<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_10_24_234206</id>
	<title>ARM Launches Cortex-A5 Processor, To Take On Atom</title>
	<author>timothy</author>
	<datestamp>1256403000000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>bigwophh writes <i>"ARM launched its new <a href="http://hothardware.com/News/ARM-Launches-New-CortexA5-As-A-Bulkward-Against-Future-Atom-processors">Cortex-A5 processor</a>  (codenamed Sparrow) this week, and while it's not targeted at the top end of the mobile market,  it is a significant launch nonetheless. The Cortex-A5, which will likely battle  future iterations of Intel's Atom for market share, is an important step  forward for ARM for several reasons. First, it's significantly more efficient  to build than the company's older ARM1176JZ(F)-S, while simultaneously  outperforming the ARM926EJ-S. The Cortex-A5, however, is more than just a  faster ARM processor. Architecturally, it's identical to the more advanced  Cortex-A9, and it supports the same features as that part as well. This  flexibility is designed to give product developers and manufacturers access to a fully backwards-compatible processor with better thermal and performance  characteristics than the previous generation."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>bigwophh writes " ARM launched its new Cortex-A5 processor ( codenamed Sparrow ) this week , and while it 's not targeted at the top end of the mobile market , it is a significant launch nonetheless .
The Cortex-A5 , which will likely battle future iterations of Intel 's Atom for market share , is an important step forward for ARM for several reasons .
First , it 's significantly more efficient to build than the company 's older ARM1176JZ ( F ) -S , while simultaneously outperforming the ARM926EJ-S. The Cortex-A5 , however , is more than just a faster ARM processor .
Architecturally , it 's identical to the more advanced Cortex-A9 , and it supports the same features as that part as well .
This flexibility is designed to give product developers and manufacturers access to a fully backwards-compatible processor with better thermal and performance characteristics than the previous generation .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>bigwophh writes "ARM launched its new Cortex-A5 processor  (codenamed Sparrow) this week, and while it's not targeted at the top end of the mobile market,  it is a significant launch nonetheless.
The Cortex-A5, which will likely battle  future iterations of Intel's Atom for market share, is an important step  forward for ARM for several reasons.
First, it's significantly more efficient  to build than the company's older ARM1176JZ(F)-S, while simultaneously  outperforming the ARM926EJ-S. The Cortex-A5, however, is more than just a  faster ARM processor.
Architecturally, it's identical to the more advanced  Cortex-A9, and it supports the same features as that part as well.
This  flexibility is designed to give product developers and manufacturers access to a fully backwards-compatible processor with better thermal and performance  characteristics than the previous generation.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_234206.29862407</id>
	<title>Re:hey i got the f</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256407920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You win.... me fucking your dead great grandmother!!!1</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You win.... me fucking your dead great grandmother ! !
! 1</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You win.... me fucking your dead great grandmother!!
!1</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_234206.29862383</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_234206.29863199</id>
	<title>Re:Good news for future iphone</title>
	<author>AndyS</author>
	<datestamp>1256466840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The 3GS is a Cortex A-8, which would be faster than the A-5.</p><p>It's clocked at 600Mhz and is dual issue. As well as that they have a beefier 3d chip as well.</p><p>The A-9 is more exciting as it is multi-core and out of order.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The 3GS is a Cortex A-8 , which would be faster than the A-5.It 's clocked at 600Mhz and is dual issue .
As well as that they have a beefier 3d chip as well.The A-9 is more exciting as it is multi-core and out of order .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The 3GS is a Cortex A-8, which would be faster than the A-5.It's clocked at 600Mhz and is dual issue.
As well as that they have a beefier 3d chip as well.The A-9 is more exciting as it is multi-core and out of order.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_234206.29862445</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_234206.29863097</id>
	<title>Re:MS</title>
	<author>melted</author>
	<datestamp>1256464860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt;&gt; Microsoft can really change things around if they decided to port Win7 to ARM</p><p>Heard it through the grapevine that this is EXACTLY what they're doing, albeit not in a context you mentioned. A subset of full blown Windows kernel is being ported to ARM (a-la iPhone Mach) as a foundation for their "next" next gen mobile OS.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; &gt; Microsoft can really change things around if they decided to port Win7 to ARMHeard it through the grapevine that this is EXACTLY what they 're doing , albeit not in a context you mentioned .
A subset of full blown Windows kernel is being ported to ARM ( a-la iPhone Mach ) as a foundation for their " next " next gen mobile OS .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt;&gt; Microsoft can really change things around if they decided to port Win7 to ARMHeard it through the grapevine that this is EXACTLY what they're doing, albeit not in a context you mentioned.
A subset of full blown Windows kernel is being ported to ARM (a-la iPhone Mach) as a foundation for their "next" next gen mobile OS.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_234206.29862507</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_234206.29863335</id>
	<title>Re:No, it's not...</title>
	<author>TheRaven64</author>
	<datestamp>1256470020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>ARM does not make chips, they design them.  The process technology is up to the licensees.  Some are using 45nm now, and have been sampling 32nm for a few months with plans to ramp up production in early 2010.</htmltext>
<tokenext>ARM does not make chips , they design them .
The process technology is up to the licensees .
Some are using 45nm now , and have been sampling 32nm for a few months with plans to ramp up production in early 2010 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>ARM does not make chips, they design them.
The process technology is up to the licensees.
Some are using 45nm now, and have been sampling 32nm for a few months with plans to ramp up production in early 2010.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_234206.29863031</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_234206.29862507</id>
	<title>MS</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256409600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>It's said that Intel has the edge on this fight due to x86 compatibility, but Microsoft can really change things around if they decided to port Win7 to ARM, instead of offering only Windows CE.

But considering monopolies, I wouldn't expect that any time soon.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's said that Intel has the edge on this fight due to x86 compatibility , but Microsoft can really change things around if they decided to port Win7 to ARM , instead of offering only Windows CE .
But considering monopolies , I would n't expect that any time soon .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's said that Intel has the edge on this fight due to x86 compatibility, but Microsoft can really change things around if they decided to port Win7 to ARM, instead of offering only Windows CE.
But considering monopolies, I wouldn't expect that any time soon.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_234206.29863951</id>
	<title>Re:MS</title>
	<author>Alioth</author>
	<datestamp>1256479800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Unfortunately for Intel (and happily for everyone else) the x86 arch is going to start haunting them. The bit that just figures out how big the next instruction is on an x86 CPU is as large as an entire ARM core. As things get more and more multicore and want to be more and more low power, this will be a ball and chain for them - already they are having to use considerably more expensive processes to make the Atom compete with the Cortex A9.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Unfortunately for Intel ( and happily for everyone else ) the x86 arch is going to start haunting them .
The bit that just figures out how big the next instruction is on an x86 CPU is as large as an entire ARM core .
As things get more and more multicore and want to be more and more low power , this will be a ball and chain for them - already they are having to use considerably more expensive processes to make the Atom compete with the Cortex A9 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Unfortunately for Intel (and happily for everyone else) the x86 arch is going to start haunting them.
The bit that just figures out how big the next instruction is on an x86 CPU is as large as an entire ARM core.
As things get more and more multicore and want to be more and more low power, this will be a ball and chain for them - already they are having to use considerably more expensive processes to make the Atom compete with the Cortex A9.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_234206.29862507</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_234206.29862957</id>
	<title>Re:More advanced identity?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256461860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Same instruction architecture (ARM7A+Neon), same SMP support, same, same, same.<br>Just slower but smaller than the A9.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Same instruction architecture ( ARM7A + Neon ) , same SMP support , same , same , same.Just slower but smaller than the A9 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Same instruction architecture (ARM7A+Neon), same SMP support, same, same, same.Just slower but smaller than the A9.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_234206.29862775</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_234206.29862921</id>
	<title>More info at Arstechnica</title>
	<author>IYagami</author>
	<datestamp>1256461200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><a href="http://arstechnica.com/gadgets/news/2009/10/arm-fills-out-cpu-lineup-with-cortex-a5.ars" title="arstechnica.com">http://arstechnica.com/gadgets/news/2009/10/arm-fills-out-cpu-lineup-with-cortex-a5.ars</a> [arstechnica.com]</p><p><a href="http://www.brightsideofnews.com/news/2009/10/21/arm-announces-cortex-a5-for-the-next-15-billion-cellphones-and-mids.aspx" title="brightsideofnews.com">http://www.brightsideofnews.com/news/2009/10/21/arm-announces-cortex-a5-for-the-next-15-billion-cellphones-and-mids.aspx</a> [brightsideofnews.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>http : //arstechnica.com/gadgets/news/2009/10/arm-fills-out-cpu-lineup-with-cortex-a5.ars [ arstechnica.com ] http : //www.brightsideofnews.com/news/2009/10/21/arm-announces-cortex-a5-for-the-next-15-billion-cellphones-and-mids.aspx [ brightsideofnews.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>http://arstechnica.com/gadgets/news/2009/10/arm-fills-out-cpu-lineup-with-cortex-a5.ars [arstechnica.com]http://www.brightsideofnews.com/news/2009/10/21/arm-announces-cortex-a5-for-the-next-15-billion-cellphones-and-mids.aspx [brightsideofnews.com]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_234206.29863031</id>
	<title>Re:No, it's not...</title>
	<author>Locutus</author>
	<datestamp>1256463420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>the Cortex-A8 is out now on the 65nm process as are all the other low power device CPU's except Atom. Atom is currently on 45nm to get in the ballpark as the others but power usage is still pretty high. Cortex-A8 on 45nm should be in the pipeline soon and along with it, Cortex-A9. Those are going to shack the Atom up on price/watt and performance/watt. This is why Intel is moving Atom to 32nm ASAP but it's very expensive for them because they have to price the Atom low while at the same time use very expensive 32nm process space which they normally use for high profit desktop/server CPUs.  So in 2011, along comes Cortex-A5 on 40nm so Intel would have to start looking at 2?nm processes to keep competing. I believe the ARM dude talks about this somewhat.<br><br>Size is a big deal and right now, Cortex-A8 on 65nm is rather large for smart phones. they pack some decent power for netbooks so I'm not sure what the delay is on that front. Cortex-A9 on netbooks would be very nice but I think they are just sampling now so it won't happen til next year( 2010 ).<br><br>ARM is a thorn in both Microsoft and Intel's sides and there is probably massive amounts of pressure on OEMs and manufacturers to stay away from it. Atleast on the netbook side. Remember, the head of the Thai Manufacturers Association said they fear Microsoft when talking about Linux on netbooks. ARM is an enabler for Linux so it too is a threat to Microsoft. But I sure hope the market gets to make the choice some how, some way.<br><br>LoB</htmltext>
<tokenext>the Cortex-A8 is out now on the 65nm process as are all the other low power device CPU 's except Atom .
Atom is currently on 45nm to get in the ballpark as the others but power usage is still pretty high .
Cortex-A8 on 45nm should be in the pipeline soon and along with it , Cortex-A9 .
Those are going to shack the Atom up on price/watt and performance/watt .
This is why Intel is moving Atom to 32nm ASAP but it 's very expensive for them because they have to price the Atom low while at the same time use very expensive 32nm process space which they normally use for high profit desktop/server CPUs .
So in 2011 , along comes Cortex-A5 on 40nm so Intel would have to start looking at 2 ? nm processes to keep competing .
I believe the ARM dude talks about this somewhat.Size is a big deal and right now , Cortex-A8 on 65nm is rather large for smart phones .
they pack some decent power for netbooks so I 'm not sure what the delay is on that front .
Cortex-A9 on netbooks would be very nice but I think they are just sampling now so it wo n't happen til next year ( 2010 ) .ARM is a thorn in both Microsoft and Intel 's sides and there is probably massive amounts of pressure on OEMs and manufacturers to stay away from it .
Atleast on the netbook side .
Remember , the head of the Thai Manufacturers Association said they fear Microsoft when talking about Linux on netbooks .
ARM is an enabler for Linux so it too is a threat to Microsoft .
But I sure hope the market gets to make the choice some how , some way.LoB</tokentext>
<sentencetext>the Cortex-A8 is out now on the 65nm process as are all the other low power device CPU's except Atom.
Atom is currently on 45nm to get in the ballpark as the others but power usage is still pretty high.
Cortex-A8 on 45nm should be in the pipeline soon and along with it, Cortex-A9.
Those are going to shack the Atom up on price/watt and performance/watt.
This is why Intel is moving Atom to 32nm ASAP but it's very expensive for them because they have to price the Atom low while at the same time use very expensive 32nm process space which they normally use for high profit desktop/server CPUs.
So in 2011, along comes Cortex-A5 on 40nm so Intel would have to start looking at 2?nm processes to keep competing.
I believe the ARM dude talks about this somewhat.Size is a big deal and right now, Cortex-A8 on 65nm is rather large for smart phones.
they pack some decent power for netbooks so I'm not sure what the delay is on that front.
Cortex-A9 on netbooks would be very nice but I think they are just sampling now so it won't happen til next year( 2010 ).ARM is a thorn in both Microsoft and Intel's sides and there is probably massive amounts of pressure on OEMs and manufacturers to stay away from it.
Atleast on the netbook side.
Remember, the head of the Thai Manufacturers Association said they fear Microsoft when talking about Linux on netbooks.
ARM is an enabler for Linux so it too is a threat to Microsoft.
But I sure hope the market gets to make the choice some how, some way.LoB</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_234206.29862435</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_234206.29862857</id>
	<title>your getting it mixed up</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256502600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The A5 is noy meant to compete with atom. it is meant to replace to ARM11 on the low end. Roughly the same power, but with more features and cheaper. I guess that the A8 hasn't been seeing a good enough uptake due to the recession. That would explain why they are only announcing it now. It is the A9 that is going to take on Atom.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The A5 is noy meant to compete with atom .
it is meant to replace to ARM11 on the low end .
Roughly the same power , but with more features and cheaper .
I guess that the A8 has n't been seeing a good enough uptake due to the recession .
That would explain why they are only announcing it now .
It is the A9 that is going to take on Atom .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The A5 is noy meant to compete with atom.
it is meant to replace to ARM11 on the low end.
Roughly the same power, but with more features and cheaper.
I guess that the A8 hasn't been seeing a good enough uptake due to the recession.
That would explain why they are only announcing it now.
It is the A9 that is going to take on Atom.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_234206.29863483</id>
	<title>Re:Being late to the game is what is killing these</title>
	<author>SimonTheSoundMan</author>
	<datestamp>1256473380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Before the A series, ARM haven't really designed any new processors since Acorn Computers died in 2000/2001. The only development push ARM had is when RISCOS went to other manufacturers such as Castle. Now ARM needs to design new processors as their time has come where more powerful CPUs are needed in the mobile devices.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Before the A series , ARM have n't really designed any new processors since Acorn Computers died in 2000/2001 .
The only development push ARM had is when RISCOS went to other manufacturers such as Castle .
Now ARM needs to design new processors as their time has come where more powerful CPUs are needed in the mobile devices .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Before the A series, ARM haven't really designed any new processors since Acorn Computers died in 2000/2001.
The only development push ARM had is when RISCOS went to other manufacturers such as Castle.
Now ARM needs to design new processors as their time has come where more powerful CPUs are needed in the mobile devices.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_234206.29862591</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_234206.29862445</id>
	<title>Good news for future iphone</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256408700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Looks like the Cortex-A5 has 50\% more performance while using 1/3rd the power of the current generation ARM11 found in the iPhone. As a game developer this makes me hopeful that we'll see cellphones as a gaming platform without sacrificing useful battery life.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Looks like the Cortex-A5 has 50 \ % more performance while using 1/3rd the power of the current generation ARM11 found in the iPhone .
As a game developer this makes me hopeful that we 'll see cellphones as a gaming platform without sacrificing useful battery life .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Looks like the Cortex-A5 has 50\% more performance while using 1/3rd the power of the current generation ARM11 found in the iPhone.
As a game developer this makes me hopeful that we'll see cellphones as a gaming platform without sacrificing useful battery life.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_234206.29863853</id>
	<title>Re:More advanced identity?</title>
	<author>SpinyNorman</author>
	<datestamp>1256478900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They're not saying "it's identical", they're saying "architecturally, it's identical", which is to say that any differences are non-architectural (i.e. performance, power consumption, etc).</p><p>Perhaps a car analogy would help...</p><p>If I say that color-wise my Ford Pinto is identical to my Ferrari, all I'm saying is identical is the color!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They 're not saying " it 's identical " , they 're saying " architecturally , it 's identical " , which is to say that any differences are non-architectural ( i.e .
performance , power consumption , etc ) .Perhaps a car analogy would help...If I say that color-wise my Ford Pinto is identical to my Ferrari , all I 'm saying is identical is the color !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They're not saying "it's identical", they're saying "architecturally, it's identical", which is to say that any differences are non-architectural (i.e.
performance, power consumption, etc).Perhaps a car analogy would help...If I say that color-wise my Ford Pinto is identical to my Ferrari, all I'm saying is identical is the color!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_234206.29862775</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_234206.29862435</id>
	<title>No, it's not...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256408520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The Cortex-A5 is a slight improvement over the MPCore/Arm11/Arm9. That's nice for those who need it, but it's miles away from the speed of a Cortex-A9, which is really what's going to be needed to battle Atom.</p><p>And since the A9 has announced by ARM quite some time ago, this posting should have been written then not now.</p><p>In reality, it's not clear which niche the A5 is going to occupy. It's probably going to be useful in lower end smartphones only, since current higher end models are already using the faster A8.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The Cortex-A5 is a slight improvement over the MPCore/Arm11/Arm9 .
That 's nice for those who need it , but it 's miles away from the speed of a Cortex-A9 , which is really what 's going to be needed to battle Atom.And since the A9 has announced by ARM quite some time ago , this posting should have been written then not now.In reality , it 's not clear which niche the A5 is going to occupy .
It 's probably going to be useful in lower end smartphones only , since current higher end models are already using the faster A8 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The Cortex-A5 is a slight improvement over the MPCore/Arm11/Arm9.
That's nice for those who need it, but it's miles away from the speed of a Cortex-A9, which is really what's going to be needed to battle Atom.And since the A9 has announced by ARM quite some time ago, this posting should have been written then not now.In reality, it's not clear which niche the A5 is going to occupy.
It's probably going to be useful in lower end smartphones only, since current higher end models are already using the faster A8.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_234206.29884011</id>
	<title>Re:Press Release</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256659260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>2) The A5 is not architecturally identical to the A9. The A9 is an in-order, multi-issue core. The A5 is an out-of-order, single-issue core. The only thing similar is it has the Cortex A-series ISA.</p></div><p>In ARM terminology architecture refers to instruction set, programming model (Machine specific registers, exception model,<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...). So yes, both use same architecture (v7). But their u-archictecture - implementation - differs.</p><p>Sorry but A9 is an OoO machine, multi-issue core... don't know what your sources are.</p><p>In fact A5 core is what ARM management was aiming at when they initially started the A9 program : an 11EJ replacement (A8 was still under development at this time). But by unleashing the u-arch, they ended up with a core faster than A8, and they decided to call it A9.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>2 ) The A5 is not architecturally identical to the A9 .
The A9 is an in-order , multi-issue core .
The A5 is an out-of-order , single-issue core .
The only thing similar is it has the Cortex A-series ISA.In ARM terminology architecture refers to instruction set , programming model ( Machine specific registers , exception model , ... ) .
So yes , both use same architecture ( v7 ) .
But their u-archictecture - implementation - differs.Sorry but A9 is an OoO machine , multi-issue core... do n't know what your sources are.In fact A5 core is what ARM management was aiming at when they initially started the A9 program : an 11EJ replacement ( A8 was still under development at this time ) .
But by unleashing the u-arch , they ended up with a core faster than A8 , and they decided to call it A9 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>2) The A5 is not architecturally identical to the A9.
The A9 is an in-order, multi-issue core.
The A5 is an out-of-order, single-issue core.
The only thing similar is it has the Cortex A-series ISA.In ARM terminology architecture refers to instruction set, programming model (Machine specific registers, exception model, ...).
So yes, both use same architecture (v7).
But their u-archictecture - implementation - differs.Sorry but A9 is an OoO machine, multi-issue core... don't know what your sources are.In fact A5 core is what ARM management was aiming at when they initially started the A9 program : an 11EJ replacement (A8 was still under development at this time).
But by unleashing the u-arch, they ended up with a core faster than A8, and they decided to call it A9.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_234206.29863535</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_234206.29862775</id>
	<title>More advanced identity?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256501400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Architecturally, it's identical to the more advanced Cortex-A9</p></div><p>How can it be identical, when it's more advanced? Those two are opposites.</p><p>Or is their definition of identity itself more advanced? ^^<br>Like "<tt>(==) a b = a &gt;= b</tt>" in Haskell?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Architecturally , it 's identical to the more advanced Cortex-A9How can it be identical , when it 's more advanced ?
Those two are opposites.Or is their definition of identity itself more advanced ?
^ ^ Like " ( = = ) a b = a &gt; = b " in Haskell ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Architecturally, it's identical to the more advanced Cortex-A9How can it be identical, when it's more advanced?
Those two are opposites.Or is their definition of identity itself more advanced?
^^Like "(==) a b = a &gt;= b" in Haskell?
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_234206.29863297</id>
	<title>Re:Being late to the game is what is killing these</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256469300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You haven't seen any products with A9 inside, yet, because the chips that are built around the A9 can take 1-2 years to go into full manufacture. It then takes time to build devices out of finished product. Next year, you will see NVIDIA showing of Tegra2 based systems containing Cortex-A9.</p><p>
&nbsp; A5 is still being designed, so don't expect anything soon....</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You have n't seen any products with A9 inside , yet , because the chips that are built around the A9 can take 1-2 years to go into full manufacture .
It then takes time to build devices out of finished product .
Next year , you will see NVIDIA showing of Tegra2 based systems containing Cortex-A9 .
  A5 is still being designed , so do n't expect anything soon... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You haven't seen any products with A9 inside, yet, because the chips that are built around the A9 can take 1-2 years to go into full manufacture.
It then takes time to build devices out of finished product.
Next year, you will see NVIDIA showing of Tegra2 based systems containing Cortex-A9.
  A5 is still being designed, so don't expect anything soon....</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_234206.29862591</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_234206.29862409</id>
	<title>Love to have one</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256407980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I would love to have one of these in a "smartbook". Even though it won't run x86 binaries (I use linux anyway) it would be useful enough to let me leave my big arse laptop at home. With hours of battery life I wouldn't need to take a power supply with me.</p><p>So far though the only ARM smartbooks currently available have very limited RAM and disk space. I will have to wait and see what comes out in the next few months.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I would love to have one of these in a " smartbook " .
Even though it wo n't run x86 binaries ( I use linux anyway ) it would be useful enough to let me leave my big arse laptop at home .
With hours of battery life I would n't need to take a power supply with me.So far though the only ARM smartbooks currently available have very limited RAM and disk space .
I will have to wait and see what comes out in the next few months .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I would love to have one of these in a "smartbook".
Even though it won't run x86 binaries (I use linux anyway) it would be useful enough to let me leave my big arse laptop at home.
With hours of battery life I wouldn't need to take a power supply with me.So far though the only ARM smartbooks currently available have very limited RAM and disk space.
I will have to wait and see what comes out in the next few months.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_234206.29862955</id>
	<title>W000T fp</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256461860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><A HREF="http://goat.cx/" title="goat.cx" rel="nofollow">operating systems, aal along. *BSD become like they during which I decentralized</a> [goat.cx]</htmltext>
<tokenext>operating systems , aal along .
* BSD become like they during which I decentralized [ goat.cx ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>operating systems, aal along.
*BSD become like they during which I decentralized [goat.cx]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_234206.29863481</id>
	<title>Re:Wifi + LCD, not the CPU</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256473380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The main reason why the CPU does not suck power is because most if not all mobile phones use ARM CPU cores. Imagine a mobile phone with an ATOM, shudder...<br>You would gain some speed but your mobile phone would need fans<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:-(</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The main reason why the CPU does not suck power is because most if not all mobile phones use ARM CPU cores .
Imagine a mobile phone with an ATOM , shudder...You would gain some speed but your mobile phone would need fans : - (</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The main reason why the CPU does not suck power is because most if not all mobile phones use ARM CPU cores.
Imagine a mobile phone with an ATOM, shudder...You would gain some speed but your mobile phone would need fans :-(</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_234206.29862491</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_234206.29862489</id>
	<title>So this is why ARM and Global Foundries...</title>
	<author>freak132</author>
	<datestamp>1256409420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>So this is why <a href="http://hothardware.com/News/ARM-and-Global-Foundries-Form-Strategic-Partnership/" title="hothardware.com" rel="nofollow">ARM and Global Foundries recently made a deal</a> [hothardware.com]. ARM's Cortex-A5 is going to be built on a 40nm and Global Foundries already has that equipment, with AMD working hard to advance to the next node that frees up a lot of manufacturing power for ARM to use. Officially it was for Cortex-A9 at 28nm but what's to stop other stuff from being done in the shadow of the deal?</htmltext>
<tokenext>So this is why ARM and Global Foundries recently made a deal [ hothardware.com ] .
ARM 's Cortex-A5 is going to be built on a 40nm and Global Foundries already has that equipment , with AMD working hard to advance to the next node that frees up a lot of manufacturing power for ARM to use .
Officially it was for Cortex-A9 at 28nm but what 's to stop other stuff from being done in the shadow of the deal ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So this is why ARM and Global Foundries recently made a deal [hothardware.com].
ARM's Cortex-A5 is going to be built on a 40nm and Global Foundries already has that equipment, with AMD working hard to advance to the next node that frees up a lot of manufacturing power for ARM to use.
Officially it was for Cortex-A9 at 28nm but what's to stop other stuff from being done in the shadow of the deal?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_234206.29863607</id>
	<title>Re:MS</title>
	<author>bhtooefr</author>
	<datestamp>1256476020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Although, there is something else.</p><p>I don't believe Microsoft pays to do ports of Windows.</p><p>IIRC, ports of Windows to non-x86 architectures are paid for by the processor maker. (That's why Windows 2000 for Alpha was cancelled, Compaq didn't want to pay for it any more.)</p><p>ARM's said they need a port of Windows, too, and there's rumors out there that there's a team at MS porting Windows to ARM... made up of ARM employees.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Although , there is something else.I do n't believe Microsoft pays to do ports of Windows.IIRC , ports of Windows to non-x86 architectures are paid for by the processor maker .
( That 's why Windows 2000 for Alpha was cancelled , Compaq did n't want to pay for it any more .
) ARM 's said they need a port of Windows , too , and there 's rumors out there that there 's a team at MS porting Windows to ARM... made up of ARM employees .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Although, there is something else.I don't believe Microsoft pays to do ports of Windows.IIRC, ports of Windows to non-x86 architectures are paid for by the processor maker.
(That's why Windows 2000 for Alpha was cancelled, Compaq didn't want to pay for it any more.
)ARM's said they need a port of Windows, too, and there's rumors out there that there's a team at MS porting Windows to ARM... made up of ARM employees.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_234206.29862669</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_234206.29864887</id>
	<title>xSoftware stacks miss the point on Net/Smart Books</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256489100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>These devices don't really run much legacy code. They spend most of their time on the, wait for it, Internet. Which is why Google never bothered with an OS until after Google docs. Will people be willing to get a "good enough machine" for USD 100 less (the approx. Wintel tax)?</p><p>The point here is that what the microprocessor taught us was in the long haul, volume wins and there are a hell of a lot more phones then PCs.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>These devices do n't really run much legacy code .
They spend most of their time on the , wait for it , Internet .
Which is why Google never bothered with an OS until after Google docs .
Will people be willing to get a " good enough machine " for USD 100 less ( the approx .
Wintel tax ) ? The point here is that what the microprocessor taught us was in the long haul , volume wins and there are a hell of a lot more phones then PCs .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>These devices don't really run much legacy code.
They spend most of their time on the, wait for it, Internet.
Which is why Google never bothered with an OS until after Google docs.
Will people be willing to get a "good enough machine" for USD 100 less (the approx.
Wintel tax)?The point here is that what the microprocessor taught us was in the long haul, volume wins and there are a hell of a lot more phones then PCs.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_234206.29862491</id>
	<title>Wifi + LCD, not the CPU</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256409420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Its the Wifi/WWAN chips, and LCD screen which suck up the power, not the CPU.   ARM is cool and all (pun intended) but if you make an ARM based Dell Mini 9, you're not going to end up with uber battery life, when you're on Wifi and running the screen bright.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Its the Wifi/WWAN chips , and LCD screen which suck up the power , not the CPU .
ARM is cool and all ( pun intended ) but if you make an ARM based Dell Mini 9 , you 're not going to end up with uber battery life , when you 're on Wifi and running the screen bright .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Its the Wifi/WWAN chips, and LCD screen which suck up the power, not the CPU.
ARM is cool and all (pun intended) but if you make an ARM based Dell Mini 9, you're not going to end up with uber battery life, when you're on Wifi and running the screen bright.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_234206.29865085</id>
	<title>But what if Atom really works fine on smart phone?</title>
	<author>Ilgaz</author>
	<datestamp>1256491200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Speaking (typing) from a Quad G5, PPC and watched the happenings in OS X community/developer scene since Intel transition announced. If Intel one day manages to make Atom (x86) run in same low power as ARM licensed CPUs, ARM is doomed.</p><p>Why? Compare the compile process of an open source, multimedia application on PPC and Intel. See the "bonus" stuff Intel chips get? Every kind of optimization, way more cheaper is available on Intel x86/SSE. Trust me, I am more amazed to Intel's developer/development/application support every single day. I don't even blame Apple anymore, I blame IBM/Motorola etc.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Speaking ( typing ) from a Quad G5 , PPC and watched the happenings in OS X community/developer scene since Intel transition announced .
If Intel one day manages to make Atom ( x86 ) run in same low power as ARM licensed CPUs , ARM is doomed.Why ?
Compare the compile process of an open source , multimedia application on PPC and Intel .
See the " bonus " stuff Intel chips get ?
Every kind of optimization , way more cheaper is available on Intel x86/SSE .
Trust me , I am more amazed to Intel 's developer/development/application support every single day .
I do n't even blame Apple anymore , I blame IBM/Motorola etc .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Speaking (typing) from a Quad G5, PPC and watched the happenings in OS X community/developer scene since Intel transition announced.
If Intel one day manages to make Atom (x86) run in same low power as ARM licensed CPUs, ARM is doomed.Why?
Compare the compile process of an open source, multimedia application on PPC and Intel.
See the "bonus" stuff Intel chips get?
Every kind of optimization, way more cheaper is available on Intel x86/SSE.
Trust me, I am more amazed to Intel's developer/development/application support every single day.
I don't even blame Apple anymore, I blame IBM/Motorola etc.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_234206.29862799</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_234206.29865061</id>
	<title>ARM got misled by Linux community</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256490960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>and the only advantage of Netbook over a real mini communication device which has OS designed to run on it is? Ability to run Windows unmodified.</p><p>I speak about devices like Nokia E90, N97, N900.</p><p>ARM really gets confused very easily it seems. They should ask Asus, HP, Acer and several others. Why does a customer buy a low powered laptop like device for?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>and the only advantage of Netbook over a real mini communication device which has OS designed to run on it is ?
Ability to run Windows unmodified.I speak about devices like Nokia E90 , N97 , N900.ARM really gets confused very easily it seems .
They should ask Asus , HP , Acer and several others .
Why does a customer buy a low powered laptop like device for ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>and the only advantage of Netbook over a real mini communication device which has OS designed to run on it is?
Ability to run Windows unmodified.I speak about devices like Nokia E90, N97, N900.ARM really gets confused very easily it seems.
They should ask Asus, HP, Acer and several others.
Why does a customer buy a low powered laptop like device for?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_234206.29862403</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_234206.29863285</id>
	<title>Re:Love to have one</title>
	<author>BikeHelmet</author>
	<datestamp>1256468880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><a href="http://www.alwaysinnovating.com/touchbook/" title="alwaysinnovating.com">http://www.alwaysinnovating.com/touchbook/</a> [alwaysinnovating.com]<br><a href="http://promos.asus.com/US/1000HE/ASUS/index.html" title="asus.com">http://promos.asus.com/US/1000HE/ASUS/index.html</a> [asus.com]</p><p>Two netbooks with long battery lives.</p><p>There are smaller devices available, which might be nice for lugging around - but keep in mind that the screen and Wifi are still big power draws, so the bigger the batteries the better.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>http : //www.alwaysinnovating.com/touchbook/ [ alwaysinnovating.com ] http : //promos.asus.com/US/1000HE/ASUS/index.html [ asus.com ] Two netbooks with long battery lives.There are smaller devices available , which might be nice for lugging around - but keep in mind that the screen and Wifi are still big power draws , so the bigger the batteries the better .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>http://www.alwaysinnovating.com/touchbook/ [alwaysinnovating.com]http://promos.asus.com/US/1000HE/ASUS/index.html [asus.com]Two netbooks with long battery lives.There are smaller devices available, which might be nice for lugging around - but keep in mind that the screen and Wifi are still big power draws, so the bigger the batteries the better.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_234206.29862409</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_234206.29873001</id>
	<title>Re:MS</title>
	<author>DaVince21</author>
	<datestamp>1256574900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The biggest strength of Windows is running Win32 apps, and they are all compiled for Win/x86</p></div><p>Microsoft has written VMs before to create compatibility with 16-bit applications on 32-bit systems before, right? The same should be possible with ARM, to at least a certain extent. (Someone mentioned the API differences of old software before so those probably wouldn't work unless old functionality was ported too in important libraries.)</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The biggest strength of Windows is running Win32 apps , and they are all compiled for Win/x86Microsoft has written VMs before to create compatibility with 16-bit applications on 32-bit systems before , right ?
The same should be possible with ARM , to at least a certain extent .
( Someone mentioned the API differences of old software before so those probably would n't work unless old functionality was ported too in important libraries .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The biggest strength of Windows is running Win32 apps, and they are all compiled for Win/x86Microsoft has written VMs before to create compatibility with 16-bit applications on 32-bit systems before, right?
The same should be possible with ARM, to at least a certain extent.
(Someone mentioned the API differences of old software before so those probably wouldn't work unless old functionality was ported too in important libraries.
)
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_234206.29862669</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_234206.29862851</id>
	<title>More PR Bullshit</title>
	<author>hyades1</author>
	<datestamp>1256502540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p> We really have to start looking more carefully at posts like this, which clearly contain entire paragraphs of unexamined assertions by company PR drones that may or may not be true.  Bottom line:  Kill this shit unless a trustworthy, honest reviewer with a decent track record says it.  If that isn't happening, quit posting it here, where we have more important stuff to spend time on. </p><p> By the way, that "more important stuff" includes pulling our dicks and/or replaying World Championship Monopoly games move by move. </p></htmltext>
<tokenext>We really have to start looking more carefully at posts like this , which clearly contain entire paragraphs of unexamined assertions by company PR drones that may or may not be true .
Bottom line : Kill this shit unless a trustworthy , honest reviewer with a decent track record says it .
If that is n't happening , quit posting it here , where we have more important stuff to spend time on .
By the way , that " more important stuff " includes pulling our dicks and/or replaying World Championship Monopoly games move by move .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> We really have to start looking more carefully at posts like this, which clearly contain entire paragraphs of unexamined assertions by company PR drones that may or may not be true.
Bottom line:  Kill this shit unless a trustworthy, honest reviewer with a decent track record says it.
If that isn't happening, quit posting it here, where we have more important stuff to spend time on.
By the way, that "more important stuff" includes pulling our dicks and/or replaying World Championship Monopoly games move by move. </sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_234206.29862669</id>
	<title>Re:MS</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256412480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It would be best for Microsoft if ARM on the laptop/desktop was a complete flop. Sure, if what others say is true about the portability of Windows internals, Microsoft could release a version of Windows 7 for ARM. But really, what would be the point?</p><p>The biggest strength of Windows is running Win32 apps, and they are all compiled for Win/x86. Microsoft would have to provide development tools that encourage developers to make ARM binaries along side x86 binaries to even have a chance at making it happen.<br>Look at the average computer user's software catalogue, you will find many apps (and games) that were bought long ago and would cost money to upgrade to a potential ARM port if the company that made them are sill even in business. Those programs are never going to be ported to Win/ARM. Then there are all the drivers for last years peripheral hardware (assuming that the laptop's hardware is supported) that won't work.</p><p>I don't believe they can do what Apple did either. Apple was able to move to x86 from PPC because the control the hardware and moved their whole product line to it (killing PPC market). Any developers that wanted to stay in business had to port to x86. MS would be introducing a side product that would have a very small fraction of the bigger x86 customer base.</p><p>In the end all that Win/ARM has left is the few open source apps that choose to build an installer for it and the familiarity of the Windows desktop environment.</p><p>It would be in their interest to do everything in their power to make sure this doesn't ever get off the ground. We will have to wait and see what their next move will be.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It would be best for Microsoft if ARM on the laptop/desktop was a complete flop .
Sure , if what others say is true about the portability of Windows internals , Microsoft could release a version of Windows 7 for ARM .
But really , what would be the point ? The biggest strength of Windows is running Win32 apps , and they are all compiled for Win/x86 .
Microsoft would have to provide development tools that encourage developers to make ARM binaries along side x86 binaries to even have a chance at making it happen.Look at the average computer user 's software catalogue , you will find many apps ( and games ) that were bought long ago and would cost money to upgrade to a potential ARM port if the company that made them are sill even in business .
Those programs are never going to be ported to Win/ARM .
Then there are all the drivers for last years peripheral hardware ( assuming that the laptop 's hardware is supported ) that wo n't work.I do n't believe they can do what Apple did either .
Apple was able to move to x86 from PPC because the control the hardware and moved their whole product line to it ( killing PPC market ) .
Any developers that wanted to stay in business had to port to x86 .
MS would be introducing a side product that would have a very small fraction of the bigger x86 customer base.In the end all that Win/ARM has left is the few open source apps that choose to build an installer for it and the familiarity of the Windows desktop environment.It would be in their interest to do everything in their power to make sure this does n't ever get off the ground .
We will have to wait and see what their next move will be .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It would be best for Microsoft if ARM on the laptop/desktop was a complete flop.
Sure, if what others say is true about the portability of Windows internals, Microsoft could release a version of Windows 7 for ARM.
But really, what would be the point?The biggest strength of Windows is running Win32 apps, and they are all compiled for Win/x86.
Microsoft would have to provide development tools that encourage developers to make ARM binaries along side x86 binaries to even have a chance at making it happen.Look at the average computer user's software catalogue, you will find many apps (and games) that were bought long ago and would cost money to upgrade to a potential ARM port if the company that made them are sill even in business.
Those programs are never going to be ported to Win/ARM.
Then there are all the drivers for last years peripheral hardware (assuming that the laptop's hardware is supported) that won't work.I don't believe they can do what Apple did either.
Apple was able to move to x86 from PPC because the control the hardware and moved their whole product line to it (killing PPC market).
Any developers that wanted to stay in business had to port to x86.
MS would be introducing a side product that would have a very small fraction of the bigger x86 customer base.In the end all that Win/ARM has left is the few open source apps that choose to build an installer for it and the familiarity of the Windows desktop environment.It would be in their interest to do everything in their power to make sure this doesn't ever get off the ground.
We will have to wait and see what their next move will be.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_234206.29862507</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_234206.29862449</id>
	<title>too late?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256408760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The Cortex-A5-based devices will be here in 2011 (according to the charts).<br>Now, devices with Atoms are already here for a good year.<br>How do current ARM CPUs stack up against wimpy Atoms?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The Cortex-A5-based devices will be here in 2011 ( according to the charts ) .Now , devices with Atoms are already here for a good year.How do current ARM CPUs stack up against wimpy Atoms ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The Cortex-A5-based devices will be here in 2011 (according to the charts).Now, devices with Atoms are already here for a good year.How do current ARM CPUs stack up against wimpy Atoms?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_234206.29862439</id>
	<title>Obama laying groundwork for martial law</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256408580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><a href="http://www.infowars.com/obamas-h1n1-emergency-declaration-is-martial-law-unfolding/" title="infowars.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.infowars.com/obamas-h1n1-emergency-declaration-is-martial-law-unfolding/</a> [infowars.com]</p><p>Take your swine flu vaccine, you fucking pathetic sheep...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>http : //www.infowars.com/obamas-h1n1-emergency-declaration-is-martial-law-unfolding/ [ infowars.com ] Take your swine flu vaccine , you fucking pathetic sheep.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>http://www.infowars.com/obamas-h1n1-emergency-declaration-is-martial-law-unfolding/ [infowars.com]Take your swine flu vaccine, you fucking pathetic sheep...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_234206.29862383</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_234206.29863891</id>
	<title>Re:MS</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256479260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>MS could invest in doing some kind of dynamic binary translation from x86 to arm that could work for a good part of the software available out there, and if they are indeed interested in going for ARM, I'd think they would have a research team already on it. It's technically quite feasible, specially if you do have the money (which they have) and the brains (which they have, but keep on the r&amp;d division instead of the other more commercial ones<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:P).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>MS could invest in doing some kind of dynamic binary translation from x86 to arm that could work for a good part of the software available out there , and if they are indeed interested in going for ARM , I 'd think they would have a research team already on it .
It 's technically quite feasible , specially if you do have the money ( which they have ) and the brains ( which they have , but keep on the r&amp;d division instead of the other more commercial ones : P ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>MS could invest in doing some kind of dynamic binary translation from x86 to arm that could work for a good part of the software available out there, and if they are indeed interested in going for ARM, I'd think they would have a research team already on it.
It's technically quite feasible, specially if you do have the money (which they have) and the brains (which they have, but keep on the r&amp;d division instead of the other more commercial ones :P).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_234206.29862669</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_234206.29862785</id>
	<title>Re:Good news for future iphone</title>
	<author>dwater</author>
	<datestamp>1256501460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The phone I have - Nokia N900 - uses the ARM Cortex A8. I wonder how the processors compare...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The phone I have - Nokia N900 - uses the ARM Cortex A8 .
I wonder how the processors compare.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The phone I have - Nokia N900 - uses the ARM Cortex A8.
I wonder how the processors compare...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_234206.29862445</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_234206.29862387</id>
	<title>Press Release</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256407680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The summary reads like a press release. Still, it's good to see that Intel is facing competition, be it from AMD or ARM.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The summary reads like a press release .
Still , it 's good to see that Intel is facing competition , be it from AMD or ARM .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The summary reads like a press release.
Still, it's good to see that Intel is facing competition, be it from AMD or ARM.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_234206.29862403</id>
	<title>Summary is misleading</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256407860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The Cortex-A5 is aimed at phones.  The Cortext-A9 is the one aimed at netbooks.  The article referenced in the summary makes this clear.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The Cortex-A5 is aimed at phones .
The Cortext-A9 is the one aimed at netbooks .
The article referenced in the summary makes this clear .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The Cortex-A5 is aimed at phones.
The Cortext-A9 is the one aimed at netbooks.
The article referenced in the summary makes this clear.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_234206.29863611</id>
	<title>Re:More advanced identity?</title>
	<author>cheesybagel</author>
	<datestamp>1256476140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>What they mean is that the instruction set is compatible. So you can run the same binaries on both (although they would probably run faster if you recompiled them).
<p>
ARM has several different instruction set versions and optional extensions. You cannot run binaries interchangeably in a simple fashion. This is arguably true as well for x86's SSE and the ilk but to a much smaller degree. Why do you think cellphone vendors use Java ME even if, more often than not, they use ARM processors?
</p><p>
The hardware architecture is pretty different since A5 is in-order and A9 is out-of-order. It is like comparing an Intel Atom to an Intel Core processor.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What they mean is that the instruction set is compatible .
So you can run the same binaries on both ( although they would probably run faster if you recompiled them ) .
ARM has several different instruction set versions and optional extensions .
You can not run binaries interchangeably in a simple fashion .
This is arguably true as well for x86 's SSE and the ilk but to a much smaller degree .
Why do you think cellphone vendors use Java ME even if , more often than not , they use ARM processors ?
The hardware architecture is pretty different since A5 is in-order and A9 is out-of-order .
It is like comparing an Intel Atom to an Intel Core processor .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What they mean is that the instruction set is compatible.
So you can run the same binaries on both (although they would probably run faster if you recompiled them).
ARM has several different instruction set versions and optional extensions.
You cannot run binaries interchangeably in a simple fashion.
This is arguably true as well for x86's SSE and the ilk but to a much smaller degree.
Why do you think cellphone vendors use Java ME even if, more often than not, they use ARM processors?
The hardware architecture is pretty different since A5 is in-order and A9 is out-of-order.
It is like comparing an Intel Atom to an Intel Core processor.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_234206.29862775</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_234206.29863157</id>
	<title>Re:Wifi + LCD, not the CPU</title>
	<author>mrmeval</author>
	<datestamp>1256465880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><a href="http://www.arm.com/products/security/trustzone/index.html" title="arm.com">http://www.arm.com/products/security/trustzone/index.html</a> [arm.com]</p><p>Yea cool</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>http : //www.arm.com/products/security/trustzone/index.html [ arm.com ] Yea cool</tokentext>
<sentencetext>http://www.arm.com/products/security/trustzone/index.html [arm.com]Yea cool</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_234206.29862491</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_234206.29864347</id>
	<title>raw Mhz speed?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256483460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why no mention of raw speed? I know it doesn't matter that much and architecturally there exist two CPUs at any time, one with X Ghz and another with Y Ghz, with X less than Y but X being still a better CPU, but it still gives you a ballpark for the same (or almost) generation of CPUs.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why no mention of raw speed ?
I know it does n't matter that much and architecturally there exist two CPUs at any time , one with X Ghz and another with Y Ghz , with X less than Y but X being still a better CPU , but it still gives you a ballpark for the same ( or almost ) generation of CPUs .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why no mention of raw speed?
I know it doesn't matter that much and architecturally there exist two CPUs at any time, one with X Ghz and another with Y Ghz, with X less than Y but X being still a better CPU, but it still gives you a ballpark for the same (or almost) generation of CPUs.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_234206.29863497</id>
	<title>Re:More advanced identity?</title>
	<author>TheRaven64</author>
	<datestamp>1256473680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>This is what happens when you link to articles written by idiots instead of people who know what they are talking about.  The article on Ars Technica was a lot better.  The A9 is out-of-order, the A5 is in-order.  The A9 is superscalar, the A5 is single-issue.  They both have the same pipeline length (which surprised me; the A8 had a 10-stage pipeline, but apparently both the A5 and A9 have 8-stage ones).  It's therefore possible that the A5 is a massively cut-down A9, with a single pipeline and a simpler instruction issue and retirement stages.  That would make sense, because it would be relatively easy for ARM to design such a chip; just delete a load of stuff from the A9 and you've got the execution units.  The cache controller is simpler, but it's possible that they just copied this from an earlier design too.  <p>
The reason that they are described as identical is that they both support the same instruction set (although support for the NEON and floating point extensions is optional with the A5 but required with the A9).  That means that you can run things compiled for the A9 on the A5 and they will work, just a lot more slowly.  This is not true for the ARM9 and ARM11 cores currently used in the A5's target market; they have different privileged instruction sets to the Cortex A series and don't support many of the newer extensions that were added with this series.  This will save development costs for handset manufacturers; they can use the same software stack (including OS) on their cheap low-end phones as on their high-end ones.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is what happens when you link to articles written by idiots instead of people who know what they are talking about .
The article on Ars Technica was a lot better .
The A9 is out-of-order , the A5 is in-order .
The A9 is superscalar , the A5 is single-issue .
They both have the same pipeline length ( which surprised me ; the A8 had a 10-stage pipeline , but apparently both the A5 and A9 have 8-stage ones ) .
It 's therefore possible that the A5 is a massively cut-down A9 , with a single pipeline and a simpler instruction issue and retirement stages .
That would make sense , because it would be relatively easy for ARM to design such a chip ; just delete a load of stuff from the A9 and you 've got the execution units .
The cache controller is simpler , but it 's possible that they just copied this from an earlier design too .
The reason that they are described as identical is that they both support the same instruction set ( although support for the NEON and floating point extensions is optional with the A5 but required with the A9 ) .
That means that you can run things compiled for the A9 on the A5 and they will work , just a lot more slowly .
This is not true for the ARM9 and ARM11 cores currently used in the A5 's target market ; they have different privileged instruction sets to the Cortex A series and do n't support many of the newer extensions that were added with this series .
This will save development costs for handset manufacturers ; they can use the same software stack ( including OS ) on their cheap low-end phones as on their high-end ones .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is what happens when you link to articles written by idiots instead of people who know what they are talking about.
The article on Ars Technica was a lot better.
The A9 is out-of-order, the A5 is in-order.
The A9 is superscalar, the A5 is single-issue.
They both have the same pipeline length (which surprised me; the A8 had a 10-stage pipeline, but apparently both the A5 and A9 have 8-stage ones).
It's therefore possible that the A5 is a massively cut-down A9, with a single pipeline and a simpler instruction issue and retirement stages.
That would make sense, because it would be relatively easy for ARM to design such a chip; just delete a load of stuff from the A9 and you've got the execution units.
The cache controller is simpler, but it's possible that they just copied this from an earlier design too.
The reason that they are described as identical is that they both support the same instruction set (although support for the NEON and floating point extensions is optional with the A5 but required with the A9).
That means that you can run things compiled for the A9 on the A5 and they will work, just a lot more slowly.
This is not true for the ARM9 and ARM11 cores currently used in the A5's target market; they have different privileged instruction sets to the Cortex A series and don't support many of the newer extensions that were added with this series.
This will save development costs for handset manufacturers; they can use the same software stack (including OS) on their cheap low-end phones as on their high-end ones.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_234206.29862775</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_234206.29862707</id>
	<title>40NM</title>
	<author>toastar</author>
	<datestamp>1256413560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Just a Die Shrink?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Just a Die Shrink ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just a Die Shrink?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_234206.29864481</id>
	<title>Benchmarks vs. Atom</title>
	<author>wonkavader</author>
	<datestamp>1256484900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Has anyone found intelligently done benchmarks which pit Cortex A9-MP against Intel Atom?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Has anyone found intelligently done benchmarks which pit Cortex A9-MP against Intel Atom ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Has anyone found intelligently done benchmarks which pit Cortex A9-MP against Intel Atom?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_234206.29865739</id>
	<title>Re:Wifi + LCD, not the CPU</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256496540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>so if the cpu uses less power, the screen anf wifi will have MORE TO USE, and last longer, is that not better?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>so if the cpu uses less power , the screen anf wifi will have MORE TO USE , and last longer , is that not better ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>so if the cpu uses less power, the screen anf wifi will have MORE TO USE, and last longer, is that not better?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_234206.29862491</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_234206.29867291</id>
	<title>Re:Press Release</title>
	<author>Goaway</author>
	<datestamp>1256467260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The DS does not use ARM11, it uses one ARM9 and one ARM7.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The DS does not use ARM11 , it uses one ARM9 and one ARM7 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The DS does not use ARM11, it uses one ARM9 and one ARM7.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_234206.29863535</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_234206.29862799</id>
	<title>Re:Summary is misleading</title>
	<author>BikeHelmet</author>
	<datestamp>1256501700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I agree - the summary is bad.</p><p>But it's worth noting that according to previous articles, Intel "envisioned" Atoms one day making it into high end phones. This latest move from Arm will prevent that, solidifying their lead.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I agree - the summary is bad.But it 's worth noting that according to previous articles , Intel " envisioned " Atoms one day making it into high end phones .
This latest move from Arm will prevent that , solidifying their lead .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I agree - the summary is bad.But it's worth noting that according to previous articles, Intel "envisioned" Atoms one day making it into high end phones.
This latest move from Arm will prevent that, solidifying their lead.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_234206.29862403</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_234206.29864139</id>
	<title>Re:No, it's not...</title>
	<author>ndogg</author>
	<datestamp>1256481720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>And since the A9 has announced by ARM quite some time ago, this posting should have been written then not now</p></div><p>Yeah, it has.  This article is a <a href="http://hardware.slashdot.org/story/09/09/16/1527209/ARM-Attacks-Intels-Netbook-Stranglehold?art\_pos=11" title="slashdot.org">dupe</a> [slashdot.org].</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>And since the A9 has announced by ARM quite some time ago , this posting should have been written then not nowYeah , it has .
This article is a dupe [ slashdot.org ] .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And since the A9 has announced by ARM quite some time ago, this posting should have been written then not nowYeah, it has.
This article is a dupe [slashdot.org].
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_234206.29862435</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_234206.29863535</id>
	<title>Re:Press Release</title>
	<author>Paladin128</author>
	<datestamp>1256474820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And it's full of misinformation:</p><p>1) The A5 is not meant to take on Atom. The A9 is.<br>2) The A5 is not architecturally identical to the A9. The A9 is an in-order, multi-issue core. The A5 is an out-of-order, single-issue core. The only thing similar is it has the Cortex A-series ISA.</p><p>What the A5 is is a CPU that completely obliterates the ARM11-derived cores, used in everything from NVIDIA Tegra to the Nintendo DS. It's an update of the ISA, and a more capable core, with better thermals. That's it. Whereas every low-end smartphone now has the same damn QualComm ARM11-based core, in a year, they'll all have the A5.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And it 's full of misinformation : 1 ) The A5 is not meant to take on Atom .
The A9 is.2 ) The A5 is not architecturally identical to the A9 .
The A9 is an in-order , multi-issue core .
The A5 is an out-of-order , single-issue core .
The only thing similar is it has the Cortex A-series ISA.What the A5 is is a CPU that completely obliterates the ARM11-derived cores , used in everything from NVIDIA Tegra to the Nintendo DS .
It 's an update of the ISA , and a more capable core , with better thermals .
That 's it .
Whereas every low-end smartphone now has the same damn QualComm ARM11-based core , in a year , they 'll all have the A5 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And it's full of misinformation:1) The A5 is not meant to take on Atom.
The A9 is.2) The A5 is not architecturally identical to the A9.
The A9 is an in-order, multi-issue core.
The A5 is an out-of-order, single-issue core.
The only thing similar is it has the Cortex A-series ISA.What the A5 is is a CPU that completely obliterates the ARM11-derived cores, used in everything from NVIDIA Tegra to the Nintendo DS.
It's an update of the ISA, and a more capable core, with better thermals.
That's it.
Whereas every low-end smartphone now has the same damn QualComm ARM11-based core, in a year, they'll all have the A5.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_234206.29862387</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_234206.29862591</id>
	<title>Being late to the game is what is killing these...</title>
	<author>chizu</author>
	<datestamp>1256410800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>ARM talked about the Cortex A9 (the one I'd actually like to have in a netbook) over <a href="http://news.cnet.com/8301-13579\_3-9790491-37.html" title="cnet.com" rel="nofollow">two years ago</a> [cnet.com]. There is still nothing you can get that actually has one in it.

Yay something to replace the ARM11. Hope it actually gets used.</htmltext>
<tokenext>ARM talked about the Cortex A9 ( the one I 'd actually like to have in a netbook ) over two years ago [ cnet.com ] .
There is still nothing you can get that actually has one in it .
Yay something to replace the ARM11 .
Hope it actually gets used .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>ARM talked about the Cortex A9 (the one I'd actually like to have in a netbook) over two years ago [cnet.com].
There is still nothing you can get that actually has one in it.
Yay something to replace the ARM11.
Hope it actually gets used.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_234206.29863459</id>
	<title>Re:Being late to the game is what is killing these</title>
	<author>TheRaven64</author>
	<datestamp>1256472900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Define 'you'.  ARM began selling Cortex A9 licenses a while ago, but ARM does not produce chips.  TI are shipping OMAP4 SoCs based on the A9 to high-volume OEMs for a little while, as have a couple of other ARM licensees.  They should be appearing in consumer products in 2010.  As, in fact, it said in the article you linked to.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Define 'you' .
ARM began selling Cortex A9 licenses a while ago , but ARM does not produce chips .
TI are shipping OMAP4 SoCs based on the A9 to high-volume OEMs for a little while , as have a couple of other ARM licensees .
They should be appearing in consumer products in 2010 .
As , in fact , it said in the article you linked to .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Define 'you'.
ARM began selling Cortex A9 licenses a while ago, but ARM does not produce chips.
TI are shipping OMAP4 SoCs based on the A9 to high-volume OEMs for a little while, as have a couple of other ARM licensees.
They should be appearing in consumer products in 2010.
As, in fact, it said in the article you linked to.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_234206.29862591</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_234206.29863875</id>
	<title>Re:Wifi + LCD, not the CPU</title>
	<author>Idbar</author>
	<datestamp>1256479200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I know what I'm about to say may not happen, but may make people consider moving to those mobile platforms: While you may be right about power comsumption, the fact that the couldd perform better and even add more core or better video cards using the same power comsumption of current devices makes me hopeful. I'd go for something faster or more powerfull than my current MSi Wind if it cosumes similar battery and I can run several programs at once or faster.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I know what I 'm about to say may not happen , but may make people consider moving to those mobile platforms : While you may be right about power comsumption , the fact that the couldd perform better and even add more core or better video cards using the same power comsumption of current devices makes me hopeful .
I 'd go for something faster or more powerfull than my current MSi Wind if it cosumes similar battery and I can run several programs at once or faster .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I know what I'm about to say may not happen, but may make people consider moving to those mobile platforms: While you may be right about power comsumption, the fact that the couldd perform better and even add more core or better video cards using the same power comsumption of current devices makes me hopeful.
I'd go for something faster or more powerfull than my current MSi Wind if it cosumes similar battery and I can run several programs at once or faster.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_234206.29862491</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_234206.29879677</id>
	<title>Re:Good news for future iphone</title>
	<author>hattig</author>
	<datestamp>1256565180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>iPhone 3GS uses an ARM Cortex A8 at 600MHz.</p><p>It's the older iPhones that use ARM11 at 412MHz.</p><p>As the A5 is a lesser CPU than the A8, I expect the iPhone to never utilise it, but to migrate to the A9, and potentially dual-core A9, with the next release in July next year.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>iPhone 3GS uses an ARM Cortex A8 at 600MHz.It 's the older iPhones that use ARM11 at 412MHz.As the A5 is a lesser CPU than the A8 , I expect the iPhone to never utilise it , but to migrate to the A9 , and potentially dual-core A9 , with the next release in July next year .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>iPhone 3GS uses an ARM Cortex A8 at 600MHz.It's the older iPhones that use ARM11 at 412MHz.As the A5 is a lesser CPU than the A8, I expect the iPhone to never utilise it, but to migrate to the A9, and potentially dual-core A9, with the next release in July next year.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_234206.29862445</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_234206.29862721</id>
	<title>Co3k</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256413920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Usenet. In 1195, Sure that I've That has grown up and building is Theo de Raadt, one</htmltext>
<tokenext>Usenet .
In 1195 , Sure that I 've That has grown up and building is Theo de Raadt , one</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Usenet.
In 1195, Sure that I've That has grown up and building is Theo de Raadt, one</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_234206.29862383</id>
	<title>hey i got the f</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256407680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>what do i win?</p><p>oh, and something related.  um.  i'm on amd64 so i can get it while you arm lamers take too long lol</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>what do i win ? oh , and something related .
um. i 'm on amd64 so i can get it while you arm lamers take too long lol</tokentext>
<sentencetext>what do i win?oh, and something related.
um.  i'm on amd64 so i can get it while you arm lamers take too long lol</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_234206.29869065</id>
	<title>Motherboards?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256491920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>We need some motherboards with a couple of hyper-transport-3 enabled A9s, and sockets for RAM. At least 8GB (16GB NUMA?). That connected to a semi-decent south bridge (with pci, pci-e, sata, usb et al.)</p><p>This board should cost less than USD$150 with the 2 A9s. And after a few months maybe &lt; $100?</p><p>That's a dream because the A9s are not working in dual socket configurations yet and ARM doesn't invest in the desktop with a motherboard reference design. Sad...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>We need some motherboards with a couple of hyper-transport-3 enabled A9s , and sockets for RAM .
At least 8GB ( 16GB NUMA ? ) .
That connected to a semi-decent south bridge ( with pci , pci-e , sata , usb et al .
) This board should cost less than USD $ 150 with the 2 A9s .
And after a few months maybe That 's a dream because the A9s are not working in dual socket configurations yet and ARM does n't invest in the desktop with a motherboard reference design .
Sad.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We need some motherboards with a couple of hyper-transport-3 enabled A9s, and sockets for RAM.
At least 8GB (16GB NUMA?).
That connected to a semi-decent south bridge (with pci, pci-e, sata, usb et al.
)This board should cost less than USD$150 with the 2 A9s.
And after a few months maybe That's a dream because the A9s are not working in dual socket configurations yet and ARM doesn't invest in the desktop with a motherboard reference design.
Sad...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_24_234206_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_234206.29863335
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_234206.29863031
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_234206.29862435
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_24_234206_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_234206.29863875
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_234206.29862491
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_24_234206_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_234206.29863611
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_234206.29862775
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_24_234206_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_234206.29862785
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_234206.29862445
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_24_234206_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_234206.29865061
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_234206.29862403
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_24_234206_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_234206.29884011
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_234206.29863535
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_234206.29862387
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_24_234206_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_234206.29862439
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_234206.29862383
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_24_234206_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_234206.29862957
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_234206.29862775
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_24_234206_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_234206.29879677
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_234206.29862445
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_24_234206_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_234206.29863459
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_234206.29862591
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_24_234206_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_234206.29865085
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_234206.29862799
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_234206.29862403
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_24_234206_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_234206.29863951
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_234206.29862507
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_24_234206_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_234206.29863607
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_234206.29862669
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_234206.29862507
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_24_234206_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_234206.29863853
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_234206.29862775
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_24_234206_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_234206.29863285
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_234206.29862409
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_24_234206_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_234206.29863157
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_234206.29862491
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_24_234206_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_234206.29873001
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_234206.29862669
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_234206.29862507
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_24_234206_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_234206.29863097
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_234206.29862507
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_24_234206_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_234206.29863199
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_234206.29862445
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_24_234206_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_234206.29862407
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_234206.29862383
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_24_234206_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_234206.29863483
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_234206.29862591
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_24_234206_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_234206.29864139
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_234206.29862435
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_24_234206_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_234206.29867291
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_234206.29863535
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_234206.29862387
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_24_234206_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_234206.29863497
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_234206.29862775
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_24_234206_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_234206.29863891
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_234206.29862669
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_234206.29862507
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_24_234206_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_234206.29863297
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_234206.29862591
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_24_234206_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_234206.29863481
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_234206.29862491
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_24_234206_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_234206.29865739
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_234206.29862491
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_24_234206.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_234206.29869065
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_24_234206.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_234206.29862435
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_234206.29863031
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_234206.29863335
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_234206.29864139
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_24_234206.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_234206.29862409
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_234206.29863285
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_24_234206.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_234206.29862403
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_234206.29862799
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_234206.29865085
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_234206.29865061
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_24_234206.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_234206.29862507
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_234206.29863097
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_234206.29863951
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_234206.29862669
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_234206.29873001
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_234206.29863607
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_234206.29863891
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_24_234206.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_234206.29862387
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_234206.29863535
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_234206.29867291
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_234206.29884011
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_24_234206.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_234206.29862489
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_24_234206.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_234206.29862491
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_234206.29863157
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_234206.29863875
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_234206.29865739
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_234206.29863481
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_24_234206.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_234206.29862383
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_234206.29862439
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_234206.29862407
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_24_234206.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_234206.29862449
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_24_234206.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_234206.29862591
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_234206.29863459
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_234206.29863297
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_234206.29863483
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_24_234206.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_234206.29862445
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_234206.29863199
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_234206.29879677
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_234206.29862785
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_24_234206.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_234206.29862775
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_234206.29862957
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_234206.29863611
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_234206.29863853
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_234206.29863497
</commentlist>
</conversation>
