<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_12_21_1426226</id>
	<title>Intel Launches Next-Gen Atom N450 Processor</title>
	<author>Soulskill</author>
	<datestamp>1261408920000</datestamp>
	<htmltext><a href="http://hothardware.com/" rel="nofollow">MojoKid</a> writes <i>"Intel has <a href="http://hothardware.com/Articles/Asus-Eee-PC1005PE-Atom-N450-Pinetrail-Platform-Launch/">unveiled its next-generation Atom N450 processor</a>, and a review of the new Asus Eee PC 1005PE netbook that houses it shows decent gains in performance and lower power consumption.  The Atom N450 has been re-architected similar to Intel's other notebook processors in that it now has an integrated memory controller and graphics core on the CPU itself.  In addition, Intel's serial DMI (Direct Media Interface) now replaces the system bus to the Southbridge IO controller.  From a performance standpoint, the Atom N450 single core chip offers a nice <a href="http://hothardware.com/Articles/Asus-Eee-PC1005PE-Atom-N450-Pinetrail-Platform-Launch/?page=8">performance gain</a> versus previous generation Atom CPUs and it appears Intel has dual-core variants of the chip on the horizon as well."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>MojoKid writes " Intel has unveiled its next-generation Atom N450 processor , and a review of the new Asus Eee PC 1005PE netbook that houses it shows decent gains in performance and lower power consumption .
The Atom N450 has been re-architected similar to Intel 's other notebook processors in that it now has an integrated memory controller and graphics core on the CPU itself .
In addition , Intel 's serial DMI ( Direct Media Interface ) now replaces the system bus to the Southbridge IO controller .
From a performance standpoint , the Atom N450 single core chip offers a nice performance gain versus previous generation Atom CPUs and it appears Intel has dual-core variants of the chip on the horizon as well .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>MojoKid writes "Intel has unveiled its next-generation Atom N450 processor, and a review of the new Asus Eee PC 1005PE netbook that houses it shows decent gains in performance and lower power consumption.
The Atom N450 has been re-architected similar to Intel's other notebook processors in that it now has an integrated memory controller and graphics core on the CPU itself.
In addition, Intel's serial DMI (Direct Media Interface) now replaces the system bus to the Southbridge IO controller.
From a performance standpoint, the Atom N450 single core chip offers a nice performance gain versus previous generation Atom CPUs and it appears Intel has dual-core variants of the chip on the horizon as well.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1426226.30514504</id>
	<title>WOW sounds like just like an AMD chip</title>
	<author>justdrew</author>
	<datestamp>1261422300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>way to innovate intel. err. I guess I mean shamelessly copy. To hell with intel, down with monopolist chip makers.</htmltext>
<tokenext>way to innovate intel .
err. I guess I mean shamelessly copy .
To hell with intel , down with monopolist chip makers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>way to innovate intel.
err. I guess I mean shamelessly copy.
To hell with intel, down with monopolist chip makers.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1426226.30514644</id>
	<title>Re:Midnight Blue?</title>
	<author>jittles</author>
	<datestamp>1261422960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>My Dell XPS 1530 laptop did not come with any stickers on it at all.  I think the laptop looks relatively nice, too.  Maybe not as fancy as a Mac Book Pro but it won't burn your leg if you accidentally touch the machine to your skin, either.</htmltext>
<tokenext>My Dell XPS 1530 laptop did not come with any stickers on it at all .
I think the laptop looks relatively nice , too .
Maybe not as fancy as a Mac Book Pro but it wo n't burn your leg if you accidentally touch the machine to your skin , either .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My Dell XPS 1530 laptop did not come with any stickers on it at all.
I think the laptop looks relatively nice, too.
Maybe not as fancy as a Mac Book Pro but it won't burn your leg if you accidentally touch the machine to your skin, either.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1426226.30512586</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1426226.30512600</id>
	<title>Re:Midnight Blue?</title>
	<author>sznupi</author>
	<datestamp>1261413960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Stickers can be always removed...what's really frustrating is that many otherwise fine laptops come in glossy finish.</p><p>That might look good on an equipment which sits on the shelf in your house...or in shop. But terrible for something which is meant to be routinely touched by hands and kept in usual bag with other stuff.</p><p>Guess it just shows that such manufacturers care more about how it looks in shop...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Stickers can be always removed...what 's really frustrating is that many otherwise fine laptops come in glossy finish.That might look good on an equipment which sits on the shelf in your house...or in shop .
But terrible for something which is meant to be routinely touched by hands and kept in usual bag with other stuff.Guess it just shows that such manufacturers care more about how it looks in shop.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Stickers can be always removed...what's really frustrating is that many otherwise fine laptops come in glossy finish.That might look good on an equipment which sits on the shelf in your house...or in shop.
But terrible for something which is meant to be routinely touched by hands and kept in usual bag with other stuff.Guess it just shows that such manufacturers care more about how it looks in shop...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1426226.30512392</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1426226.30513774</id>
	<title>historically it went like this!</title>
	<author>nimbius</author>
	<datestamp>1261419120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>asus:  we have a great new product called the 'netbook' that will revolutionize the way people use laptops, and it runs linux!<br> <br>
Microsoft:  we can fix that.<br> <br>
asus: oh...well, it still revolutionizes the way people connect to the internet and some day it will support googles os!<br> <br>
intel:  we can fix that...</htmltext>
<tokenext>asus : we have a great new product called the 'netbook ' that will revolutionize the way people use laptops , and it runs linux !
Microsoft : we can fix that .
asus : oh...well , it still revolutionizes the way people connect to the internet and some day it will support googles os !
intel : we can fix that.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>asus:  we have a great new product called the 'netbook' that will revolutionize the way people use laptops, and it runs linux!
Microsoft:  we can fix that.
asus: oh...well, it still revolutionizes the way people connect to the internet and some day it will support googles os!
intel:  we can fix that...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1426226.30518802</id>
	<title>Re:Who actually needs this?</title>
	<author>BikeHelmet</author>
	<datestamp>1261402980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>In the HTPC/Media center segment: the Atom + Nvidia ION platform was great, low-power/low-performance CPU with a GPU that does all the video decoding and OpenGL. Now you get an Intel GPU that is *still* not able to do full video-pipeline accelerated GPU decoding. Better get yourself an old Atom, or hopefully in the future a Via Nano + decent GPU.</p></div><p>Atom N330 + Ion looks very nice for a netbook. Beefy enough to be a primary computer if your life demands constant travel.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>In the Netbook segment: with the performance of the original Atom being nothing but abysmal unless you only use Notepad, you really want a Celeron ULV anyway. It's a much better design, in a whole different performance class than the Atom, and you don't get any of the stupid restrictions Intel puts on using the Atom.</p></div><p>But unless you get an expensive CULV, you don't get the GPU horsepower. GMA4500 blows.</p><p>I will appreciate this N450 if it kicks netbooks under $200-$250 new.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>In the HTPC/Media center segment : the Atom + Nvidia ION platform was great , low-power/low-performance CPU with a GPU that does all the video decoding and OpenGL .
Now you get an Intel GPU that is * still * not able to do full video-pipeline accelerated GPU decoding .
Better get yourself an old Atom , or hopefully in the future a Via Nano + decent GPU.Atom N330 + Ion looks very nice for a netbook .
Beefy enough to be a primary computer if your life demands constant travel.In the Netbook segment : with the performance of the original Atom being nothing but abysmal unless you only use Notepad , you really want a Celeron ULV anyway .
It 's a much better design , in a whole different performance class than the Atom , and you do n't get any of the stupid restrictions Intel puts on using the Atom.But unless you get an expensive CULV , you do n't get the GPU horsepower .
GMA4500 blows.I will appreciate this N450 if it kicks netbooks under $ 200- $ 250 new .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In the HTPC/Media center segment: the Atom + Nvidia ION platform was great, low-power/low-performance CPU with a GPU that does all the video decoding and OpenGL.
Now you get an Intel GPU that is *still* not able to do full video-pipeline accelerated GPU decoding.
Better get yourself an old Atom, or hopefully in the future a Via Nano + decent GPU.Atom N330 + Ion looks very nice for a netbook.
Beefy enough to be a primary computer if your life demands constant travel.In the Netbook segment: with the performance of the original Atom being nothing but abysmal unless you only use Notepad, you really want a Celeron ULV anyway.
It's a much better design, in a whole different performance class than the Atom, and you don't get any of the stupid restrictions Intel puts on using the Atom.But unless you get an expensive CULV, you don't get the GPU horsepower.
GMA4500 blows.I will appreciate this N450 if it kicks netbooks under $200-$250 new.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1426226.30512520</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1426226.30513328</id>
	<title>I'm still waiting for a 1024x768 screen</title>
	<author>Joce640k</author>
	<datestamp>1261417200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Who cares about the CPU? Gimme more pixels, preferably non-glossy.</p><p>Have people still not figured out that the glossy screens are crap<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... or does the magpie syndrome still dominate purchasing decisions?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Who cares about the CPU ?
Gim me more pixels , preferably non-glossy.Have people still not figured out that the glossy screens are crap ... or does the magpie syndrome still dominate purchasing decisions ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Who cares about the CPU?
Gimme more pixels, preferably non-glossy.Have people still not figured out that the glossy screens are crap ... or does the magpie syndrome still dominate purchasing decisions?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1426226.30513540</id>
	<title>Linux Back in the Netbooks?</title>
	<author>Stregano</author>
	<datestamp>1261418100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>So do we finally get Linux and Unix distros back in the netbooks instead of XP?

Oh God do I hope so.</htmltext>
<tokenext>So do we finally get Linux and Unix distros back in the netbooks instead of XP ?
Oh God do I hope so .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So do we finally get Linux and Unix distros back in the netbooks instead of XP?
Oh God do I hope so.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1426226.30513274</id>
	<title>Did you bother reading the article?</title>
	<author>Joce640k</author>
	<datestamp>1261416840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Look again at the bit where it says "battery life"....</p><p>In the real world outside Slashdot not everybody is hung up on their 3dMark scores. In fact very few people are, judging by the fact that Intel GPUs outsell both NVIDIA and ATI combined.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Look again at the bit where it says " battery life " ....In the real world outside Slashdot not everybody is hung up on their 3dMark scores .
In fact very few people are , judging by the fact that Intel GPUs outsell both NVIDIA and ATI combined .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Look again at the bit where it says "battery life"....In the real world outside Slashdot not everybody is hung up on their 3dMark scores.
In fact very few people are, judging by the fact that Intel GPUs outsell both NVIDIA and ATI combined.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1426226.30512520</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1426226.30516044</id>
	<title>Re:Intel and Linux</title>
	<author>drinkypoo</author>
	<datestamp>1261386240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>If Intel really wants to push their hardware, why not write such optimizations for the Linux kernel?</p></div><p>Well, the point has been made already: <a href="/comments.pl?sid=1485676&amp;cid=30512808" title="slashdot.org">that stuff doesn't happen in the kernel</a> [slashdot.org]. Here's the followup; if there's optimizations to be done, often they can be done by the compiler. Intel does of course have a snazzy compiler which produces (on average) better performing executables than does gcc. On the other hand, gcc's focus tends to be x86 and now x86\_64, so it's not bad either. In the other cases, they belong in an external library; libraries involving sound, graphics, and video are likely candidates for improvement with SSE or MMX functions. Recompiling these libraries for your architecture can potentially provide significant performance improvements. When I build any kind of intensive software I use <tt>-march=barcelona</tt> in my CFLAGS which is supposed to turn on automatic optimization for all that stuff. The resulting executable should be useless on any lesser architecture, but it's for stuff that goes into<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/opt or<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/usr/local anyway. It's not terribly difficult to rebuild packages from their source for your architecture on many systems; gentoo, of course, turns on it.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>If Intel really wants to push their hardware , why not write such optimizations for the Linux kernel ? Well , the point has been made already : that stuff does n't happen in the kernel [ slashdot.org ] .
Here 's the followup ; if there 's optimizations to be done , often they can be done by the compiler .
Intel does of course have a snazzy compiler which produces ( on average ) better performing executables than does gcc .
On the other hand , gcc 's focus tends to be x86 and now x86 \ _64 , so it 's not bad either .
In the other cases , they belong in an external library ; libraries involving sound , graphics , and video are likely candidates for improvement with SSE or MMX functions .
Recompiling these libraries for your architecture can potentially provide significant performance improvements .
When I build any kind of intensive software I use -march = barcelona in my CFLAGS which is supposed to turn on automatic optimization for all that stuff .
The resulting executable should be useless on any lesser architecture , but it 's for stuff that goes into /opt or /usr/local anyway .
It 's not terribly difficult to rebuild packages from their source for your architecture on many systems ; gentoo , of course , turns on it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If Intel really wants to push their hardware, why not write such optimizations for the Linux kernel?Well, the point has been made already: that stuff doesn't happen in the kernel [slashdot.org].
Here's the followup; if there's optimizations to be done, often they can be done by the compiler.
Intel does of course have a snazzy compiler which produces (on average) better performing executables than does gcc.
On the other hand, gcc's focus tends to be x86 and now x86\_64, so it's not bad either.
In the other cases, they belong in an external library; libraries involving sound, graphics, and video are likely candidates for improvement with SSE or MMX functions.
Recompiling these libraries for your architecture can potentially provide significant performance improvements.
When I build any kind of intensive software I use -march=barcelona in my CFLAGS which is supposed to turn on automatic optimization for all that stuff.
The resulting executable should be useless on any lesser architecture, but it's for stuff that goes into /opt or /usr/local anyway.
It's not terribly difficult to rebuild packages from their source for your architecture on many systems; gentoo, of course, turns on it.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1426226.30512484</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1426226.30513242</id>
	<title>Re:meanwhile, where are the ARMs?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261416660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p> Buy a beagle board or a gumstix, attach it to an lcd, mini keyboard and battery, now install one of the handful of linux operating systems available for it and you have an arm netbook.</p></div><p>Right... that'll go over big with the general public, so I'm sure to see that kit available at newegg and bestbuy any day now.</p><p>Point is, there was headline after headline proclaiming that 2009 was going to be the year of the ARM netbook, and by 2012 that 20 or 30\% of the entire netbook market would be ARM based.  That simply isn't going to happen if the answer is "buy your own components, get yourself a CNC milling machine and design a case for them, and fashion your own netbook".</p><p>People are always quick to blame MS and Intel, but the problem is more that their competitors keep dropping the ball.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Buy a beagle board or a gumstix , attach it to an lcd , mini keyboard and battery , now install one of the handful of linux operating systems available for it and you have an arm netbook.Right... that 'll go over big with the general public , so I 'm sure to see that kit available at newegg and bestbuy any day now.Point is , there was headline after headline proclaiming that 2009 was going to be the year of the ARM netbook , and by 2012 that 20 or 30 \ % of the entire netbook market would be ARM based .
That simply is n't going to happen if the answer is " buy your own components , get yourself a CNC milling machine and design a case for them , and fashion your own netbook " .People are always quick to blame MS and Intel , but the problem is more that their competitors keep dropping the ball .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> Buy a beagle board or a gumstix, attach it to an lcd, mini keyboard and battery, now install one of the handful of linux operating systems available for it and you have an arm netbook.Right... that'll go over big with the general public, so I'm sure to see that kit available at newegg and bestbuy any day now.Point is, there was headline after headline proclaiming that 2009 was going to be the year of the ARM netbook, and by 2012 that 20 or 30\% of the entire netbook market would be ARM based.
That simply isn't going to happen if the answer is "buy your own components, get yourself a CNC milling machine and design a case for them, and fashion your own netbook".People are always quick to blame MS and Intel, but the problem is more that their competitors keep dropping the ball.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1426226.30512758</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1426226.30512584</id>
	<title>Netbook question</title>
	<author>Murdoch5</author>
	<datestamp>1261413840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'm starting my next term in university and were going to use a program called Orcad to do PCB layout and design and Matlab.  Now I'm pretty sure that Matlab would be to much for a netbook but what about PCB design? does any one know if you could use a program like Orcad on a netbook.   By far  the biggest power horse of a program is Matlab but it's best saved for my desktop anyway.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm starting my next term in university and were going to use a program called Orcad to do PCB layout and design and Matlab .
Now I 'm pretty sure that Matlab would be to much for a netbook but what about PCB design ?
does any one know if you could use a program like Orcad on a netbook .
By far the biggest power horse of a program is Matlab but it 's best saved for my desktop anyway .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm starting my next term in university and were going to use a program called Orcad to do PCB layout and design and Matlab.
Now I'm pretty sure that Matlab would be to much for a netbook but what about PCB design?
does any one know if you could use a program like Orcad on a netbook.
By far  the biggest power horse of a program is Matlab but it's best saved for my desktop anyway.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1426226.30513264</id>
	<title>Re:Midnight Blue?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261416780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Once you have removed the stickers, you are often left with difficult to remove adhesive gunk on the laptop. An easy way of removing the gunk without damaging or scratching the surface is to spray a little silicone based lubricant in the area and wipe with a paper towel. It quickly wipes off and the silicone lubricant won't damage plastic like petroleum based lubricants (like WD-40) sometimes do.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Once you have removed the stickers , you are often left with difficult to remove adhesive gunk on the laptop .
An easy way of removing the gunk without damaging or scratching the surface is to spray a little silicone based lubricant in the area and wipe with a paper towel .
It quickly wipes off and the silicone lubricant wo n't damage plastic like petroleum based lubricants ( like WD-40 ) sometimes do .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Once you have removed the stickers, you are often left with difficult to remove adhesive gunk on the laptop.
An easy way of removing the gunk without damaging or scratching the surface is to spray a little silicone based lubricant in the area and wipe with a paper towel.
It quickly wipes off and the silicone lubricant won't damage plastic like petroleum based lubricants (like WD-40) sometimes do.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1426226.30512392</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1426226.30514398</id>
	<title>Re:Midnight Blue?</title>
	<author>rrohbeck</author>
	<datestamp>1261421820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I prefer orange oil based cleaners. They are often marketed as label or gum removers.<br>Not only do they smell good, they also don't damage plastics. Oh and they're also a great insecticide and will keep ants away because all insects hate the smell - after all the oil is the oranges' natural defense.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I prefer orange oil based cleaners .
They are often marketed as label or gum removers.Not only do they smell good , they also do n't damage plastics .
Oh and they 're also a great insecticide and will keep ants away because all insects hate the smell - after all the oil is the oranges ' natural defense .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I prefer orange oil based cleaners.
They are often marketed as label or gum removers.Not only do they smell good, they also don't damage plastics.
Oh and they're also a great insecticide and will keep ants away because all insects hate the smell - after all the oil is the oranges' natural defense.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1426226.30513264</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1426226.30517466</id>
	<title>Re:Intel and Linux</title>
	<author>pak9rabid</author>
	<datestamp>1261393380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>At least Intel does their development in the open.</p></div><p>I assume this is directed towards NVIDIA and AMD/ATI.  If so, then yeah...it's easy to develop in the open when you have nothing to hide.  Last I checked, Intel wasn't anywhere near NVIDIA and ATI/AMD in the GPU arena; their GPUs that can do little more than render composited desktops.  Intel is able to do open development because they know very well that their competitors are already years ahead of what they're capable of, thus they don't have a lot of fear of their trade secrets being used against them by their competitors.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>At least Intel does their development in the open.I assume this is directed towards NVIDIA and AMD/ATI .
If so , then yeah...it 's easy to develop in the open when you have nothing to hide .
Last I checked , Intel was n't anywhere near NVIDIA and ATI/AMD in the GPU arena ; their GPUs that can do little more than render composited desktops .
Intel is able to do open development because they know very well that their competitors are already years ahead of what they 're capable of , thus they do n't have a lot of fear of their trade secrets being used against them by their competitors .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>At least Intel does their development in the open.I assume this is directed towards NVIDIA and AMD/ATI.
If so, then yeah...it's easy to develop in the open when you have nothing to hide.
Last I checked, Intel wasn't anywhere near NVIDIA and ATI/AMD in the GPU arena; their GPUs that can do little more than render composited desktops.
Intel is able to do open development because they know very well that their competitors are already years ahead of what they're capable of, thus they don't have a lot of fear of their trade secrets being used against them by their competitors.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1426226.30512484</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1426226.30512480</id>
	<title>Not impressed</title>
	<author>Itchyeyes</author>
	<datestamp>1261413300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This would be a whole lot more interesting if Intel didn't have a pretty solid track record of producing some of the worst GPUs on the market.  Perhaps the performance and power gains are more than I'm expecting, but from my perspective this seems like a pretty transparent move to cut Nvidia out of the netbook chipset market, and consequently cut down on consumer options on how they want to configure these types of machines as well.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This would be a whole lot more interesting if Intel did n't have a pretty solid track record of producing some of the worst GPUs on the market .
Perhaps the performance and power gains are more than I 'm expecting , but from my perspective this seems like a pretty transparent move to cut Nvidia out of the netbook chipset market , and consequently cut down on consumer options on how they want to configure these types of machines as well .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This would be a whole lot more interesting if Intel didn't have a pretty solid track record of producing some of the worst GPUs on the market.
Perhaps the performance and power gains are more than I'm expecting, but from my perspective this seems like a pretty transparent move to cut Nvidia out of the netbook chipset market, and consequently cut down on consumer options on how they want to configure these types of machines as well.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1426226.30512758</id>
	<title>Re:meanwhile, where are the ARMs?</title>
	<author>Nadaka</author>
	<datestamp>1261414800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>At the moment, available arm processors are still behind the atom in performance by a fairly large margin, and ahead in power consumption by a similar margin. The current top of the line arm chip is the cortex-a8 used in the beagle board and gumstix systems-on-a-chip. When dual core and quad core arm cortex-a9 processors become available, that might change.</p><p>We are currently in the "roll your own" stage of development for arm machines.</p><p>Buy a beagle board or a gumstix, attach it to an lcd, mini keyboard and battery, now install one of the handful of linux operating systems available for it and you have an arm netbook.</p><p><a href="http://beagleboard.org/" title="beagleboard.org">http://beagleboard.org/</a> [beagleboard.org]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>At the moment , available arm processors are still behind the atom in performance by a fairly large margin , and ahead in power consumption by a similar margin .
The current top of the line arm chip is the cortex-a8 used in the beagle board and gumstix systems-on-a-chip .
When dual core and quad core arm cortex-a9 processors become available , that might change.We are currently in the " roll your own " stage of development for arm machines.Buy a beagle board or a gumstix , attach it to an lcd , mini keyboard and battery , now install one of the handful of linux operating systems available for it and you have an arm netbook.http : //beagleboard.org/ [ beagleboard.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>At the moment, available arm processors are still behind the atom in performance by a fairly large margin, and ahead in power consumption by a similar margin.
The current top of the line arm chip is the cortex-a8 used in the beagle board and gumstix systems-on-a-chip.
When dual core and quad core arm cortex-a9 processors become available, that might change.We are currently in the "roll your own" stage of development for arm machines.Buy a beagle board or a gumstix, attach it to an lcd, mini keyboard and battery, now install one of the handful of linux operating systems available for it and you have an arm netbook.http://beagleboard.org/ [beagleboard.org]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1426226.30512462</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1426226.30513614</id>
	<title>Nice perfomance gain ... but only in certain areas</title>
	<author>thesandbender</author>
	<datestamp>1261418340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Read the review carefully.  While memory performance improved substantially, cpu multimedia gains were marginal and integer performance actually degrade (although just a hair).<br> <br>The platform is not meant to be a processing powerhouse but to say it showed "a nice performance gain" (implying overall) is a little misleading.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Read the review carefully .
While memory performance improved substantially , cpu multimedia gains were marginal and integer performance actually degrade ( although just a hair ) .
The platform is not meant to be a processing powerhouse but to say it showed " a nice performance gain " ( implying overall ) is a little misleading .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Read the review carefully.
While memory performance improved substantially, cpu multimedia gains were marginal and integer performance actually degrade (although just a hair).
The platform is not meant to be a processing powerhouse but to say it showed "a nice performance gain" (implying overall) is a little misleading.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1426226.30512392</id>
	<title>Midnight Blue?</title>
	<author>Yvan256</author>
	<datestamp>1261412940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>(photo) Asus Eee PC 1005PE In Midnight Blue</p></div></blockquote><p>What Midnight Blue? Oh, you mean underneath all those stickers? Seriously, why do non-Apple laptops always look like Nascar, erm, cars?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>( photo ) Asus Eee PC 1005PE In Midnight BlueWhat Midnight Blue ?
Oh , you mean underneath all those stickers ?
Seriously , why do non-Apple laptops always look like Nascar , erm , cars ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>(photo) Asus Eee PC 1005PE In Midnight BlueWhat Midnight Blue?
Oh, you mean underneath all those stickers?
Seriously, why do non-Apple laptops always look like Nascar, erm, cars?
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1426226.30512410</id>
	<title>Finally proper platform</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261413000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Now only few other pieces of the puzzle in the quest for ultimate ultraportable.</p><p>Pixel Qi screen, for even longer battery life and legibility in sunlight.</p><p>With lower temps &amp; power draw of Pinetrail it might be also possible for netbooks to become routinely cooled passively.</p><p>Also just for me and other faithful...uhm...clit<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;p (plus preferably as close in overall form to original Lenovo S10 as possible, it was actually very nice) Can't help it, playing Diablo2 in a cathedral during organ concert, on a cemetery on 1 XI night (it looks like this here: <a href="http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Wszystkich\_swietych\_cmentarz.jpg" title="wikimedia.org">http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Wszystkich\_swietych\_cmentarz.jpg</a> [wikimedia.org] ) and in a train while sitting next to some nuns are things I simply <i>must</i> do. And with touchpad that's not really possible.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Now only few other pieces of the puzzle in the quest for ultimate ultraportable.Pixel Qi screen , for even longer battery life and legibility in sunlight.With lower temps &amp; power draw of Pinetrail it might be also possible for netbooks to become routinely cooled passively.Also just for me and other faithful...uhm...clit ; p ( plus preferably as close in overall form to original Lenovo S10 as possible , it was actually very nice ) Ca n't help it , playing Diablo2 in a cathedral during organ concert , on a cemetery on 1 XI night ( it looks like this here : http : //commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File : Wszystkich \ _swietych \ _cmentarz.jpg [ wikimedia.org ] ) and in a train while sitting next to some nuns are things I simply must do .
And with touchpad that 's not really possible .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Now only few other pieces of the puzzle in the quest for ultimate ultraportable.Pixel Qi screen, for even longer battery life and legibility in sunlight.With lower temps &amp; power draw of Pinetrail it might be also possible for netbooks to become routinely cooled passively.Also just for me and other faithful...uhm...clit ;p (plus preferably as close in overall form to original Lenovo S10 as possible, it was actually very nice) Can't help it, playing Diablo2 in a cathedral during organ concert, on a cemetery on 1 XI night (it looks like this here: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Wszystkich\_swietych\_cmentarz.jpg [wikimedia.org] ) and in a train while sitting next to some nuns are things I simply must do.
And with touchpad that's not really possible.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1426226.30512556</id>
	<title>Re:So...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261413660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It is, supposedly, X3150, so basically the same part that's in G31. 3100/X3100? Anyway, seems it's "proper" Intel GMA, with good Linux support.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It is , supposedly , X3150 , so basically the same part that 's in G31 .
3100/X3100 ? Anyway , seems it 's " proper " Intel GMA , with good Linux support .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It is, supposedly, X3150, so basically the same part that's in G31.
3100/X3100? Anyway, seems it's "proper" Intel GMA, with good Linux support.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1426226.30512386</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1426226.30512582</id>
	<title>Re:Still chokes on flash?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261413840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>Intel and Adobe both have completely dropped the ball, but right now it's Intel that's in trouble. The only "netbook" I know that can handle fullscreen flash is the LT3013u; At 12" and $350 it hits the price point okay but misses size. Still, it's at least got a 720p display, which means it has to do more than most of the competition to even break even -- it does better than that.</i> <br>
<br>
Thankfully Adobe has <i>finally</i> started working on hardware acceleration for their Flash video decoding. Check out the 10.1 betas to see how it's coming along. Still a ways to go, but it's a hell of a lot better than it's been.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Intel and Adobe both have completely dropped the ball , but right now it 's Intel that 's in trouble .
The only " netbook " I know that can handle fullscreen flash is the LT3013u ; At 12 " and $ 350 it hits the price point okay but misses size .
Still , it 's at least got a 720p display , which means it has to do more than most of the competition to even break even -- it does better than that .
Thankfully Adobe has finally started working on hardware acceleration for their Flash video decoding .
Check out the 10.1 betas to see how it 's coming along .
Still a ways to go , but it 's a hell of a lot better than it 's been .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Intel and Adobe both have completely dropped the ball, but right now it's Intel that's in trouble.
The only "netbook" I know that can handle fullscreen flash is the LT3013u; At 12" and $350 it hits the price point okay but misses size.
Still, it's at least got a 720p display, which means it has to do more than most of the competition to even break even -- it does better than that.
Thankfully Adobe has finally started working on hardware acceleration for their Flash video decoding.
Check out the 10.1 betas to see how it's coming along.
Still a ways to go, but it's a hell of a lot better than it's been.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1426226.30512398</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1426226.30513240</id>
	<title>Power use?</title>
	<author>MSG</author>
	<datestamp>1261416660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That all sounds nice, but have they built a system that draws less power than a comparable Athlon 64 system?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That all sounds nice , but have they built a system that draws less power than a comparable Athlon 64 system ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That all sounds nice, but have they built a system that draws less power than a comparable Athlon 64 system?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1426226.30517750</id>
	<title>Re:Still chokes on flash?</title>
	<author>Blakey Rat</author>
	<datestamp>1261395000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>My MSI Wind U100 running Windows 7 has no problem running full-screen movies from Netflix or Hulu. I also frequently play full-screen MP4 movies that I've ripped from DVDs with absolutely no performance problems.</p><p>Your problem might be your OS, not the hardware.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>My MSI Wind U100 running Windows 7 has no problem running full-screen movies from Netflix or Hulu .
I also frequently play full-screen MP4 movies that I 've ripped from DVDs with absolutely no performance problems.Your problem might be your OS , not the hardware .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My MSI Wind U100 running Windows 7 has no problem running full-screen movies from Netflix or Hulu.
I also frequently play full-screen MP4 movies that I've ripped from DVDs with absolutely no performance problems.Your problem might be your OS, not the hardware.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1426226.30512398</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1426226.30517386</id>
	<title>Easy question, easy answer.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261392960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt; If Intel really wants to push their hardware, why not write such optimizations for the Linux kernel?</p><p>Because there's no consumer demand for Linux?</p><p>Just a guess, but the numbers bear it out.  Linux has a market share below 2\%, and has steadily lost more and more users to OSX (and now they can lose to Windows 7 as well- it's teh all about teh choice!).</p><p>Meanwhile, Windows' market share has remained pretty steady at around 96\%... meaning that most of the OSX "Switch" gains have come from... you guessed it... Linux users.</p><p>So given all that, spending money to improve Linux usage seems like either a waste of money, or a vanity project.  Either way, Intel would be better off stacking all that money up, and lighting it on fire.  At least watching the money burn would provide entertainment.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; If Intel really wants to push their hardware , why not write such optimizations for the Linux kernel ? Because there 's no consumer demand for Linux ? Just a guess , but the numbers bear it out .
Linux has a market share below 2 \ % , and has steadily lost more and more users to OSX ( and now they can lose to Windows 7 as well- it 's teh all about teh choice !
) .Meanwhile , Windows ' market share has remained pretty steady at around 96 \ % ... meaning that most of the OSX " Switch " gains have come from... you guessed it... Linux users.So given all that , spending money to improve Linux usage seems like either a waste of money , or a vanity project .
Either way , Intel would be better off stacking all that money up , and lighting it on fire .
At least watching the money burn would provide entertainment .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt; If Intel really wants to push their hardware, why not write such optimizations for the Linux kernel?Because there's no consumer demand for Linux?Just a guess, but the numbers bear it out.
Linux has a market share below 2\%, and has steadily lost more and more users to OSX (and now they can lose to Windows 7 as well- it's teh all about teh choice!
).Meanwhile, Windows' market share has remained pretty steady at around 96\%... meaning that most of the OSX "Switch" gains have come from... you guessed it... Linux users.So given all that, spending money to improve Linux usage seems like either a waste of money, or a vanity project.
Either way, Intel would be better off stacking all that money up, and lighting it on fire.
At least watching the money burn would provide entertainment.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1426226.30512484</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1426226.30514714</id>
	<title>Re:meanwhile, where are the ARMs?</title>
	<author>Nadaka</author>
	<datestamp>1261423200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You could say the same thing about the home computer before 1980, the acorn atom and sinclair zx80 were only available in kit form. And before that, much more self fabrication was required.</p><p>Right now, you can:</p><p>A: build it yourself with hobby parts.<br>B: wait till someone makes a big enough investment to get mass production off the ground.<br>C: try to scrounge up enough capital to get it going yourself. These guys are doing just that <a href="http://www.alwaysinnovating.com/home/index.htm" title="alwaysinnovating.com">http://www.alwaysinnovating.com/home/index.htm</a> [alwaysinnovating.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You could say the same thing about the home computer before 1980 , the acorn atom and sinclair zx80 were only available in kit form .
And before that , much more self fabrication was required.Right now , you can : A : build it yourself with hobby parts.B : wait till someone makes a big enough investment to get mass production off the ground.C : try to scrounge up enough capital to get it going yourself .
These guys are doing just that http : //www.alwaysinnovating.com/home/index.htm [ alwaysinnovating.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You could say the same thing about the home computer before 1980, the acorn atom and sinclair zx80 were only available in kit form.
And before that, much more self fabrication was required.Right now, you can:A: build it yourself with hobby parts.B: wait till someone makes a big enough investment to get mass production off the ground.C: try to scrounge up enough capital to get it going yourself.
These guys are doing just that http://www.alwaysinnovating.com/home/index.htm [alwaysinnovating.com]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1426226.30513242</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1426226.30513140</id>
	<title>Re:Who actually needs this?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261416240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They're cheap, that's the point behind them.</p><p>Also, it seems like ION will still be usable, but in a slightly revised form for the Pinetrails.</p><p>Don't exaggerate, the Atom isn't THAT bad.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They 're cheap , that 's the point behind them.Also , it seems like ION will still be usable , but in a slightly revised form for the Pinetrails.Do n't exaggerate , the Atom is n't THAT bad .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They're cheap, that's the point behind them.Also, it seems like ION will still be usable, but in a slightly revised form for the Pinetrails.Don't exaggerate, the Atom isn't THAT bad.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1426226.30512520</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1426226.30522724</id>
	<title>GMA500 = PowerVR</title>
	<author>DrYak</author>
	<datestamp>1261490580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The GMA500 graphics core was outsourced to another company, as was driver development.</p></div><p>For the record, it's a PowerVR5 core, designed by Imagination Technology. This thing has a near-monopoly in the embed world (specially coupled with ARM chips). It's a distant descendant of the PowerVR2 that powered Sega DreamCast and the PowerVR3 that powered Kyro PC graphic cards. It functions in a radically different maner.</p><p>It's not a raster-engine like every single other graphic card (card draws one polygon after another sequentially. multi-GPU is accelerated by either dividing the screen among GPU or having alternate GPUs renreding alternate frames), instead it's Tile-based deffered rendering (remotely reminiscent of ray-tracing : for each pixel on a tile, the GPU determines which of the polygon is visible and only draws that pixel. The method has lower memory, bandwidth and power requirement - thus better suited for the embed/low power environment. And lends itself more easily to parallelization : several core can work each on a separate tile).<br>Design difference between different chips makes it difficult to just slap some modifications on a given driver and use it with a different hardware(*). Given the radically different design in Tile-rendering, it's even more so. So, although usually Intel pushes strongly in favor of opensource drivers, they couldn't easily re-write their own and open-source them, they had to rely on PowerVR's binaries.</p><p>---</p><p>(*): or used to be so. That's exactly what the new Gallium3D/TTM/DRI2 stack in Linux and BSD, and to some extent WDDM in Windows attempt to mitigate.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The GMA500 graphics core was outsourced to another company , as was driver development.For the record , it 's a PowerVR5 core , designed by Imagination Technology .
This thing has a near-monopoly in the embed world ( specially coupled with ARM chips ) .
It 's a distant descendant of the PowerVR2 that powered Sega DreamCast and the PowerVR3 that powered Kyro PC graphic cards .
It functions in a radically different maner.It 's not a raster-engine like every single other graphic card ( card draws one polygon after another sequentially .
multi-GPU is accelerated by either dividing the screen among GPU or having alternate GPUs renreding alternate frames ) , instead it 's Tile-based deffered rendering ( remotely reminiscent of ray-tracing : for each pixel on a tile , the GPU determines which of the polygon is visible and only draws that pixel .
The method has lower memory , bandwidth and power requirement - thus better suited for the embed/low power environment .
And lends itself more easily to parallelization : several core can work each on a separate tile ) .Design difference between different chips makes it difficult to just slap some modifications on a given driver and use it with a different hardware ( * ) .
Given the radically different design in Tile-rendering , it 's even more so .
So , although usually Intel pushes strongly in favor of opensource drivers , they could n't easily re-write their own and open-source them , they had to rely on PowerVR 's binaries.--- ( * ) : or used to be so .
That 's exactly what the new Gallium3D/TTM/DRI2 stack in Linux and BSD , and to some extent WDDM in Windows attempt to mitigate .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The GMA500 graphics core was outsourced to another company, as was driver development.For the record, it's a PowerVR5 core, designed by Imagination Technology.
This thing has a near-monopoly in the embed world (specially coupled with ARM chips).
It's a distant descendant of the PowerVR2 that powered Sega DreamCast and the PowerVR3 that powered Kyro PC graphic cards.
It functions in a radically different maner.It's not a raster-engine like every single other graphic card (card draws one polygon after another sequentially.
multi-GPU is accelerated by either dividing the screen among GPU or having alternate GPUs renreding alternate frames), instead it's Tile-based deffered rendering (remotely reminiscent of ray-tracing : for each pixel on a tile, the GPU determines which of the polygon is visible and only draws that pixel.
The method has lower memory, bandwidth and power requirement - thus better suited for the embed/low power environment.
And lends itself more easily to parallelization : several core can work each on a separate tile).Design difference between different chips makes it difficult to just slap some modifications on a given driver and use it with a different hardware(*).
Given the radically different design in Tile-rendering, it's even more so.
So, although usually Intel pushes strongly in favor of opensource drivers, they couldn't easily re-write their own and open-source them, they had to rely on PowerVR's binaries.---(*): or used to be so.
That's exactly what the new Gallium3D/TTM/DRI2 stack in Linux and BSD, and to some extent WDDM in Windows attempt to mitigate.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1426226.30512948</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1426226.30512522</id>
	<title>I knew I should have waited!</title>
	<author>stakovahflow</author>
	<datestamp>1261413480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Doh! What can you do? I guess I'll just have to wait until I kill this netbook thingy before I upgrade to the delectable do-hickey, with the whatchamacallit... Oh and the thingy-majig... Gotta go spend money... Need new netbook... Mmm.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Doh !
What can you do ?
I guess I 'll just have to wait until I kill this netbook thingy before I upgrade to the delectable do-hickey , with the whatchamacallit... Oh and the thingy-majig... Got ta go spend money... Need new netbook... Mmm .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Doh!
What can you do?
I guess I'll just have to wait until I kill this netbook thingy before I upgrade to the delectable do-hickey, with the whatchamacallit... Oh and the thingy-majig... Gotta go spend money... Need new netbook... Mmm.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1426226.30518604</id>
	<title>Re:Intel and Linux</title>
	<author>Eil</author>
	<datestamp>1261400820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>I always hear about huge performance gains that can come from properly writing code to take advantage of SSE2,3,4,etc instruction sets. If Intel really wants to push their hardware, why not write such optimizations for the Linux kernel?</p></div></blockquote><p>In general, SIMD extensions like MMX, 3DNow, and SSE are application-specific. You can't just sprinkle them into the kernel code and get a magical system-wide speed boost. In the case of both MMX and SSE, the additional instructions allow a programmer to execute certain kinds of code faster. Generally, this means graphics rendering, video games, or audio/video encoding/decoding. Many Linux applications already <i>do</i> take advantage of SIMD extensions when compiled for the x86 platform. MPlayer is the most obvious one that I can think of, but I'm sure there are others.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I always hear about huge performance gains that can come from properly writing code to take advantage of SSE2,3,4,etc instruction sets .
If Intel really wants to push their hardware , why not write such optimizations for the Linux kernel ? In general , SIMD extensions like MMX , 3DNow , and SSE are application-specific .
You ca n't just sprinkle them into the kernel code and get a magical system-wide speed boost .
In the case of both MMX and SSE , the additional instructions allow a programmer to execute certain kinds of code faster .
Generally , this means graphics rendering , video games , or audio/video encoding/decoding .
Many Linux applications already do take advantage of SIMD extensions when compiled for the x86 platform .
MPlayer is the most obvious one that I can think of , but I 'm sure there are others .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I always hear about huge performance gains that can come from properly writing code to take advantage of SSE2,3,4,etc instruction sets.
If Intel really wants to push their hardware, why not write such optimizations for the Linux kernel?In general, SIMD extensions like MMX, 3DNow, and SSE are application-specific.
You can't just sprinkle them into the kernel code and get a magical system-wide speed boost.
In the case of both MMX and SSE, the additional instructions allow a programmer to execute certain kinds of code faster.
Generally, this means graphics rendering, video games, or audio/video encoding/decoding.
Many Linux applications already do take advantage of SIMD extensions when compiled for the x86 platform.
MPlayer is the most obvious one that I can think of, but I'm sure there are others.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1426226.30512484</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1426226.30513738</id>
	<title>Re:Who actually needs this?</title>
	<author>LWATCDR</author>
	<datestamp>1261418940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think Intel is crippling it to keep from killing higher margin notebook sales.<br>From AnandTech<br>"The integrated GMA 3150 graphics hasn&rsquo;t been used by Intel before, it&rsquo;s a 45nm shrink of the GMA 3100. It&rsquo;s technically a DX9 GPU running at 400MHz, however as you&rsquo;ll soon see - you can&rsquo;t really play any games on this platform. The GPU only offers hardware acceleration for MPEG-2 video, H.264 and VC-1 aren&rsquo;t accelerated."</p><p>No H.264 or VC-1 hardware support means poor performance.<br>Then add this.<br>"Max output resolution is also limited. The best you can get over a digital connection (HDMI/DVI) is 1366 x 768, over analog VGA you can do 2048 x 1536 (only 1400 x 1050 on the N450). It&rsquo;s a curious coincidence, Poulsbo also had a 1366 x 768 digital output limitation. "<br>What??? No 1080p support over HDMI?<br>Well so much for a media PC.</p><p>AMD/ATI or Via+Nvidia really need to start pushing Intel in this market. I would love to see a good ARM solution because I do think it is a better platform for Netbooks and Nettops than Intel. The big problem is getting full Flash performance out of it and that is only a software issue.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think Intel is crippling it to keep from killing higher margin notebook sales.From AnandTech " The integrated GMA 3150 graphics hasn    t been used by Intel before , it    s a 45nm shrink of the GMA 3100 .
It    s technically a DX9 GPU running at 400MHz , however as you    ll soon see - you can    t really play any games on this platform .
The GPU only offers hardware acceleration for MPEG-2 video , H.264 and VC-1 aren    t accelerated .
" No H.264 or VC-1 hardware support means poor performance.Then add this .
" Max output resolution is also limited .
The best you can get over a digital connection ( HDMI/DVI ) is 1366 x 768 , over analog VGA you can do 2048 x 1536 ( only 1400 x 1050 on the N450 ) .
It    s a curious coincidence , Poulsbo also had a 1366 x 768 digital output limitation .
" What ? ? ? No 1080p support over HDMI ? Well so much for a media PC.AMD/ATI or Via + Nvidia really need to start pushing Intel in this market .
I would love to see a good ARM solution because I do think it is a better platform for Netbooks and Nettops than Intel .
The big problem is getting full Flash performance out of it and that is only a software issue .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think Intel is crippling it to keep from killing higher margin notebook sales.From AnandTech"The integrated GMA 3150 graphics hasn’t been used by Intel before, it’s a 45nm shrink of the GMA 3100.
It’s technically a DX9 GPU running at 400MHz, however as you’ll soon see - you can’t really play any games on this platform.
The GPU only offers hardware acceleration for MPEG-2 video, H.264 and VC-1 aren’t accelerated.
"No H.264 or VC-1 hardware support means poor performance.Then add this.
"Max output resolution is also limited.
The best you can get over a digital connection (HDMI/DVI) is 1366 x 768, over analog VGA you can do 2048 x 1536 (only 1400 x 1050 on the N450).
It’s a curious coincidence, Poulsbo also had a 1366 x 768 digital output limitation.
"What??? No 1080p support over HDMI?Well so much for a media PC.AMD/ATI or Via+Nvidia really need to start pushing Intel in this market.
I would love to see a good ARM solution because I do think it is a better platform for Netbooks and Nettops than Intel.
The big problem is getting full Flash performance out of it and that is only a software issue.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1426226.30512520</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1426226.30518006</id>
	<title>Re:So...</title>
	<author>walter\_f</author>
	<datestamp>1261396680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Fortunately, the integrated graphics in the Pine View architecture, called GMA3150 (targeted at netbooks) is a descendant of the Linux-friendly GMA950 line. The basic design of the 3150 isn't even new, it goes back to 2007.</p><p>On the other hand, the GMA500 is not closely connected to the 950 to 3x00 line. There are people who insist that not the hardware is to be blamed for the poor usability under Linux, but the (crappy) drivers provided by Intel for this GPU.</p><p>Whether this will be confirmed some day or not, until then here's a list of netbooks to be avoided by Linux users because of GMA500 (list probably incomplete):</p><p>"MSI's Wind U115 Hybrid, Sony's VAIO P series, Fujitsu's Lifebook U820, ASUStek's Eee PC 1101HA, Dell's Inspiron Mini 10 and Inspiron Mini 12, Acer's Aspire One 751, ASUStek's EeePC T91 tablet, Sony Vaio X series, Nokia Booklet 3G, and the OQO 02+ are some examples of netbooks using the GMA 500 US15W."</p><p><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intel\_GMA#GMA\_500" title="wikipedia.org">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intel\_GMA#GMA\_500</a> [wikipedia.org]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Fortunately , the integrated graphics in the Pine View architecture , called GMA3150 ( targeted at netbooks ) is a descendant of the Linux-friendly GMA950 line .
The basic design of the 3150 is n't even new , it goes back to 2007.On the other hand , the GMA500 is not closely connected to the 950 to 3x00 line .
There are people who insist that not the hardware is to be blamed for the poor usability under Linux , but the ( crappy ) drivers provided by Intel for this GPU.Whether this will be confirmed some day or not , until then here 's a list of netbooks to be avoided by Linux users because of GMA500 ( list probably incomplete ) : " MSI 's Wind U115 Hybrid , Sony 's VAIO P series , Fujitsu 's Lifebook U820 , ASUStek 's Eee PC 1101HA , Dell 's Inspiron Mini 10 and Inspiron Mini 12 , Acer 's Aspire One 751 , ASUStek 's EeePC T91 tablet , Sony Vaio X series , Nokia Booklet 3G , and the OQO 02 + are some examples of netbooks using the GMA 500 US15W .
" http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intel \ _GMA # GMA \ _500 [ wikipedia.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Fortunately, the integrated graphics in the Pine View architecture, called GMA3150 (targeted at netbooks) is a descendant of the Linux-friendly GMA950 line.
The basic design of the 3150 isn't even new, it goes back to 2007.On the other hand, the GMA500 is not closely connected to the 950 to 3x00 line.
There are people who insist that not the hardware is to be blamed for the poor usability under Linux, but the (crappy) drivers provided by Intel for this GPU.Whether this will be confirmed some day or not, until then here's a list of netbooks to be avoided by Linux users because of GMA500 (list probably incomplete):"MSI's Wind U115 Hybrid, Sony's VAIO P series, Fujitsu's Lifebook U820, ASUStek's Eee PC 1101HA, Dell's Inspiron Mini 10 and Inspiron Mini 12, Acer's Aspire One 751, ASUStek's EeePC T91 tablet, Sony Vaio X series, Nokia Booklet 3G, and the OQO 02+ are some examples of netbooks using the GMA 500 US15W.
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intel\_GMA#GMA\_500 [wikipedia.org]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1426226.30512386</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1426226.30512774</id>
	<title>MEET THE NEW ATOM !!  SAME AS THE OLD ATOM !!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261414800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I believe The Who did that one already.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I believe The Who did that one already .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I believe The Who did that one already.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1426226.30520912</id>
	<title>Re:Intel and Linux</title>
	<author>CAIMLAS</author>
	<datestamp>1261422180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I've got a friend who used the Open64 compile to rebuild his Gentoo system (on a AMD64 CPU). Aside from ATI related issues with video, he said it was observably faster by about 50\%, and 30\% faster in the simple benchmarks. Either way - even if it's a 20\% improvement in one area - that's an incredible boost.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've got a friend who used the Open64 compile to rebuild his Gentoo system ( on a AMD64 CPU ) .
Aside from ATI related issues with video , he said it was observably faster by about 50 \ % , and 30 \ % faster in the simple benchmarks .
Either way - even if it 's a 20 \ % improvement in one area - that 's an incredible boost .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've got a friend who used the Open64 compile to rebuild his Gentoo system (on a AMD64 CPU).
Aside from ATI related issues with video, he said it was observably faster by about 50\%, and 30\% faster in the simple benchmarks.
Either way - even if it's a 20\% improvement in one area - that's an incredible boost.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1426226.30512484</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1426226.30513868</id>
	<title>Re:meanwhile, where are the ARMs?</title>
	<author>jabjoe</author>
	<datestamp>1261419540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Atom is ahead in performance, no denying that, but it's not clean cut as it's not by much and it is hard to compare as they eat instructions very differently. But just to be clear, the ARM is much further ahead when it comes to low power consumption and cost. If you free of Windows you are free of x86, then you are free to balance power consumption, cost and performance, which means ARM or MIPS win every time. In fact you could cheat, and fit multiple ARM cores and come out on top with performance whilst still coming out on top with cost and power consumption. That's how big a difference we are talking.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Atom is ahead in performance , no denying that , but it 's not clean cut as it 's not by much and it is hard to compare as they eat instructions very differently .
But just to be clear , the ARM is much further ahead when it comes to low power consumption and cost .
If you free of Windows you are free of x86 , then you are free to balance power consumption , cost and performance , which means ARM or MIPS win every time .
In fact you could cheat , and fit multiple ARM cores and come out on top with performance whilst still coming out on top with cost and power consumption .
That 's how big a difference we are talking .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Atom is ahead in performance, no denying that, but it's not clean cut as it's not by much and it is hard to compare as they eat instructions very differently.
But just to be clear, the ARM is much further ahead when it comes to low power consumption and cost.
If you free of Windows you are free of x86, then you are free to balance power consumption, cost and performance, which means ARM or MIPS win every time.
In fact you could cheat, and fit multiple ARM cores and come out on top with performance whilst still coming out on top with cost and power consumption.
That's how big a difference we are talking.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1426226.30512758</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1426226.30513126</id>
	<title>Re:So...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261416180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The graphics core doesn't provide H.264 or VC1 acceleration.</p><p>Basically, it's worse than useless for HTPC use, or casual web surfing use in a netbook or nettop, especially now that Flash accelerates H.264 with hardware.</p><p>Oh, "net"book. Web Surfing. YouTube HD/etc. Arse.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The graphics core does n't provide H.264 or VC1 acceleration.Basically , it 's worse than useless for HTPC use , or casual web surfing use in a netbook or nettop , especially now that Flash accelerates H.264 with hardware.Oh , " net " book .
Web Surfing .
YouTube HD/etc .
Arse .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The graphics core doesn't provide H.264 or VC1 acceleration.Basically, it's worse than useless for HTPC use, or casual web surfing use in a netbook or nettop, especially now that Flash accelerates H.264 with hardware.Oh, "net"book.
Web Surfing.
YouTube HD/etc.
Arse.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1426226.30512386</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1426226.30512994</id>
	<title>Re:Midnight Blue?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261415700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Because unlike pretentious Apple fanboys, most people care more about a computer being cost effective and able to do what is needed.  Its the reason why PCs and not Macs own most of the market.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Because unlike pretentious Apple fanboys , most people care more about a computer being cost effective and able to do what is needed .
Its the reason why PCs and not Macs own most of the market .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Because unlike pretentious Apple fanboys, most people care more about a computer being cost effective and able to do what is needed.
Its the reason why PCs and not Macs own most of the market.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1426226.30512392</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1426226.30514876</id>
	<title>But I like the stickers!</title>
	<author>formfeed</author>
	<datestamp>1261423920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I know own a hammer, that says "designed for Widows XP"</htmltext>
<tokenext>I know own a hammer , that says " designed for Widows XP "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I know own a hammer, that says "designed for Widows XP"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1426226.30512392</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1426226.30515574</id>
	<title>Re:Who actually needs this?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261427040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>with a design based on 10-year old technology</p></div><p>Wow, complaining about 10 year old tech?  I'd hate to hear what you have to say about Unix!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>with a design based on 10-year old technologyWow , complaining about 10 year old tech ?
I 'd hate to hear what you have to say about Unix !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>with a design based on 10-year old technologyWow, complaining about 10 year old tech?
I'd hate to hear what you have to say about Unix!
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1426226.30512520</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1426226.30512520</id>
	<title>Who actually needs this?</title>
	<author>John Betonschaar</author>
	<datestamp>1261413480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If you'd ask me: it's still a slow piece of crap that has no particular place in the market if it weren't for (consumer) Microsoft Windows being x86-only, and now it's even worse than the original Atom since you get a crappy Intel GPU for free.</p><p>In the low-power segment: you are still better of with an ARM chip if you don't need Windows (it consumes less power), another x86 SoC if you absolutely need Windows but don't need anything else (which also consume less power) or a Via Nano if you are a consumer who likes Windows a lot but only do a little browsing and email (they are faster and comparable in terms of power consumption).</p><p>In the HTPC/Media center segment: the Atom + Nvidia ION platform was great, low-power/low-performance CPU with a GPU that does all the video decoding and OpenGL. Now you get an Intel GPU that is *still* not able to do full video-pipeline accelerated GPU decoding. Better get yourself an old Atom, or hopefully in the future a Via Nano + decent GPU.</p><p>In the Netbook segment: with the performance of the original Atom being nothing but abysmal unless you only use Notepad, you really want a Celeron ULV anyway. It's a much better design, in a whole different performance class than the Atom, and you don't get any of the stupid restrictions Intel puts on using the Atom.</p><p>In the embedded segment: you don't need x86 compatibility at all, so ARM would be your 1st choice.</p><p>Maybe I'm missing something, but I really don't see the point of a crippled and slow x86 CPU with a design based on 10-year old technology, which is forcibly coupled to an IGP that isn't able doing much more than rendering your desktop...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If you 'd ask me : it 's still a slow piece of crap that has no particular place in the market if it were n't for ( consumer ) Microsoft Windows being x86-only , and now it 's even worse than the original Atom since you get a crappy Intel GPU for free.In the low-power segment : you are still better of with an ARM chip if you do n't need Windows ( it consumes less power ) , another x86 SoC if you absolutely need Windows but do n't need anything else ( which also consume less power ) or a Via Nano if you are a consumer who likes Windows a lot but only do a little browsing and email ( they are faster and comparable in terms of power consumption ) .In the HTPC/Media center segment : the Atom + Nvidia ION platform was great , low-power/low-performance CPU with a GPU that does all the video decoding and OpenGL .
Now you get an Intel GPU that is * still * not able to do full video-pipeline accelerated GPU decoding .
Better get yourself an old Atom , or hopefully in the future a Via Nano + decent GPU.In the Netbook segment : with the performance of the original Atom being nothing but abysmal unless you only use Notepad , you really want a Celeron ULV anyway .
It 's a much better design , in a whole different performance class than the Atom , and you do n't get any of the stupid restrictions Intel puts on using the Atom.In the embedded segment : you do n't need x86 compatibility at all , so ARM would be your 1st choice.Maybe I 'm missing something , but I really do n't see the point of a crippled and slow x86 CPU with a design based on 10-year old technology , which is forcibly coupled to an IGP that is n't able doing much more than rendering your desktop.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you'd ask me: it's still a slow piece of crap that has no particular place in the market if it weren't for (consumer) Microsoft Windows being x86-only, and now it's even worse than the original Atom since you get a crappy Intel GPU for free.In the low-power segment: you are still better of with an ARM chip if you don't need Windows (it consumes less power), another x86 SoC if you absolutely need Windows but don't need anything else (which also consume less power) or a Via Nano if you are a consumer who likes Windows a lot but only do a little browsing and email (they are faster and comparable in terms of power consumption).In the HTPC/Media center segment: the Atom + Nvidia ION platform was great, low-power/low-performance CPU with a GPU that does all the video decoding and OpenGL.
Now you get an Intel GPU that is *still* not able to do full video-pipeline accelerated GPU decoding.
Better get yourself an old Atom, or hopefully in the future a Via Nano + decent GPU.In the Netbook segment: with the performance of the original Atom being nothing but abysmal unless you only use Notepad, you really want a Celeron ULV anyway.
It's a much better design, in a whole different performance class than the Atom, and you don't get any of the stupid restrictions Intel puts on using the Atom.In the embedded segment: you don't need x86 compatibility at all, so ARM would be your 1st choice.Maybe I'm missing something, but I really don't see the point of a crippled and slow x86 CPU with a design based on 10-year old technology, which is forcibly coupled to an IGP that isn't able doing much more than rendering your desktop...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1426226.30512720</id>
	<title>"decent gains"?</title>
	<author>SlappyBastard</author>
	<datestamp>1261414560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So, I assume performance-wise this mean going from the equivalent of a 700 MHz P3 to a 1 GHz P3.</p><p>Sorry, but truth be told, the balance of performance and power consumption right now favors using the Pentium Dual Cores.  The Atom is a niche product that works best with stuff like cash registers.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So , I assume performance-wise this mean going from the equivalent of a 700 MHz P3 to a 1 GHz P3.Sorry , but truth be told , the balance of performance and power consumption right now favors using the Pentium Dual Cores .
The Atom is a niche product that works best with stuff like cash registers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So, I assume performance-wise this mean going from the equivalent of a 700 MHz P3 to a 1 GHz P3.Sorry, but truth be told, the balance of performance and power consumption right now favors using the Pentium Dual Cores.
The Atom is a niche product that works best with stuff like cash registers.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1426226.30512486</id>
	<title>Re:Still chokes on flash?</title>
	<author>jo42</author>
	<datestamp>1261413360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Have you ever even considered that the problem isn't the hardware, but the [lousy, crappy pile of rancid sheep dip] software known as "Flash"?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Have you ever even considered that the problem is n't the hardware , but the [ lousy , crappy pile of rancid sheep dip ] software known as " Flash " ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Have you ever even considered that the problem isn't the hardware, but the [lousy, crappy pile of rancid sheep dip] software known as "Flash"?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1426226.30512398</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1426226.30513588</id>
	<title>Re:Re-Architecting English</title>
	<author>digitalhermit</author>
	<datestamp>1261418280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They're just trying to be more precise. Doing so incentivizes brand awareness action-takers with post-current paradigms and forward-looking product models. A mere "re-design" would incorporate less-than-best-practice message exposure methodologies whereas a "re-architect" or architecture secondary optimization message distribution implies ground-up re-envisioning.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They 're just trying to be more precise .
Doing so incentivizes brand awareness action-takers with post-current paradigms and forward-looking product models .
A mere " re-design " would incorporate less-than-best-practice message exposure methodologies whereas a " re-architect " or architecture secondary optimization message distribution implies ground-up re-envisioning .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They're just trying to be more precise.
Doing so incentivizes brand awareness action-takers with post-current paradigms and forward-looking product models.
A mere "re-design" would incorporate less-than-best-practice message exposure methodologies whereas a "re-architect" or architecture secondary optimization message distribution implies ground-up re-envisioning.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1426226.30512474</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1426226.30513516</id>
	<title>Re:Who actually needs this?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261417980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Its quite refreshing to read someone who admits they may be missing something. For most uses the advantages of an integrated GPU (i.e. lower cost, less power, improved reliability, etc) outweigh any performance reduction. Highly compressed mp3 music is very popular despite alternative formats with better fidelity. It is the good enough syndrome. A Mazda has good enough acceleration; you don't need a Corvette. Or to put in another way, the second five hour battery operating hours in a notebook is worth far less than the first five hours.<br>Don't choose marketing as a career.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Its quite refreshing to read someone who admits they may be missing something .
For most uses the advantages of an integrated GPU ( i.e .
lower cost , less power , improved reliability , etc ) outweigh any performance reduction .
Highly compressed mp3 music is very popular despite alternative formats with better fidelity .
It is the good enough syndrome .
A Mazda has good enough acceleration ; you do n't need a Corvette .
Or to put in another way , the second five hour battery operating hours in a notebook is worth far less than the first five hours.Do n't choose marketing as a career .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Its quite refreshing to read someone who admits they may be missing something.
For most uses the advantages of an integrated GPU (i.e.
lower cost, less power, improved reliability, etc) outweigh any performance reduction.
Highly compressed mp3 music is very popular despite alternative formats with better fidelity.
It is the good enough syndrome.
A Mazda has good enough acceleration; you don't need a Corvette.
Or to put in another way, the second five hour battery operating hours in a notebook is worth far less than the first five hours.Don't choose marketing as a career.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1426226.30512520</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1426226.30512462</id>
	<title>meanwhile, where are the ARMs?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261413240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>For 2 years now I've been reading that ARM netbooks with awesome battery lifes are just around the corner.</p><p>So, where are they?  Newegg lists exactly *zero* of them.  No local store in my entire city of 500K people has a single one - I have called around to verify this.  Not one!</p><p>I'm aware of the "alwaysinnovating" thing, but for various reasons I don't like it, and anyway it's just a beagleboard.</p><p>Where are the dozens of choices in different configurations that were supposed to hit the market?  First we heard Q408.  Then we hear Q409. Well, Q409 is about over...  At some point I'll give up and just buy a damn Atom based one.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>For 2 years now I 've been reading that ARM netbooks with awesome battery lifes are just around the corner.So , where are they ?
Newegg lists exactly * zero * of them .
No local store in my entire city of 500K people has a single one - I have called around to verify this .
Not one ! I 'm aware of the " alwaysinnovating " thing , but for various reasons I do n't like it , and anyway it 's just a beagleboard.Where are the dozens of choices in different configurations that were supposed to hit the market ?
First we heard Q408 .
Then we hear Q409 .
Well , Q409 is about over... At some point I 'll give up and just buy a damn Atom based one .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>For 2 years now I've been reading that ARM netbooks with awesome battery lifes are just around the corner.So, where are they?
Newegg lists exactly *zero* of them.
No local store in my entire city of 500K people has a single one - I have called around to verify this.
Not one!I'm aware of the "alwaysinnovating" thing, but for various reasons I don't like it, and anyway it's just a beagleboard.Where are the dozens of choices in different configurations that were supposed to hit the market?
First we heard Q408.
Then we hear Q409.
Well, Q409 is about over...  At some point I'll give up and just buy a damn Atom based one.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1426226.30512398</id>
	<title>Still chokes on flash?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261412940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Intel and Adobe both have completely dropped the ball, but right now it's Intel that's in trouble. The only "netbook" I know that can handle fullscreen flash is the LT3013u; At 12" and $350 it hits the price point okay but misses size. Still, it's at least got a 720p display, which means it has to do more than most of the competition to even break even &mdash; it does better than that.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Intel and Adobe both have completely dropped the ball , but right now it 's Intel that 's in trouble .
The only " netbook " I know that can handle fullscreen flash is the LT3013u ; At 12 " and $ 350 it hits the price point okay but misses size .
Still , it 's at least got a 720p display , which means it has to do more than most of the competition to even break even    it does better than that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Intel and Adobe both have completely dropped the ball, but right now it's Intel that's in trouble.
The only "netbook" I know that can handle fullscreen flash is the LT3013u; At 12" and $350 it hits the price point okay but misses size.
Still, it's at least got a 720p display, which means it has to do more than most of the competition to even break even — it does better than that.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1426226.30515864</id>
	<title>Die, Intel GMA, Die!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261428540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The last thing I want is yet another device with GMA graphics on board, and now they're integrating it to the CPU?  Thanks but NO THANKS!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The last thing I want is yet another device with GMA graphics on board , and now they 're integrating it to the CPU ?
Thanks but NO THANKS !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The last thing I want is yet another device with GMA graphics on board, and now they're integrating it to the CPU?
Thanks but NO THANKS!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1426226.30515058</id>
	<title>Re:Who actually needs this?</title>
	<author>Kjella</author>
	<datestamp>1261424640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Sometimes I get the impression you're just trying to find fault, if it's so "abysmal unless you only use Notepad", why do you care about the "stupid restrictions"? The Atom is about two things really, price and battery life. The Atom it's a much smaller, much less handpicked chip than any of Intel's very highly priced ULV editions. And sure you can get better workhorses for your money, but not lower power than the N450 having a 5.5W TDP for CPU+memory controller+GPU with a sub-watt additional chipset.</p><p>It's horrible as a gaming machine. It's horrible as a HTPC. But it's a solid improvement over itself on the things it was already doing, by which I mean the two above and not performance. Even more so on the nettop side where the 90nm 945GC GMCH and 130nm ICH7 was a complete joke bringing the total up to a 45W TDP, with the new chip you see a 40\% reduction to 25W going from a 330 to a N510. Though I'd still go with a 330 + Ion for that since it'll be a better HTPC, they're at least getting there.</p><p>I have a 330 + Ion and it still sucks for gaming, bringing up the frame rate from "frozen" to "pathetic" on lowest settings doesn't change that. What these new processors lack is H.264 decoding, but there is supposed to be a third party chip for that still there'll be no 1080p output so I guess it's pass as a HTPC, but that'll solve it for netbooks that want to see it on the included display. I think this is a solid release that'll dominate the netbook market.</p><p>ARM? Yeah, if you don't need Windows, don't need WINE, don't need virtualbox (who cares if it's dog slow on an Atom if it solves your one outstanding must-have, rarely used app?), w32codecs, dual boot or any other application who nobody bothered to test/fix on ARM. For example I don't think there's the nVidia blob that makes my Atom 330 / Ion such a nice HTPC, so one argument you use really kills the other. I see that this one doesn't fit my use case, but I can see it fitting many other people's...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Sometimes I get the impression you 're just trying to find fault , if it 's so " abysmal unless you only use Notepad " , why do you care about the " stupid restrictions " ?
The Atom is about two things really , price and battery life .
The Atom it 's a much smaller , much less handpicked chip than any of Intel 's very highly priced ULV editions .
And sure you can get better workhorses for your money , but not lower power than the N450 having a 5.5W TDP for CPU + memory controller + GPU with a sub-watt additional chipset.It 's horrible as a gaming machine .
It 's horrible as a HTPC .
But it 's a solid improvement over itself on the things it was already doing , by which I mean the two above and not performance .
Even more so on the nettop side where the 90nm 945GC GMCH and 130nm ICH7 was a complete joke bringing the total up to a 45W TDP , with the new chip you see a 40 \ % reduction to 25W going from a 330 to a N510 .
Though I 'd still go with a 330 + Ion for that since it 'll be a better HTPC , they 're at least getting there.I have a 330 + Ion and it still sucks for gaming , bringing up the frame rate from " frozen " to " pathetic " on lowest settings does n't change that .
What these new processors lack is H.264 decoding , but there is supposed to be a third party chip for that still there 'll be no 1080p output so I guess it 's pass as a HTPC , but that 'll solve it for netbooks that want to see it on the included display .
I think this is a solid release that 'll dominate the netbook market.ARM ?
Yeah , if you do n't need Windows , do n't need WINE , do n't need virtualbox ( who cares if it 's dog slow on an Atom if it solves your one outstanding must-have , rarely used app ?
) , w32codecs , dual boot or any other application who nobody bothered to test/fix on ARM .
For example I do n't think there 's the nVidia blob that makes my Atom 330 / Ion such a nice HTPC , so one argument you use really kills the other .
I see that this one does n't fit my use case , but I can see it fitting many other people 's.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sometimes I get the impression you're just trying to find fault, if it's so "abysmal unless you only use Notepad", why do you care about the "stupid restrictions"?
The Atom is about two things really, price and battery life.
The Atom it's a much smaller, much less handpicked chip than any of Intel's very highly priced ULV editions.
And sure you can get better workhorses for your money, but not lower power than the N450 having a 5.5W TDP for CPU+memory controller+GPU with a sub-watt additional chipset.It's horrible as a gaming machine.
It's horrible as a HTPC.
But it's a solid improvement over itself on the things it was already doing, by which I mean the two above and not performance.
Even more so on the nettop side where the 90nm 945GC GMCH and 130nm ICH7 was a complete joke bringing the total up to a 45W TDP, with the new chip you see a 40\% reduction to 25W going from a 330 to a N510.
Though I'd still go with a 330 + Ion for that since it'll be a better HTPC, they're at least getting there.I have a 330 + Ion and it still sucks for gaming, bringing up the frame rate from "frozen" to "pathetic" on lowest settings doesn't change that.
What these new processors lack is H.264 decoding, but there is supposed to be a third party chip for that still there'll be no 1080p output so I guess it's pass as a HTPC, but that'll solve it for netbooks that want to see it on the included display.
I think this is a solid release that'll dominate the netbook market.ARM?
Yeah, if you don't need Windows, don't need WINE, don't need virtualbox (who cares if it's dog slow on an Atom if it solves your one outstanding must-have, rarely used app?
), w32codecs, dual boot or any other application who nobody bothered to test/fix on ARM.
For example I don't think there's the nVidia blob that makes my Atom 330 / Ion such a nice HTPC, so one argument you use really kills the other.
I see that this one doesn't fit my use case, but I can see it fitting many other people's...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1426226.30512520</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1426226.30513520</id>
	<title>Re:Midnight Blue?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261418040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>* PC customers are capable of removing the the stickers.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>* PC customers are capable of removing the the stickers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>* PC customers are capable of removing the the stickers.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1426226.30512586</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1426226.30515148</id>
	<title>Re:Still chokes on flash?</title>
	<author>hairyfeet</author>
	<datestamp>1261425060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You should look into the latest <a href="http://shopping.yahoo.com/search;\_ylt=A0geu969wi9LwB8A5NNHEL0F?fr=sfp&amp;fr2=&amp;cop=mss&amp;\_\_yltc=s\%3A96276551\%2Cd\%3A14489115\%2Csec\%3Asrchtab\%2Cslk\%3Aproducts\%2Ck\%3A&amp;p=AMD+Neo" title="yahoo.com">AMD Neo</a> [yahoo.com] based Netbooks. My local Walmart has started carrying those and I was quite imprssed at how well they do multimedia, which shouldn't be surprising as they are an ULV Athlon with a Radeon GPU for video.</p><p>

At an average price of $450 IMHO they are a really good deal for a Netbook with some real performance. After playing with one I would certainly go with the AMD other the Atom, which to me feels slower than my old 1.1GHz Celeron. Plus this, like most Intel IGPs, is frankly crapola. You would think they would have figured out how to do decent multimedia acceleration by now.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You should look into the latest AMD Neo [ yahoo.com ] based Netbooks .
My local Walmart has started carrying those and I was quite imprssed at how well they do multimedia , which should n't be surprising as they are an ULV Athlon with a Radeon GPU for video .
At an average price of $ 450 IMHO they are a really good deal for a Netbook with some real performance .
After playing with one I would certainly go with the AMD other the Atom , which to me feels slower than my old 1.1GHz Celeron .
Plus this , like most Intel IGPs , is frankly crapola .
You would think they would have figured out how to do decent multimedia acceleration by now .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You should look into the latest AMD Neo [yahoo.com] based Netbooks.
My local Walmart has started carrying those and I was quite imprssed at how well they do multimedia, which shouldn't be surprising as they are an ULV Athlon with a Radeon GPU for video.
At an average price of $450 IMHO they are a really good deal for a Netbook with some real performance.
After playing with one I would certainly go with the AMD other the Atom, which to me feels slower than my old 1.1GHz Celeron.
Plus this, like most Intel IGPs, is frankly crapola.
You would think they would have figured out how to do decent multimedia acceleration by now.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1426226.30512398</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1426226.30520964</id>
	<title>Re:Who actually needs this?</title>
	<author>CAIMLAS</author>
	<datestamp>1261422960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think you might be exaggerating just a bit. They're at least as fast as a Pentium 4 with 1Gb of RAM (IE similar specs). The dual cores are pretty snappy, too. Even with Intel graphics, it's enough for something like Hulu.</p><p>Yes, if you do a lot of multitasking (such as installing things while browsing) they'll bog down a bit. But they're acceptable systems and will meet 90\% of peoples' needs.</p><p>Personally, I'd rather have an ARM based netbook, but where am I going to find one of those? The only ones I've seen have - at best - 256Mb RAM and a 400MHz CPU. That's enough to do some things, but certainly not more than 1 or 2 tabs in a modern browser.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think you might be exaggerating just a bit .
They 're at least as fast as a Pentium 4 with 1Gb of RAM ( IE similar specs ) .
The dual cores are pretty snappy , too .
Even with Intel graphics , it 's enough for something like Hulu.Yes , if you do a lot of multitasking ( such as installing things while browsing ) they 'll bog down a bit .
But they 're acceptable systems and will meet 90 \ % of peoples ' needs.Personally , I 'd rather have an ARM based netbook , but where am I going to find one of those ?
The only ones I 've seen have - at best - 256Mb RAM and a 400MHz CPU .
That 's enough to do some things , but certainly not more than 1 or 2 tabs in a modern browser .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think you might be exaggerating just a bit.
They're at least as fast as a Pentium 4 with 1Gb of RAM (IE similar specs).
The dual cores are pretty snappy, too.
Even with Intel graphics, it's enough for something like Hulu.Yes, if you do a lot of multitasking (such as installing things while browsing) they'll bog down a bit.
But they're acceptable systems and will meet 90\% of peoples' needs.Personally, I'd rather have an ARM based netbook, but where am I going to find one of those?
The only ones I've seen have - at best - 256Mb RAM and a 400MHz CPU.
That's enough to do some things, but certainly not more than 1 or 2 tabs in a modern browser.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1426226.30512520</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1426226.30512484</id>
	<title>Intel and Linux</title>
	<author>Enderandrew</author>
	<datestamp>1261413300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Intel has been tearing apart their Linux graphics stack and rewritting it for the future. For a while, that meant poor performance during the rewrite, but it really is getting better. Intel is really helping push DRI2, GEM, TTM, UXA, etc.</p><p>At least Intel does their development in the open. Didn't Intel also contribute code to Moblin to optimize Moblin performance on their hardware? I'd like to see some more general kernel enhancements for these processors. Any speed increase over Windows on the most common netbook processor is a huge win.</p><p>Chrome OS is already fast. If Intel can help make it faster when comparing it side-by-side to 7, it only helps Linux adoption on the whole.</p><p>I also have a small tangental question. I always hear about huge performance gains that can come from properly writing code to take advantage of SSE2,3,4,etc instruction sets. I also hear that almost no one does write code to take advantage of these instruction sets. If Intel really wants to push their hardware, why not write such optimizations for the Linux kernel?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Intel has been tearing apart their Linux graphics stack and rewritting it for the future .
For a while , that meant poor performance during the rewrite , but it really is getting better .
Intel is really helping push DRI2 , GEM , TTM , UXA , etc.At least Intel does their development in the open .
Did n't Intel also contribute code to Moblin to optimize Moblin performance on their hardware ?
I 'd like to see some more general kernel enhancements for these processors .
Any speed increase over Windows on the most common netbook processor is a huge win.Chrome OS is already fast .
If Intel can help make it faster when comparing it side-by-side to 7 , it only helps Linux adoption on the whole.I also have a small tangental question .
I always hear about huge performance gains that can come from properly writing code to take advantage of SSE2,3,4,etc instruction sets .
I also hear that almost no one does write code to take advantage of these instruction sets .
If Intel really wants to push their hardware , why not write such optimizations for the Linux kernel ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Intel has been tearing apart their Linux graphics stack and rewritting it for the future.
For a while, that meant poor performance during the rewrite, but it really is getting better.
Intel is really helping push DRI2, GEM, TTM, UXA, etc.At least Intel does their development in the open.
Didn't Intel also contribute code to Moblin to optimize Moblin performance on their hardware?
I'd like to see some more general kernel enhancements for these processors.
Any speed increase over Windows on the most common netbook processor is a huge win.Chrome OS is already fast.
If Intel can help make it faster when comparing it side-by-side to 7, it only helps Linux adoption on the whole.I also have a small tangental question.
I always hear about huge performance gains that can come from properly writing code to take advantage of SSE2,3,4,etc instruction sets.
I also hear that almost no one does write code to take advantage of these instruction sets.
If Intel really wants to push their hardware, why not write such optimizations for the Linux kernel?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1426226.30512386</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1426226.30512948</id>
	<title>Re:Intel and Linux</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261415520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Your post completely missed the original poster's point - the Intel GMA500 is a major outlier in terms of Linux support.</p><p>The GMA950 series is well supported by Linux (with the exception of the re-architecture issues that hurt Ubuntu 9.04 so badly).</p><p>The GMA500 is simply minimally supported in Linux and all indications state that it will stay this way.  The GMA500 graphics core was outsourced to another company, as was driver development.</p><p>As to SSE2/3/4 - They only benefit for certain operation types.  Most kernel ops won't benefit, and also, using SSE usually means hand-coding in assembler - compilers that generate good vector SIMD code are rare.  The kernel developers tend to prefer to avoid hand-coded ASM whenever possible.</p><p>However, I do recall that RAID checksumming code and memcpy() were once implemented using MMX to improve them, so these sections might benefit from SSE (and might already do so.)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Your post completely missed the original poster 's point - the Intel GMA500 is a major outlier in terms of Linux support.The GMA950 series is well supported by Linux ( with the exception of the re-architecture issues that hurt Ubuntu 9.04 so badly ) .The GMA500 is simply minimally supported in Linux and all indications state that it will stay this way .
The GMA500 graphics core was outsourced to another company , as was driver development.As to SSE2/3/4 - They only benefit for certain operation types .
Most kernel ops wo n't benefit , and also , using SSE usually means hand-coding in assembler - compilers that generate good vector SIMD code are rare .
The kernel developers tend to prefer to avoid hand-coded ASM whenever possible.However , I do recall that RAID checksumming code and memcpy ( ) were once implemented using MMX to improve them , so these sections might benefit from SSE ( and might already do so .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Your post completely missed the original poster's point - the Intel GMA500 is a major outlier in terms of Linux support.The GMA950 series is well supported by Linux (with the exception of the re-architecture issues that hurt Ubuntu 9.04 so badly).The GMA500 is simply minimally supported in Linux and all indications state that it will stay this way.
The GMA500 graphics core was outsourced to another company, as was driver development.As to SSE2/3/4 - They only benefit for certain operation types.
Most kernel ops won't benefit, and also, using SSE usually means hand-coding in assembler - compilers that generate good vector SIMD code are rare.
The kernel developers tend to prefer to avoid hand-coded ASM whenever possible.However, I do recall that RAID checksumming code and memcpy() were once implemented using MMX to improve them, so these sections might benefit from SSE (and might already do so.
)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1426226.30512484</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1426226.30512474</id>
	<title>Re-Architecting English</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261413300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>The Atom N450 has been <b>re-architected</b><nobr> <wbr></nobr>...</i></p><p>Wow -- I guess it was waaaaay too advanced to merely be "re-designed".</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The Atom N450 has been re-architected ...Wow -- I guess it was waaaaay too advanced to merely be " re-designed " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The Atom N450 has been re-architected ...Wow -- I guess it was waaaaay too advanced to merely be "re-designed".</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1426226.30512738</id>
	<title>Re:Netbook question</title>
	<author>phil-trick</author>
	<datestamp>1261414680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If you want to do PCB design, do yourself a favour and get a display with a minimum resolution of 1280x800.</p><p>You need the vertical space for layouts and design.  If you can get a higher resolution display, go for it, as it makes it WAAAAY easier for design.</p><p>Also, see if you can borrow a netbook from someone to try for a few days.  I find them infuriatingly sluggish, even with a fresh install of Windows XP or linux.</p><p>You can get good value laptops now for not a huge amount more money than a netbook.</p><p>If you have to go for a netbook, get an nVidia ion based netbook, preferably with a dual core atom, like the N330, as you will see way better performance from it.</p><p>Phil</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If you want to do PCB design , do yourself a favour and get a display with a minimum resolution of 1280x800.You need the vertical space for layouts and design .
If you can get a higher resolution display , go for it , as it makes it WAAAAY easier for design.Also , see if you can borrow a netbook from someone to try for a few days .
I find them infuriatingly sluggish , even with a fresh install of Windows XP or linux.You can get good value laptops now for not a huge amount more money than a netbook.If you have to go for a netbook , get an nVidia ion based netbook , preferably with a dual core atom , like the N330 , as you will see way better performance from it.Phil</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you want to do PCB design, do yourself a favour and get a display with a minimum resolution of 1280x800.You need the vertical space for layouts and design.
If you can get a higher resolution display, go for it, as it makes it WAAAAY easier for design.Also, see if you can borrow a netbook from someone to try for a few days.
I find them infuriatingly sluggish, even with a fresh install of Windows XP or linux.You can get good value laptops now for not a huge amount more money than a netbook.If you have to go for a netbook, get an nVidia ion based netbook, preferably with a dual core atom, like the N330, as you will see way better performance from it.Phil</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1426226.30512584</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1426226.30512386</id>
	<title>So...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261412940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>Is the new integrated graphics core a descendant of intel's much maligned; but well supported in linux, GMA950 line, or is it another take on the HD-media-accelerating-but-dear-god-the-drivers-oh-why-does-it-hurt GMA500 stuff?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Is the new integrated graphics core a descendant of intel 's much maligned ; but well supported in linux , GMA950 line , or is it another take on the HD-media-accelerating-but-dear-god-the-drivers-oh-why-does-it-hurt GMA500 stuff ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Is the new integrated graphics core a descendant of intel's much maligned; but well supported in linux, GMA950 line, or is it another take on the HD-media-accelerating-but-dear-god-the-drivers-oh-why-does-it-hurt GMA500 stuff?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1426226.30516224</id>
	<title>what's the point?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261387020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So they improved memory bandwidth on a slow CPU that already had more than it needed? Looks like it still gets whooped by a ULV 90nm Pentium-M, let alone a ULV 45nm Core 2 Solo. BTW, let me know when Intel develops an integrated graphics core that can run Half-life 2 as smoothly as a GeForce 2.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So they improved memory bandwidth on a slow CPU that already had more than it needed ?
Looks like it still gets whooped by a ULV 90nm Pentium-M , let alone a ULV 45nm Core 2 Solo .
BTW , let me know when Intel develops an integrated graphics core that can run Half-life 2 as smoothly as a GeForce 2 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So they improved memory bandwidth on a slow CPU that already had more than it needed?
Looks like it still gets whooped by a ULV 90nm Pentium-M, let alone a ULV 45nm Core 2 Solo.
BTW, let me know when Intel develops an integrated graphics core that can run Half-life 2 as smoothly as a GeForce 2.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1426226.30512586</id>
	<title>Re:Midnight Blue?</title>
	<author>nine-times</author>
	<datestamp>1261413840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>My guess is that it's a variety of factors:
<ul>
<li>Apple, having such a strong design culture, is the only manufacturer who realizes these stickers make your computer look cheap and stupid.</li>
<li>Apple's design culture is often about minimalism, and so they probably wouldn't put extra symbols or stickers on their computers even if it didn't look cheap and stupid.</li>
<li>Apple is just about the only laptop manufacturer who can't be bullied by Microsoft into putting any kind of "Microsoft certified" sticker on it.</li>
<li>Apple customers are less likely to be casual about their attachment to the brand.  If you're a Dell customer, you might not think twice about buying an HP.  If you're an Apple customer, buying an HP instead is a little more noteworthy.  Therefore, they don't have to try to compete by advertising energy star compliance or the latest Intel chip.  An awful lot of Apple customers couldn't care less about which Intel chip is in their computers.</li>
</ul><p>There are probably more, but that's off the top of my head.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>My guess is that it 's a variety of factors : Apple , having such a strong design culture , is the only manufacturer who realizes these stickers make your computer look cheap and stupid .
Apple 's design culture is often about minimalism , and so they probably would n't put extra symbols or stickers on their computers even if it did n't look cheap and stupid .
Apple is just about the only laptop manufacturer who ca n't be bullied by Microsoft into putting any kind of " Microsoft certified " sticker on it .
Apple customers are less likely to be casual about their attachment to the brand .
If you 're a Dell customer , you might not think twice about buying an HP .
If you 're an Apple customer , buying an HP instead is a little more noteworthy .
Therefore , they do n't have to try to compete by advertising energy star compliance or the latest Intel chip .
An awful lot of Apple customers could n't care less about which Intel chip is in their computers .
There are probably more , but that 's off the top of my head .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My guess is that it's a variety of factors:

Apple, having such a strong design culture, is the only manufacturer who realizes these stickers make your computer look cheap and stupid.
Apple's design culture is often about minimalism, and so they probably wouldn't put extra symbols or stickers on their computers even if it didn't look cheap and stupid.
Apple is just about the only laptop manufacturer who can't be bullied by Microsoft into putting any kind of "Microsoft certified" sticker on it.
Apple customers are less likely to be casual about their attachment to the brand.
If you're a Dell customer, you might not think twice about buying an HP.
If you're an Apple customer, buying an HP instead is a little more noteworthy.
Therefore, they don't have to try to compete by advertising energy star compliance or the latest Intel chip.
An awful lot of Apple customers couldn't care less about which Intel chip is in their computers.
There are probably more, but that's off the top of my head.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1426226.30512392</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1426226.30518734</id>
	<title>Re:So...</title>
	<author>BikeHelmet</author>
	<datestamp>1261402440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's the GMA500 line. I know because I read quite a bit about PowerVR and their SGX cores employed in ARM SoCs that TI/Samsung are putting in cellphones. Intel licensed PowerVR's designs and stuck them into their stuff. Somewhere along the line they tacked on DirectX support. PowerVR's GPUs only natively support OpenGL 2.0 and OpenGL ES 2.0/1.1.  Because the drivers are new (unlike GMA950 and PowerVR SGX) they're also shit.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's the GMA500 line .
I know because I read quite a bit about PowerVR and their SGX cores employed in ARM SoCs that TI/Samsung are putting in cellphones .
Intel licensed PowerVR 's designs and stuck them into their stuff .
Somewhere along the line they tacked on DirectX support .
PowerVR 's GPUs only natively support OpenGL 2.0 and OpenGL ES 2.0/1.1 .
Because the drivers are new ( unlike GMA950 and PowerVR SGX ) they 're also shit .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's the GMA500 line.
I know because I read quite a bit about PowerVR and their SGX cores employed in ARM SoCs that TI/Samsung are putting in cellphones.
Intel licensed PowerVR's designs and stuck them into their stuff.
Somewhere along the line they tacked on DirectX support.
PowerVR's GPUs only natively support OpenGL 2.0 and OpenGL ES 2.0/1.1.
Because the drivers are new (unlike GMA950 and PowerVR SGX) they're also shit.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1426226.30512386</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1426226.30514158</id>
	<title>Re:Netbook question</title>
	<author>stokessd</author>
	<datestamp>1261420740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You want as much screen real estate as you can get.  These tiny "LCD watch" resolution screens suck for any real-world work.  Sure a netbook can be handy for travel, but for serious tasks like PCB design, you want pixels, and more than a thimble-full.   I do PCB design with protel (altium or whatever protel turned into), and I do it at 1920x1200 and I would love twice that.  You don't want to stare at the world through a toilet paper tube.</p><p>Sheldon</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You want as much screen real estate as you can get .
These tiny " LCD watch " resolution screens suck for any real-world work .
Sure a netbook can be handy for travel , but for serious tasks like PCB design , you want pixels , and more than a thimble-full .
I do PCB design with protel ( altium or whatever protel turned into ) , and I do it at 1920x1200 and I would love twice that .
You do n't want to stare at the world through a toilet paper tube.Sheldon</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You want as much screen real estate as you can get.
These tiny "LCD watch" resolution screens suck for any real-world work.
Sure a netbook can be handy for travel, but for serious tasks like PCB design, you want pixels, and more than a thimble-full.
I do PCB design with protel (altium or whatever protel turned into), and I do it at 1920x1200 and I would love twice that.
You don't want to stare at the world through a toilet paper tube.Sheldon</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1426226.30512584</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_21_1426226_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1426226.30513140
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1426226.30512520
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_21_1426226_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1426226.30512556
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1426226.30512386
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_21_1426226_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1426226.30514158
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1426226.30512584
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_21_1426226_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1426226.30518802
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1426226.30512520
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_21_1426226_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1426226.30513868
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1426226.30512758
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1426226.30512462
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_21_1426226_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1426226.30520964
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1426226.30512520
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_21_1426226_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1426226.30515148
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1426226.30512398
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_21_1426226_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1426226.30514398
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1426226.30513264
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1426226.30512392
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_21_1426226_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1426226.30513520
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1426226.30512586
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1426226.30512392
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_21_1426226_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1426226.30516044
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1426226.30512484
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1426226.30512386
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_21_1426226_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1426226.30515574
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1426226.30512520
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_21_1426226_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1426226.30520912
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1426226.30512484
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1426226.30512386
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_21_1426226_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1426226.30517466
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1426226.30512484
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1426226.30512386
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_21_1426226_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1426226.30512738
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1426226.30512584
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_21_1426226_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1426226.30512994
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1426226.30512392
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_21_1426226_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1426226.30517750
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1426226.30512398
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_21_1426226_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1426226.30512600
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1426226.30512392
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_21_1426226_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1426226.30515058
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1426226.30512520
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_21_1426226_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1426226.30514714
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1426226.30513242
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1426226.30512758
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1426226.30512462
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_21_1426226_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1426226.30512486
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1426226.30512398
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_21_1426226_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1426226.30514876
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1426226.30512392
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_21_1426226_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1426226.30513588
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1426226.30512474
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_21_1426226_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1426226.30513126
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1426226.30512386
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_21_1426226_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1426226.30513274
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1426226.30512520
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_21_1426226_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1426226.30514644
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1426226.30512586
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1426226.30512392
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_21_1426226_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1426226.30518604
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1426226.30512484
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1426226.30512386
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_21_1426226_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1426226.30518734
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1426226.30512386
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_21_1426226_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1426226.30518006
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1426226.30512386
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_21_1426226_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1426226.30513516
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1426226.30512520
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_21_1426226_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1426226.30512582
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1426226.30512398
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_21_1426226_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1426226.30522724
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1426226.30512948
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1426226.30512484
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1426226.30512386
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_21_1426226_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1426226.30513738
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1426226.30512520
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_21_1426226_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1426226.30517386
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1426226.30512484
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1426226.30512386
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_21_1426226.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1426226.30513328
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_21_1426226.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1426226.30512474
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1426226.30513588
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_21_1426226.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1426226.30512522
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_21_1426226.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1426226.30512520
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1426226.30515058
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1426226.30513738
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1426226.30520964
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1426226.30513516
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1426226.30515574
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1426226.30513140
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1426226.30513274
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1426226.30518802
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_21_1426226.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1426226.30512410
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_21_1426226.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1426226.30512720
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_21_1426226.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1426226.30513240
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_21_1426226.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1426226.30512398
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1426226.30512582
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1426226.30512486
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1426226.30517750
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1426226.30515148
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_21_1426226.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1426226.30512584
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1426226.30514158
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1426226.30512738
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_21_1426226.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1426226.30512462
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1426226.30512758
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1426226.30513242
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1426226.30514714
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1426226.30513868
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_21_1426226.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1426226.30512386
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1426226.30512484
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1426226.30512948
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1426226.30522724
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1426226.30517466
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1426226.30517386
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1426226.30518604
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1426226.30516044
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1426226.30520912
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1426226.30512556
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1426226.30518006
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1426226.30518734
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1426226.30513126
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_21_1426226.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1426226.30512392
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1426226.30512586
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1426226.30514644
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1426226.30513520
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1426226.30512994
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1426226.30514876
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1426226.30512600
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1426226.30513264
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1426226.30514398
</commentlist>
</conversation>
