The CULV may be faster than the A9 by a bit, but clock-for-clock, they'll be similar. Moreover, at 1-1.5GHz, you're talking a power dissipation of about 6-7W peak for the A9. I doubt, beyond words, that the CULV will be at the same TDP at the same clocking.

Re:looking forwards to quad core arm 9 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29623517)

speed isn't everything I have a Sharp PC-Z1 with ubuntu. I can type with my thumbs and it lasts for 7+ hours of full capacity. I am enjoying it and I have a fast and hungry Intel laptop for desktop usage. I also get to play with arm assembly through ssh. It rocks boys. An Intel imitation wouldn't do it for me the gfx card is going to eat and heat just as much.

A good start... (4, Funny)

Cochonou (576531) | more than 4 years ago | (#29620961)

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 (4, Informative)

JTeutenberg (1222754) | more than 4 years ago | (#29620985)

"Begs the question" has a specific meaning related to circular arguments. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question [wikipedia.org] 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 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29621171)

ITYM "Begs the question" used to have a specific meaning [...]

Re:The question was raised, not begged (5, Insightful)

DragonWriter (970822) | more than 4 years ago | (#29621279)

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 (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29621457)

Bravo. I was going to post essentially the same thing, but your version was better. If these prescriptivists are going to be pedantic, they should at least be correct.

Re:The question was raised, not begged (0, Offtopic)

misexistentialist (1537887) | more than 4 years ago | (#29621617)

Both usages are insufferable. The technical sense is confusing and the popular sense is annoying. Just when you have the former meaning straightened out, someone comes along and uses the second, "beg" hedging yet egging you on. Nuke them from orbit!

Re:The question was raised, not begged (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29621623)

Hmm, so that's how pwnage goes in the philology circles?

Re:The question was raised, not begged (1)

mdwh2 (535323) | more than 4 years ago | (#29622285)

Hardly pwnage, unless using long words counts. No citations were given, for starters.

Re:The question was raised, not begged (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29621805)

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.

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

If I say "when is a netbook a netbook?", in what sense could one say that I am begging the question? This is not a generalization of the intransitive use. The two uses, intransitive and transitive, are completely different. One is not a generalization of the other.

In response to your second point, there is indeed a problem with the transitive use: It causes confusion when people encounter the intransitive use. My inclination would be to favor the original sense of the construction, and discourage what you call the transitive use.

"Misguided linguistic prescriptivist pedantry". Nice wording. But I fail to see how your analysis of the two uses holds up.

Re:The question was raised, not begged (2, Funny)

mdwh2 (535323) | more than 4 years ago | (#29622263)

Just because language evolves, doesn't mean that we can discard rules altogether and claim that anything's right. No matter how many long words you use.

I guess we should accept "virii" as a word then, since people use it?

Re:The question was raised, not begged (1)

Ortega-Starfire (930563) | more than 4 years ago | (#29622443)

Damn. I'm saving that post for future use.

Re:The question was raised, not begged (1, Informative)

Rising Ape (1620461) | more than 4 years ago | (#29621287)

I think you're onto a lost cause there.

Still, maybe there's a chance we can save "literally" from the people who use it to mean "not literally".

Re:The question was raised, not begged (1)

MartinSchou (1360093) | more than 4 years ago | (#29621505)

How about "awesome"?

When's the last time someone told you something was awesome, you looked at what they were talking about and you felt awe inspired or awestruck?

Re:The question was raised, not begged (1)

Your.Master (1088569) | more than 4 years ago | (#29621731)

Awesome just seems to be a matter of exaggeration diluting the word. The threshold for awesome has become awfully low.

Literally, however, is often used in a manner that is literally opposite to its definition.

Awww-some cute widdle aminals (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 4 years ago | (#29623519)

When's the last time someone told you something was awesome, you looked at what they were talking about and you felt awe inspired or awestruck?

When you look at pandas at play [youtube.com] , aren't you "awww"-inspired?

+1 right on! (1)

turing_m (1030530) | more than 4 years ago | (#29621547)

Still, maybe there's a chance we can save "literally" from the people who use it to mean "not literally".

Yeah! If we could pull that off, it would be a literal coup!

Dell does a terrible job of advertising it! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29621025)

I just went to Dell's site to look for the details of their 'Instant on' features, and it's not mentioned in the specs ANYWHERE. In fact, the only place I found any mention of it is that there's a link to a PDF with 'Latitude ON' info that calls it smart phone technology 'basically a "system within the system"' and a 'thin client'. No mention of any details other than that it has 'its own smartphone processor', and especially no mention anywhere of Linux.

Maybe they're doing it to hid the fact that it's Linux from people, but whatever the reason I'm not buying it (either way :)).

Re:Dell does a terrible job of advertising it! (3, Interesting)

dallaylaen (756739) | more than 4 years ago | (#29621271)

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.

Netcraft confirms it (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 4 years ago | (#29623531)

1% of users run Linux

But how many users use Linux on a machine that's not their own? Netcraft confirms that more than 1 percent of web users visit sites hosted on Linux.

Re:Dell does a terrible job of advertising it! (1)

mremothra (1618979) | more than 4 years ago | (#29623363)

Basically the instant on feature, is they are running a small arm board piggie backed on the board(actually on some its built right in to the latop's motherboard). When you are not using the laptop or have the laptop in windows mode the board is in deep sleep. It is instant on in the sense that the machine is always technically running. Coming out of sleep, it comes up in a matter of seconds. The OS is MontaVista Linux. The piggy back board(basically an omap3 from TI iirc) actually only has a few pieces of hardware on it, and uses most of the peripherals on the main laptop connected via an smbus/usb.

WTF Summary (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29621047)

So I have no idea WTF is going on here. First I read something about a new dell laptop that virtually has a mini ARM computer in it for instant on linux and then i'm reading about a "netback that combines Atom processors".

Maybe i'm just doing it wrong. Maybe i should just stop RTFA and RTFS and go straight to reading the comments.

Can I get one without the bells and whistles? (1)

FlyingBishop (1293238) | more than 4 years ago | (#29621125)

Under the hood, itâ(TM)s Linux running on top of an ARM chip on a mini-motherboard that provides this quick access feature. Youâ(TM)re basically talking about most of the components needed to run an iPhone being hitched to a large battery. So, the computer can run in instant-on mode for days.

That sounds to me like the perfect writing tablet, if you put a proper keyboard on it.

Netback?! (1)

wastedlife (1319259) | more than 4 years ago | (#29621205)

"Colombian computer maker Haleron has designed a netback...

What the fuck is a "netback"? Just when I thought I was catching up to the buzzword machine, something always throws me for a loop.

Re:Netback?! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29621291)

It's from Columbia. . . maybe it's a Wetback's Netbook?

Re:Netback?! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29622219)

Are you telling me that /. editors are racists? Oh oh whats that? I hear lobbyists in DC!

Dell's Own Words (4, Funny)

Sponge Bath (413667) | more than 4 years ago | (#29621207)

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

Sounds right to me :-D

Re:Dell's Own Words (1)

rsborg (111459) | more than 4 years ago | (#29623299)

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

s/thick/brick/

It is all there. (2, Insightful)

MM-tng (585125) | more than 4 years ago | (#29621515)

This is proof that they can build a cheap ARM linux machine with a great screen. Too bad all vendors are scared crazy of what the first eeePC delivered even Asus. Good enough processor in a very small form factor with commodity pricing. It is all working and build into this way to expensive laptop. Features and prices have gone up on all netbooks so close to most notebooks it does not seem worth it anymore to buy one.

MontaVista Linux, not SUSE (2, Interesting)

kaulike (947732) | more than 4 years ago | (#29622051)

http://mvista.com/blogs/jefro/2009/09/29/latitude-on-launched-today/ [mvista.com]

Full disclosure: I work for MontaVista, worked in this project, and wrote the above-linked blog posting.

Re:MontaVista Linux, not SUSE (1)

Svartalf (2997) | more than 4 years ago | (#29622275)

So, is Montebello a MVL6 variant?

Re:MontaVista Linux, not SUSE (1)

kaulike (947732) | more than 4 years ago | (#29622371)

MontaVista Linux in the Montabello project is version 5, as Montabello was developed over the last year and we just released MVL6 this past month.

No XP for dual core (2, Insightful)

Lvdata (1214190) | more than 4 years ago | (#29622067)

At this time, XP home is only licensed for single CPU use, for dual or more you have to go with Vista or 7. It sounds like a so-so idea, but what OS can you LEGALLY sell on it? XP isn't legal, and Vista/7 starter isn't legal, and a multi cpu windows OS overwhelms the cost on a netbook. A single CPU with multiple cores would be legal, but at that pricepoint for a multi-core arm you can get something with a Core 2, not a Arm x 2. Now Ubuntu or some other Linux is ok, but many people want Winx86 compatibility. (don't start with Whine :)

Netback? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29622181)

> a netback that combines Atom processors

What's a netback? :)

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...