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."

summary is wrong

[Nadaka]

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

Latitude Z

[characterZer0]

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

I'll keep my Thinkpad.

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

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 [wikipedia.org] Here the combination of two Atom processes raised a question as to what constitutes a netbook. No begging involved.

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.)

Re:The question was raised, not begged

[Rising Ape]

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".

Old TA joke

[dallaylaen]

Sorry, couldn't resist.

Also what's "Arm"?

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

Re:Why two separate procs?

[Jesus_666]

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:A good start...

[TheRaven64]

Or wait until Pegatron or one of the half dozen other companies currently producing ARM laptops brings their product to market over the next few months...

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".)