Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Portables Hardware

ARM and Dual-Atom Processors in New Portables 147

Posted by ScuttleMonkey
from the arms-and-atoms-and-netbooks-oh-my dept.
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."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

ARM and Dual-Atom Processors in New Portables

Comments Filter:
  • 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! (Score:3, Interesting)

      by FooAtWFU (699187)
      That's the Dell that's not a netbook. The Swordfish is $450.
      • Re: (Score:2, Funny)

        by Ingcuervo (1349561)
        I bet you had a tiny little screen so your eyes went tired before reading the entire article!
        • by DJRumpy (1345787)

          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.

          • by HiThere (15173)

            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.)

            • by DJRumpy (1345787)

              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: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by 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.

      • by Nadaka (224565) on Friday October 02, 2009 @05:18PM (#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.

        • by node 3 (115640)

          From my perspective a netbook has 5 to 8+ hours of use out of its battery.

          So, the new MacBook Pros are netbooks? And some (most?) netbooks aren't?

          All these posts where people are telling "what a netbook means to me" demonstrates two things:

          1. Netbooks are about a number of things.
          2. Netbooks are subjective definitions, like "planet", and not conducive to objectively defined requirements.

      • by Locutus (9039) on Friday October 02, 2009 @06:49PM (#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
        • 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.

          No, the segment of the netbook market that was just looking for a cheap laptop is dead. Really, it was dead from the get-go; stillborn, if you will. These are people who thought they were getting a real laptop for dirt cheap, then returned them and complained a bunch about how it wasn't a real laptop.

          Besides, full sized laptops have been selling for as low as $450 since before any netbooks hit the market. If that was the real reason a netbook market exists, it would have been a non-starter.

          The market that n

    • 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).
      • 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?

  • by Shag (3737) on Friday October 02, 2009 @04:15PM (#29620789) Homepage

    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: (Score:2, Interesting)

      by indi0144 (1264518)
      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 ci
      • by Bert64 (520050)

        Under "contact us" there is a colombian address...
        Many websites are written in english to target a larger audience, i would imagine that a significant portion of colombians don't have internet access so they may find it's more effective to advertise to them in local media... It's probably also more profitable for them to sell most of their devices to foreign countries.

  • by Anonymous Freak (16973) <[prius.driver] [at] [mac.com]> on Friday October 02, 2009 @04:17PM (#29620803) Journal

    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: (Score:3, Informative)

      by FlyingBishop (1293238)

      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: (Score:3, Informative)

        by Jesus_666 (702802)
        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 shou
      • 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: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by bhtooefr (649901)

      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.

    • by Ecuador (740021)

      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!

    • 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

      • by ultrabot (200914)

        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.

    • by node 3 (115640)

      Why wouldn't they just have used the Atom 330?

      Imagine how stupid they must have felt at the end of their six month project when they went to order their supply of N270's, unfolded the order sheet, and saw the 330 listed just a little further down...

  • One question: (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward

    What the fuck is a netback?

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

    • by OglinTatas (710589) on Friday October 02, 2009 @04:28PM (#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: (Score:2, Funny)

        by Anonymous Coward

        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: (Score:2, Funny)

          by Anonymous Coward

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

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by bhtooefr (649901)

      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.

    • 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.

    • by Wodin (33658)

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

      You can have it now! Just run hercules on your netbook:
      http://www.hercules-390.org/ [hercules-390.org]
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hercules_emulator [wikipedia.org]

  • summary is wrong (Score:3, Informative)

    by Nadaka (224565) on Friday October 02, 2009 @04:21PM (#29620851)

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

    • Re:summary is wrong (Score:5, Informative)

      by SlashdotOgre (739181) on Friday October 02, 2009 @04:32PM (#29620957) Journal

      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).

    • by Abreu (173023)

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

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

    • by mellon (7048) on Friday October 02, 2009 @10:32PM (#29623573) Homepage

      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...

      • That is a shame. Some of the OpenBSD developers were talking about supporting hardware configurations a bit like this, where you would have different boot and /usr partitions, but /home would be shared. When you were on battery you could boot the ARM version, when you had mains power you could boot the Intel chip, but have access to the same data for both. You probably couldn't use the same memory, because that needs to be connected directly to the memory controller, but you could share things like the h
  • by kimvette (919543) on Friday October 02, 2009 @04:24PM (#29620873) Homepage Journal

    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!

    • by bhtooefr (649901)

      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.

      • by clarkn0va (807617)
        Atom 330 also has hyperthreading and 64-bit support. Not worth the extra wattage, perhaps, but still a consideration.
    • by Locutus (9039)
      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
    • Sorry, but Skype (as in communication), YouTube (as in entertainment) and porn videos (as in sexual needs) are definitely essential for studies done by a human.

      I don't know where that sick idea comes from, that we theoretically could work without doing anything else for a whole day, and that if you don't do it, you are somehow doing something bad. I mean, what a stupid idea to even think that a human would be able to do any work at all without fulfilling much more important and deeper needs like sex, eating

  • Latitude Z (Score:3, Informative)

    by characterZer0 (138196) on Friday October 02, 2009 @04:26PM (#29620899)

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

    I'll keep my Thinkpad.

    • by cmdr_tofu (826352)

      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 ;-)

    • by Jesus_666 (702802)
      You forgot "Less space than a Nomad".
  • Hur dur (Score:5, Insightful)

    by 4D6963 (933028) on Friday October 02, 2009 @04:29PM (#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 (Score:5, Funny)

      by Again (1351325) on Friday October 02, 2009 @04:48PM (#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: (Score:2, Troll)

      by jimicus (737525)

      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.

      • by tlhIngan (30335)

        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 inv

        • Apple has yet to produce their own ARM core chip, though.

          The 'yet' here is quite important, given that Apple now ownes PA Semi, a company that specialised in building low-power PowerPC SoCs. I wouldn't be surprised if they start producing their own ARM cores in the next few years.

    • Old TA joke (Score:3, Informative)

      by dallaylaen (756739)

      Sorry, couldn't resist.

      Also what's "Arm"?

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

    • Also, all good binaries worth anything already compile under ARM with existing ARM-compatible OSes already! ;)

    • Depends on the app. Very few modern apps are CPU-bound. Those that are often spend a lot of time in OS-provided libraries (especially things like DirectX, including DirectShow). Rosetta (licensed from a spin-off from Manchester University, by the way) achieves good speed by only emulating the app itself. Any calls to system library functions are calls to stub functions that call the real code outside of the emulator. QEMU has a mode that works a similar way. Microsoft could easily bundle something tha
  • 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.

    • by bhtooefr (649901)

      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.

      • by Svartalf (2997)

        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.

        • by bhtooefr (649901)

          True, but for processing power, it'll still compete with CULV, and nothing more than that. Yes, it'll be a pretty formidable competitor, with the power consumption that ARM's been talking about.

          If you want more processing power than that, though, there's not a faster ARM to throw at the problem, so it's out of the running.

  • by Cochonou (576531) on Friday October 02, 2009 @04:32PM (#29620961) Homepage
    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 !
    • by mellon (7048)

      They won't. If you want an ARM-only netbook, make one yourself. Otherwise you'll never see one.

      Seriously, how hard would it be to come up with an ARM motherboard design that would just replace an intel laptop motherboard and draw a tenth the power while doing the same amount of work? It's really getting to be time we open source geeks stopped waiting for somebody at Dell to make a product for us.

      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        by TheRaven64 (641858)
        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...
    • by ignavus (213578)

      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 !

      Yes, that would be truly interesting. And their friends at Microsoft would be so interested that I suspect Dell won't do it very soon.

      Still, I want to know: do these "instant-on" Linux installations count as desktop/laptop units shipping with Linux? Or maybe 0.5 units of Windows and 0.5 units of Linux? They should not simply be counted as Windows shipments only - that is lying with stats.

    • Well, I've seen the prototypes. Hardware-accelerated HD videos and Flash, nearly no heat with 1-2 W total, 10 hours uptime, $100-200. Said to be on the market this fall. I for one, will wait until winter, and then kick their asses if they don't deliver. ^^

    • You might want to take a look at OpenPandora [openpandora.org].

  • by JTeutenberg (1222754) on Friday October 02, 2009 @04:35PM (#29620985) Homepage
    "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.
    • by DragonWriter (970822) on Friday October 02, 2009 @05:08PM (#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: (Score:2, Interesting)

        by Anonymous Coward

        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 pr

        • by DragonWriter (970822) on Monday October 05, 2009 @12:40AM (#29640865)

          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".)

      • Re: (Score:2, Funny)

        by mdwh2 (535323)

        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?

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

    • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

      by Rising Ape (1620461)

      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".

      • 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?

        • 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.

        • 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?

      • 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!

  • "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.

  • by Sponge Bath (413667) on Friday October 02, 2009 @05:00PM (#29621207)

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

    Sounds right to me :-D

    • by rsborg (111459)

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

      s/thick/brick/

  • It is all there. (Score:2, Insightful)

    by MM-tng (585125)

    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.

  • 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.
  • by Lvdata (1214190)

    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.

    • At this time, XP home is only licensed for single CPU use, for dual or more you have to go with Vista or 7.

      XP Pro? I've never used Home, but I've had XP Pro running on a dual-CPU system since back when Socket 940 Opterons were current tech. (So probably '02 or '03.)
  • No mention of the Touchbook? http://www.alwaysinnovating.com/touchbook/ [alwaysinnovating.com]

    It's already been released as of last month.... of course it doesn't involve Intel in any way, so is can't be mentioned. It's only an ARM netbook with some sweet features such as the ability to separate the keyboard and use the screen like a 1lb tablet... also great battery life.

  • Techie Machine? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by ChunderDownunder (709234) on Saturday October 03, 2009 @05:37AM (#29625149)

    A computer that boots Windows on x86 but runs ARM Linux too?

    What if one could use both at the same time?

    i.e. kind of like coLinux but using a distinct CPU for each environment. A number of IT professionals feel hamstrung by using Windows but have corporate dependencies. One can run apps in wine, access a shell via cygwin or use virtualization. This might provide another alternative. i.e. the full power of Linux but the ability to run Office and test web applications in IE. The ability to run a linux server and Windows desktop on the same machine. A phone developer that can emulate an ARM phone using the ARM CPU (no CPU translation required)

"Look! There! Evil!.. pure and simple, total evil from the Eighth Dimension!" -- Buckaroo Banzai

Working...