<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article10_02_01_0048256</id>
	<title>Intel-Micron Joint Venture Develops 25nm NAND</title>
	<author>timothy</author>
	<datestamp>1265031000000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>Ninjakicks writes <i>"IM Flash Technologies is a joint venture between Intel and Micron that is targeted for producing NAND flash memory. With a focus on R&amp;D, IMFT has doubled NAND density approximately every 18 months. Tomorrow IMFT will announce the launch of their <a href="http://hothardware.com/Articles/Intel-Micron-Announce-25nm-NAND-Technology-/">25 nanometer NAND technology</a> &mdash; a major advancement in the semiconductor industry. Intel and Micron can now lay claim to the smallest production ready-semiconductor process technology in the world. IMFT took members of the press on a tour of the new 25nm fab and it's an interesting view into this bleeding-edge manufacturing process."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ninjakicks writes " IM Flash Technologies is a joint venture between Intel and Micron that is targeted for producing NAND flash memory .
With a focus on R&amp;D , IMFT has doubled NAND density approximately every 18 months .
Tomorrow IMFT will announce the launch of their 25 nanometer NAND technology    a major advancement in the semiconductor industry .
Intel and Micron can now lay claim to the smallest production ready-semiconductor process technology in the world .
IMFT took members of the press on a tour of the new 25nm fab and it 's an interesting view into this bleeding-edge manufacturing process .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ninjakicks writes "IM Flash Technologies is a joint venture between Intel and Micron that is targeted for producing NAND flash memory.
With a focus on R&amp;D, IMFT has doubled NAND density approximately every 18 months.
Tomorrow IMFT will announce the launch of their 25 nanometer NAND technology — a major advancement in the semiconductor industry.
Intel and Micron can now lay claim to the smallest production ready-semiconductor process technology in the world.
IMFT took members of the press on a tour of the new 25nm fab and it's an interesting view into this bleeding-edge manufacturing process.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_0048256.30976806</id>
	<title>Re:32GB MicroSDHC</title>
	<author>Asadullah Ahmad</author>
	<datestamp>1264953840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>I would certainly hope so. But at the very least it will take a year to get these 25nm ones in the market.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I would certainly hope so .
But at the very least it will take a year to get these 25nm ones in the market .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I would certainly hope so.
But at the very least it will take a year to get these 25nm ones in the market.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_0048256.30976632</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_0048256.30985008</id>
	<title>Re:No sir, I don't like it.</title>
	<author>Agripa</author>
	<datestamp>1265055600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>NAND flash can only be accessed as a block device, so you can't tie it to a CPU at all easily; it has to go through some kind of controller so the OS can pretend that it's a disk. I suppose you could slap a load of DRAM and a separate MMU and DMA controller on it and have something that would look like a big blob of RAM, but the performance characteristics would be horrible to work with.</p></div></blockquote><p>There are a couple of execute in place NAND memories available now from Samsung and at least one other company that escapes me.  The do about what you describe internally by caching the Flash pages in SRAM for random access through a NOR type interface.  They are good for saving space in compact designs.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>NAND flash can only be accessed as a block device , so you ca n't tie it to a CPU at all easily ; it has to go through some kind of controller so the OS can pretend that it 's a disk .
I suppose you could slap a load of DRAM and a separate MMU and DMA controller on it and have something that would look like a big blob of RAM , but the performance characteristics would be horrible to work with.There are a couple of execute in place NAND memories available now from Samsung and at least one other company that escapes me .
The do about what you describe internally by caching the Flash pages in SRAM for random access through a NOR type interface .
They are good for saving space in compact designs .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>NAND flash can only be accessed as a block device, so you can't tie it to a CPU at all easily; it has to go through some kind of controller so the OS can pretend that it's a disk.
I suppose you could slap a load of DRAM and a separate MMU and DMA controller on it and have something that would look like a big blob of RAM, but the performance characteristics would be horrible to work with.There are a couple of execute in place NAND memories available now from Samsung and at least one other company that escapes me.
The do about what you describe internally by caching the Flash pages in SRAM for random access through a NOR type interface.
They are good for saving space in compact designs.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_0048256.30976544</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_0048256.30977572</id>
	<title>Re:8GB per chip</title>
	<author>Courageous</author>
	<datestamp>1264961280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Withstanding recently trends in the flash market pointing to a slow down of the very fast price drops that have been happening, flash will beat 15K drives on price within 2 years or so. SATA is 6+ years. That may as well be an eternity in technology time. All bets are off. By then, one of the platter manufacturers could pull a density rabbit out of the hat.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Withstanding recently trends in the flash market pointing to a slow down of the very fast price drops that have been happening , flash will beat 15K drives on price within 2 years or so .
SATA is 6 + years .
That may as well be an eternity in technology time .
All bets are off .
By then , one of the platter manufacturers could pull a density rabbit out of the hat .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Withstanding recently trends in the flash market pointing to a slow down of the very fast price drops that have been happening, flash will beat 15K drives on price within 2 years or so.
SATA is 6+ years.
That may as well be an eternity in technology time.
All bets are off.
By then, one of the platter manufacturers could pull a density rabbit out of the hat.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_0048256.30977240</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_0048256.30977562</id>
	<title>Re:Rall's Law intervenes</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264961220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Excellent troll.  I actually tried to understand this word salad for a few minutes.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Excellent troll .
I actually tried to understand this word salad for a few minutes .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Excellent troll.
I actually tried to understand this word salad for a few minutes.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_0048256.30976258</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_0048256.30976470</id>
	<title>Re:No sir, I don't like it.</title>
	<author>bb84</author>
	<datestamp>1264949940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>This is why other companies need to get on this faster.  Isn't that the whole purpose of markets, business and competition--to make something better than competitors first?  If the ARM manufacturers don't like it, then get up and make something better!  Stop bitching about Intel's monopoly and give me another option.</htmltext>
<tokenext>This is why other companies need to get on this faster .
Is n't that the whole purpose of markets , business and competition--to make something better than competitors first ?
If the ARM manufacturers do n't like it , then get up and make something better !
Stop bitching about Intel 's monopoly and give me another option .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is why other companies need to get on this faster.
Isn't that the whole purpose of markets, business and competition--to make something better than competitors first?
If the ARM manufacturers don't like it, then get up and make something better!
Stop bitching about Intel's monopoly and give me another option.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_0048256.30976322</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_0048256.30977240</id>
	<title>8GB per chip</title>
	<author>physburn</author>
	<datestamp>1264958100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>That not bad storage per chip. Now they need to be able to pack 16
of them into a standard flash stick, for 128GB flash sticks. I'll bet they
top out at 64GB per stick though. Flash memory is obeying Moore's law
and doubling every 1.5 years, Hard Disks aren't growing as quickly any more,
so Flash is catching up, all the same, it will probably be 2020 before Flash
drives match hard drives for cost.
<p>
---
</p><p>
<a href="http://www.feeddistiller.com/blogs/Storage/feed.html" title="feeddistiller.com">Storage</a> [feeddistiller.com] Feed @ <a href="http://www.feeddistiller.com/" title="feeddistiller.com">Feed Distiller</a> [feeddistiller.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That not bad storage per chip .
Now they need to be able to pack 16 of them into a standard flash stick , for 128GB flash sticks .
I 'll bet they top out at 64GB per stick though .
Flash memory is obeying Moore 's law and doubling every 1.5 years , Hard Disks are n't growing as quickly any more , so Flash is catching up , all the same , it will probably be 2020 before Flash drives match hard drives for cost .
--- Storage [ feeddistiller.com ] Feed @ Feed Distiller [ feeddistiller.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That not bad storage per chip.
Now they need to be able to pack 16
of them into a standard flash stick, for 128GB flash sticks.
I'll bet they
top out at 64GB per stick though.
Flash memory is obeying Moore's law
and doubling every 1.5 years, Hard Disks aren't growing as quickly any more,
so Flash is catching up, all the same, it will probably be 2020 before Flash
drives match hard drives for cost.
---

Storage [feeddistiller.com] Feed @ Feed Distiller [feeddistiller.com]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_0048256.30976460</id>
	<title>Re:No sir, I don't like it.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264949940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>While this may have impressive consequences for the NAND market and for end-user storage solutions, there is a much larger problem which everyone is skirting around. It isn't about how NAND can only be used for storage and not for executable ROM like NOR Flash. It isn't about how stuffing more memory into a smaller space will allow for insanely huge SSD drives in devices ranging from cellphones to television sets.</p><p>It's about how Intel is going to leverage their CPU monopoly to take over the Flash memory market. They have not been able to make any headway with their StrataFlash due to their lukewarm support and eventual divestiture of the StrongARM CPU series. So by building this new super-efficient NAND solution, they are positioning their Atom CPU as *the* architecture for embedded systems.</p><p>If I were ARM and ARM CPU vendors, I'd be very wary and worried.</p></div><p>That sounds rather paranoid.</p><p>Given that Intel happily sells flash devices to all comers, I don't see how their manufacturing a better flash chip means that they are setting up a monopoly for their Atom CPUs.</p><p>Have you taken your medication today?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>While this may have impressive consequences for the NAND market and for end-user storage solutions , there is a much larger problem which everyone is skirting around .
It is n't about how NAND can only be used for storage and not for executable ROM like NOR Flash .
It is n't about how stuffing more memory into a smaller space will allow for insanely huge SSD drives in devices ranging from cellphones to television sets.It 's about how Intel is going to leverage their CPU monopoly to take over the Flash memory market .
They have not been able to make any headway with their StrataFlash due to their lukewarm support and eventual divestiture of the StrongARM CPU series .
So by building this new super-efficient NAND solution , they are positioning their Atom CPU as * the * architecture for embedded systems.If I were ARM and ARM CPU vendors , I 'd be very wary and worried.That sounds rather paranoid.Given that Intel happily sells flash devices to all comers , I do n't see how their manufacturing a better flash chip means that they are setting up a monopoly for their Atom CPUs.Have you taken your medication today ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>While this may have impressive consequences for the NAND market and for end-user storage solutions, there is a much larger problem which everyone is skirting around.
It isn't about how NAND can only be used for storage and not for executable ROM like NOR Flash.
It isn't about how stuffing more memory into a smaller space will allow for insanely huge SSD drives in devices ranging from cellphones to television sets.It's about how Intel is going to leverage their CPU monopoly to take over the Flash memory market.
They have not been able to make any headway with their StrataFlash due to their lukewarm support and eventual divestiture of the StrongARM CPU series.
So by building this new super-efficient NAND solution, they are positioning their Atom CPU as *the* architecture for embedded systems.If I were ARM and ARM CPU vendors, I'd be very wary and worried.That sounds rather paranoid.Given that Intel happily sells flash devices to all comers, I don't see how their manufacturing a better flash chip means that they are setting up a monopoly for their Atom CPUs.Have you taken your medication today?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_0048256.30976322</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_0048256.30978362</id>
	<title>Re:Double patterning has limits.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265015160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The primary driver for process shrink is cost savings and for some applications power savings.  Nobody wins or would be willing to work with added design complexity if real benefits were not being realized on a new process.  Judging by actual transistor count vs die size significant progress continues to be made.</p><p>Yes design rules and sizing keep getting more and more "interesting" but when you look at transister vs die size on completed projects in a given technology reality seems to still be in rough agreement with "marketing".</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The primary driver for process shrink is cost savings and for some applications power savings .
Nobody wins or would be willing to work with added design complexity if real benefits were not being realized on a new process .
Judging by actual transistor count vs die size significant progress continues to be made.Yes design rules and sizing keep getting more and more " interesting " but when you look at transister vs die size on completed projects in a given technology reality seems to still be in rough agreement with " marketing " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The primary driver for process shrink is cost savings and for some applications power savings.
Nobody wins or would be willing to work with added design complexity if real benefits were not being realized on a new process.
Judging by actual transistor count vs die size significant progress continues to be made.Yes design rules and sizing keep getting more and more "interesting" but when you look at transister vs die size on completed projects in a given technology reality seems to still be in rough agreement with "marketing".</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_0048256.30976826</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_0048256.30978560</id>
	<title>mod uP</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265017680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><A HREF="http://goat.cx/" title="goat.cx" rel="nofollow">lo\st its earlier Of the founders of tossers, went out</a> [goat.cx]</htmltext>
<tokenext>lo \ st its earlier Of the founders of tossers , went out [ goat.cx ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>lo\st its earlier Of the founders of tossers, went out [goat.cx]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_0048256.30980784</id>
	<title>Re:Cheap SSDs in my lifetime?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265038200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Completely silent? What I wouldn't give for that. I hear a high pitched tone coming from my SSD always, and it varies by what kind of activity the drive is performing.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Completely silent ?
What I would n't give for that .
I hear a high pitched tone coming from my SSD always , and it varies by what kind of activity the drive is performing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Completely silent?
What I wouldn't give for that.
I hear a high pitched tone coming from my SSD always, and it varies by what kind of activity the drive is performing.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_0048256.30976592</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_0048256.30976826</id>
	<title>Double patterning has limits.</title>
	<author>viking80</author>
	<datestamp>1264954020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>in the olden days, xx nm really meant feature size. With Intel and other fabs pressing mfg to half the size every 2 years, it seems mfg has gotten quite creative in their definition of feature size. Latest feature size is a fraction of the wavelength of the light used for patterning, and to achieve it, double and sometimes triple patterning is used. That is basically multiple exposures with slight offsets. The result migh be called 25nm but might really be 50nm, and edge sharpness when you are at 1/4lambda is so suspect that you really have to add some margins here and there, and some features dont really lend themselves to double and triple patterning, so you really have a mix including 50nm process for these.</p><p>Kind of like a marketing gimmic, just here it is engineering selling it as 25nm to their own marketing departmens.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>in the olden days , xx nm really meant feature size .
With Intel and other fabs pressing mfg to half the size every 2 years , it seems mfg has gotten quite creative in their definition of feature size .
Latest feature size is a fraction of the wavelength of the light used for patterning , and to achieve it , double and sometimes triple patterning is used .
That is basically multiple exposures with slight offsets .
The result migh be called 25nm but might really be 50nm , and edge sharpness when you are at 1/4lambda is so suspect that you really have to add some margins here and there , and some features dont really lend themselves to double and triple patterning , so you really have a mix including 50nm process for these.Kind of like a marketing gimmic , just here it is engineering selling it as 25nm to their own marketing departmens .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>in the olden days, xx nm really meant feature size.
With Intel and other fabs pressing mfg to half the size every 2 years, it seems mfg has gotten quite creative in their definition of feature size.
Latest feature size is a fraction of the wavelength of the light used for patterning, and to achieve it, double and sometimes triple patterning is used.
That is basically multiple exposures with slight offsets.
The result migh be called 25nm but might really be 50nm, and edge sharpness when you are at 1/4lambda is so suspect that you really have to add some margins here and there, and some features dont really lend themselves to double and triple patterning, so you really have a mix including 50nm process for these.Kind of like a marketing gimmic, just here it is engineering selling it as 25nm to their own marketing departmens.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_0048256.30977938</id>
	<title>Re:32GB MicroSDHC</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264966140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Probably soon enough. But if I recall correctly, 2GB was the maximum for SD, and 32GB is the maximum for SDHC cards. After that you need SDXC.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Probably soon enough .
But if I recall correctly , 2GB was the maximum for SD , and 32GB is the maximum for SDHC cards .
After that you need SDXC .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Probably soon enough.
But if I recall correctly, 2GB was the maximum for SD, and 32GB is the maximum for SDHC cards.
After that you need SDXC.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_0048256.30976632</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_0048256.30976866</id>
	<title>Re:No sir, I don't like it.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264954560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
Dude, at least nobody will ever accuse you of thinking "inside the box".
</p><p>
I thought my brain goes off in whack direction, but yours, as consistently indicated by your posts, just goes in the direction, let's just say, less travelled.
</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Dude , at least nobody will ever accuse you of thinking " inside the box " .
I thought my brain goes off in whack direction , but yours , as consistently indicated by your posts , just goes in the direction , let 's just say , less travelled .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
Dude, at least nobody will ever accuse you of thinking "inside the box".
I thought my brain goes off in whack direction, but yours, as consistently indicated by your posts, just goes in the direction, let's just say, less travelled.
</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_0048256.30976322</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_0048256.30976632</id>
	<title>32GB MicroSDHC</title>
	<author>Mr.Radar</author>
	<datestamp>1264951680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Does this mean we'll <i>finally</i> get 32 gigabyte MicroSDHC cards?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Does this mean we 'll finally get 32 gigabyte MicroSDHC cards ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Does this mean we'll finally get 32 gigabyte MicroSDHC cards?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_0048256.30976550</id>
	<title>Re:No sir, I don't like it.</title>
	<author>socceroos</author>
	<datestamp>1264950780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>No embedded system realistically needs more than 640K internal memory</p></div></blockquote><p>
There, fixed that for ya.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>No embedded system realistically needs more than 640K internal memory There , fixed that for ya .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No embedded system realistically needs more than 640K internal memory
There, fixed that for ya.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_0048256.30976490</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_0048256.30978006</id>
	<title>Re:No sir, I don't like it.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264966860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Wintel duopoly mean anything to you?</p><p>Inte&pound; was an abusive monopolist long before most people think. Starting back in the late 80's.</p><p>They are always treated with kid gloves but M$oft gets no quarter....</p><p>It always makes me chuckle when some Linux noob quotes "M$" but running on an Inte&pound; cpu/video.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Wintel duopoly mean anything to you ? Inte   was an abusive monopolist long before most people think .
Starting back in the late 80 's.They are always treated with kid gloves but M $ oft gets no quarter....It always makes me chuckle when some Linux noob quotes " M $ " but running on an Inte   cpu/video .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wintel duopoly mean anything to you?Inte£ was an abusive monopolist long before most people think.
Starting back in the late 80's.They are always treated with kid gloves but M$oft gets no quarter....It always makes me chuckle when some Linux noob quotes "M$" but running on an Inte£ cpu/video.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_0048256.30976544</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_0048256.30976490</id>
	<title>Re:No sir, I don't like it.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264950060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I strongly doubt that...  x86 has so much cruft associated with it, it will never be able to hedge ARM out of the market, esp since the later is so entrenched at this point.  Do you think cell phone designers want to work with the PCI bus?  Chipsets?  And what software is available for a non PC-compatible x86 setup?</p><p>Anyways, this is all moot anyway: the demand for high density flash is almost entirely in the memory card market.  No embedded system realistically needs more than 1GB internal memory (and generally 256M is plenty).  For bulk storage, an SD card is not just a good idea, but actually desirable for consumers.  There's just no market for some huge flash somehow tightly coupled to a CPU.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I strongly doubt that... x86 has so much cruft associated with it , it will never be able to hedge ARM out of the market , esp since the later is so entrenched at this point .
Do you think cell phone designers want to work with the PCI bus ?
Chipsets ? And what software is available for a non PC-compatible x86 setup ? Anyways , this is all moot anyway : the demand for high density flash is almost entirely in the memory card market .
No embedded system realistically needs more than 1GB internal memory ( and generally 256M is plenty ) .
For bulk storage , an SD card is not just a good idea , but actually desirable for consumers .
There 's just no market for some huge flash somehow tightly coupled to a CPU .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I strongly doubt that...  x86 has so much cruft associated with it, it will never be able to hedge ARM out of the market, esp since the later is so entrenched at this point.
Do you think cell phone designers want to work with the PCI bus?
Chipsets?  And what software is available for a non PC-compatible x86 setup?Anyways, this is all moot anyway: the demand for high density flash is almost entirely in the memory card market.
No embedded system realistically needs more than 1GB internal memory (and generally 256M is plenty).
For bulk storage, an SD card is not just a good idea, but actually desirable for consumers.
There's just no market for some huge flash somehow tightly coupled to a CPU.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_0048256.30976322</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_0048256.30977260</id>
	<title>Re:Double patterning has limits.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264958460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The practice of optically shrinking an existing die without redesign/relayout is known as half-node stepping. If you read the analysis of these 25 nm parts over at <a href="http://anandtech.com/storage/showdoc.aspx?i=3731" title="anandtech.com" rel="nofollow">Anandtech</a> [anandtech.com] you will see that this is clearly not a half-node step. These parts are running charge trap memory cells whereas the previous generation used floating gate cells. Personally, I'll take the increased storage density any way I can get it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The practice of optically shrinking an existing die without redesign/relayout is known as half-node stepping .
If you read the analysis of these 25 nm parts over at Anandtech [ anandtech.com ] you will see that this is clearly not a half-node step .
These parts are running charge trap memory cells whereas the previous generation used floating gate cells .
Personally , I 'll take the increased storage density any way I can get it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The practice of optically shrinking an existing die without redesign/relayout is known as half-node stepping.
If you read the analysis of these 25 nm parts over at Anandtech [anandtech.com] you will see that this is clearly not a half-node step.
These parts are running charge trap memory cells whereas the previous generation used floating gate cells.
Personally, I'll take the increased storage density any way I can get it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_0048256.30976826</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_0048256.30976262</id>
	<title>Only 25nm?</title>
	<author>BronsCon</author>
	<datestamp>1264948440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If it's only 25nm, how do you use your hand?</p><p>Oh! NAND. Gotcha.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If it 's only 25nm , how do you use your hand ? Oh !
NAND. Gotcha .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If it's only 25nm, how do you use your hand?Oh!
NAND. Gotcha.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_0048256.30976592</id>
	<title>Re:Cheap SSDs in my lifetime?</title>
	<author>value\_added</author>
	<datestamp>1264951140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>I want a cool, quiet 300G for 200 dollars.</i></p><p>For anyone unfamiliar with SSD drives, they are indeed completely silent, but they're definitely not cool.  Perhaps best described as moderately warm to the touch.  For many, that could translate as "your notebook will still feel too hot".</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I want a cool , quiet 300G for 200 dollars.For anyone unfamiliar with SSD drives , they are indeed completely silent , but they 're definitely not cool .
Perhaps best described as moderately warm to the touch .
For many , that could translate as " your notebook will still feel too hot " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I want a cool, quiet 300G for 200 dollars.For anyone unfamiliar with SSD drives, they are indeed completely silent, but they're definitely not cool.
Perhaps best described as moderately warm to the touch.
For many, that could translate as "your notebook will still feel too hot".</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_0048256.30976300</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_0048256.30981934</id>
	<title>Re:No sir, I don't like it.</title>
	<author>Walter White</author>
	<datestamp>1265042940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>No embedded system realistically needs more than 1GB internal memory (and generally 256M is plenty).<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...  There's just no market for some huge flash somehow tightly coupled to a CPU.</p></div><p>Don't you think that 640K should be enough for anyone?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>No embedded system realistically needs more than 1GB internal memory ( and generally 256M is plenty ) .
... There 's just no market for some huge flash somehow tightly coupled to a CPU.Do n't you think that 640K should be enough for anyone ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No embedded system realistically needs more than 1GB internal memory (and generally 256M is plenty).
...  There's just no market for some huge flash somehow tightly coupled to a CPU.Don't you think that 640K should be enough for anyone?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_0048256.30976490</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_0048256.30977432</id>
	<title>Re:Double patterning has limits.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264960080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>xx nm is still feature size. The method you utilize to get there may be very complicated, but at the end of the process you still have a feature that measures xx nm.  Why does that not count?</htmltext>
<tokenext>xx nm is still feature size .
The method you utilize to get there may be very complicated , but at the end of the process you still have a feature that measures xx nm .
Why does that not count ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>xx nm is still feature size.
The method you utilize to get there may be very complicated, but at the end of the process you still have a feature that measures xx nm.
Why does that not count?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_0048256.30976826</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_0048256.30977722</id>
	<title>mod Up</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264962900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><A HREF="http://goat.cx/" title="goat.cx" rel="nofollow">Fastest-Growing GAY world-spanning 800 mhz machine</a> [goat.cx]</htmltext>
<tokenext>Fastest-Growing GAY world-spanning 800 mhz machine [ goat.cx ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Fastest-Growing GAY world-spanning 800 mhz machine [goat.cx]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_0048256.30977466</id>
	<title>Re:Great News</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264960380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It won't "bring down costs"; it will increase them. Over a period of YEARS some genuine mass production might amortize all the expense, but consumers will never get to realize the benefit of that because "next year's model" will come along and cut it short (and add more expense all over again). The social benefit of mass production is never fully realized.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It wo n't " bring down costs " ; it will increase them .
Over a period of YEARS some genuine mass production might amortize all the expense , but consumers will never get to realize the benefit of that because " next year 's model " will come along and cut it short ( and add more expense all over again ) .
The social benefit of mass production is never fully realized .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It won't "bring down costs"; it will increase them.
Over a period of YEARS some genuine mass production might amortize all the expense, but consumers will never get to realize the benefit of that because "next year's model" will come along and cut it short (and add more expense all over again).
The social benefit of mass production is never fully realized.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_0048256.30976260</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_0048256.30978818</id>
	<title>Re:Great News</title>
	<author>Eunuchswear</author>
	<datestamp>1265020980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Given that Intels SSD's don't seem to exist at the moment (the X25-E has been unavailable from major European distributors since 10/2009) I'd just like them to make some.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Given that Intels SSD 's do n't seem to exist at the moment ( the X25-E has been unavailable from major European distributors since 10/2009 ) I 'd just like them to make some .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Given that Intels SSD's don't seem to exist at the moment (the X25-E has been unavailable from major European distributors since 10/2009) I'd just like them to make some.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_0048256.30976260</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_0048256.30976258</id>
	<title>Rall's Law intervenes</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264948440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The dielectric properties of Gallium could make these new fabs casualties of Rall's law: that the semi-current entropy increases inversely proportional to n*log(n) of the gate width. Einstein was right after all.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The dielectric properties of Gallium could make these new fabs casualties of Rall 's law : that the semi-current entropy increases inversely proportional to n * log ( n ) of the gate width .
Einstein was right after all .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The dielectric properties of Gallium could make these new fabs casualties of Rall's law: that the semi-current entropy increases inversely proportional to n*log(n) of the gate width.
Einstein was right after all.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_0048256.30976820</id>
	<title>Please,</title>
	<author>The Wild Norseman</author>
	<datestamp>1264953960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Allow me to be the first to give them a NAND-ing ovation.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Allow me to be the first to give them a NAND-ing ovation .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Allow me to be the first to give them a NAND-ing ovation.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_0048256.30984834</id>
	<title>Re:8GB per chip</title>
	<author>Agripa</author>
	<datestamp>1265054880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Hard Disks aren't growing as quickly any more, so Flash is catching up, all the same, it will probably be 2020 before Flash drives match hard drives for cost.</p></div> </blockquote><p>I have not seen any slow down in hard drive capacity increase since GMR heads were introduced.  Track density might have been a problem going forward but dual stage actuators are being introduced.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Hard Disks are n't growing as quickly any more , so Flash is catching up , all the same , it will probably be 2020 before Flash drives match hard drives for cost .
I have not seen any slow down in hard drive capacity increase since GMR heads were introduced .
Track density might have been a problem going forward but dual stage actuators are being introduced .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hard Disks aren't growing as quickly any more, so Flash is catching up, all the same, it will probably be 2020 before Flash drives match hard drives for cost.
I have not seen any slow down in hard drive capacity increase since GMR heads were introduced.
Track density might have been a problem going forward but dual stage actuators are being introduced.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_0048256.30977240</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_0048256.30978468</id>
	<title>Micron?</title>
	<author>dangitman</author>
	<datestamp>1265016600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Bah, I'll be much more impressed when we see an Intel-Voltron joint venture.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Bah , I 'll be much more impressed when we see an Intel-Voltron joint venture .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Bah, I'll be much more impressed when we see an Intel-Voltron joint venture.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_0048256.30977500</id>
	<title>Re:Great News</title>
	<author>Courageous</author>
	<datestamp>1264960800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What's happened is that demand has been higher than expected.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What 's happened is that demand has been higher than expected .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What's happened is that demand has been higher than expected.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_0048256.30976260</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_0048256.30977236</id>
	<title>Re:Micron? Seriously?</title>
	<author>Trepidity</author>
	<datestamp>1264958100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They had a PC subsidiary, yeah: Micron Computers, from 1995 to 2001. They spun it off in 2001, and it continued under the name MPC until it went out of business in 2008.</p><p>It was never a huge part of their business, though. Micron's a large semiconductor company, and been a dominant player in memory chips for decades. The other stuff they've dabbled in --- consumer PCs, motherboards, briefly video cards, etc. --- seems never to have taken off.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They had a PC subsidiary , yeah : Micron Computers , from 1995 to 2001 .
They spun it off in 2001 , and it continued under the name MPC until it went out of business in 2008.It was never a huge part of their business , though .
Micron 's a large semiconductor company , and been a dominant player in memory chips for decades .
The other stuff they 've dabbled in --- consumer PCs , motherboards , briefly video cards , etc .
--- seems never to have taken off .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They had a PC subsidiary, yeah: Micron Computers, from 1995 to 2001.
They spun it off in 2001, and it continued under the name MPC until it went out of business in 2008.It was never a huge part of their business, though.
Micron's a large semiconductor company, and been a dominant player in memory chips for decades.
The other stuff they've dabbled in --- consumer PCs, motherboards, briefly video cards, etc.
--- seems never to have taken off.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_0048256.30976964</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_0048256.30976260</id>
	<title>Great News</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264948440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is sorely needed to bring down costs for SSD's. The price and capacities available are coming down at a disappointingly slow pace.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is sorely needed to bring down costs for SSD 's .
The price and capacities available are coming down at a disappointingly slow pace .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is sorely needed to bring down costs for SSD's.
The price and capacities available are coming down at a disappointingly slow pace.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_0048256.30976964</id>
	<title>Micron? Seriously?</title>
	<author>LoudMusic</author>
	<datestamp>1264955640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I hadn't heard anything about them in perhaps a decade. I can't believe they're still around! Didn't they used to have a desktop line too? Or am I thinking of someone else altogether?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I had n't heard anything about them in perhaps a decade .
I ca n't believe they 're still around !
Did n't they used to have a desktop line too ?
Or am I thinking of someone else altogether ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I hadn't heard anything about them in perhaps a decade.
I can't believe they're still around!
Didn't they used to have a desktop line too?
Or am I thinking of someone else altogether?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_0048256.30976474</id>
	<title>Something other than NAND?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264949940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Could this process be used to build, say, CPUs?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Could this process be used to build , say , CPUs ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Could this process be used to build, say, CPUs?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_0048256.30976300</id>
	<title>Cheap SSDs in my lifetime?</title>
	<author>LibertineR</author>
	<datestamp>1264948740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Maybe? <p>
I want a cool, quiet 300G for 200 dollars. Imagine....a computer needing to cool only the CPU/Chipset.......I can only dream.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Maybe ?
I want a cool , quiet 300G for 200 dollars .
Imagine....a computer needing to cool only the CPU/Chipset.......I can only dream .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Maybe?
I want a cool, quiet 300G for 200 dollars.
Imagine....a computer needing to cool only the CPU/Chipset.......I can only dream.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_0048256.30976544</id>
	<title>Re:No sir, I don't like it.</title>
	<author>TheRaven64</author>
	<datestamp>1264950660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This has nothing to do with Intel's CPU monopoly (which is only really a monopoly in a fairly narrow segment of the CPU market), it has to do with Intel putting a lot of money into process technology.  Even when their designs were inferior to AMD's, they remained competitive because they could fab them on a better process and so get higher yields, higher clocks, and lower power consumption for the same chip than AMD.  </p><p>
Intel's SSD products work with anything with a SATA controller, be it ARM, x86, PowerPC, SPARC, or some custom architecture you just wrote to an FPGA.  They are not tied to CPUs in any way.  NOR flash often is.  You quite often get some NOR flash attached to ARM chips for execute-in-place programs, such as the Symbian kernel and apps, freeing up some of main memory.  </p><p>
NAND flash can only be accessed as a block device, so you can't tie it to a CPU at all easily; it has to go through some kind of controller so the OS can pretend that it's a disk.  I suppose you could slap a load of DRAM and a separate MMU and DMA controller on it and have something that would look like a big blob of RAM, but the performance characteristics would be horrible to work with.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This has nothing to do with Intel 's CPU monopoly ( which is only really a monopoly in a fairly narrow segment of the CPU market ) , it has to do with Intel putting a lot of money into process technology .
Even when their designs were inferior to AMD 's , they remained competitive because they could fab them on a better process and so get higher yields , higher clocks , and lower power consumption for the same chip than AMD .
Intel 's SSD products work with anything with a SATA controller , be it ARM , x86 , PowerPC , SPARC , or some custom architecture you just wrote to an FPGA .
They are not tied to CPUs in any way .
NOR flash often is .
You quite often get some NOR flash attached to ARM chips for execute-in-place programs , such as the Symbian kernel and apps , freeing up some of main memory .
NAND flash can only be accessed as a block device , so you ca n't tie it to a CPU at all easily ; it has to go through some kind of controller so the OS can pretend that it 's a disk .
I suppose you could slap a load of DRAM and a separate MMU and DMA controller on it and have something that would look like a big blob of RAM , but the performance characteristics would be horrible to work with .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This has nothing to do with Intel's CPU monopoly (which is only really a monopoly in a fairly narrow segment of the CPU market), it has to do with Intel putting a lot of money into process technology.
Even when their designs were inferior to AMD's, they remained competitive because they could fab them on a better process and so get higher yields, higher clocks, and lower power consumption for the same chip than AMD.
Intel's SSD products work with anything with a SATA controller, be it ARM, x86, PowerPC, SPARC, or some custom architecture you just wrote to an FPGA.
They are not tied to CPUs in any way.
NOR flash often is.
You quite often get some NOR flash attached to ARM chips for execute-in-place programs, such as the Symbian kernel and apps, freeing up some of main memory.
NAND flash can only be accessed as a block device, so you can't tie it to a CPU at all easily; it has to go through some kind of controller so the OS can pretend that it's a disk.
I suppose you could slap a load of DRAM and a separate MMU and DMA controller on it and have something that would look like a big blob of RAM, but the performance characteristics would be horrible to work with.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_0048256.30976322</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_0048256.30976728</id>
	<title>Re:Something other than NAND?</title>
	<author>cyfer2000</author>
	<datestamp>1264952760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>A simple answer is no. A longer number is not so simple.</htmltext>
<tokenext>A simple answer is no .
A longer number is not so simple .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A simple answer is no.
A longer number is not so simple.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_0048256.30976474</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_0048256.30976996</id>
	<title>Re:No sir, I don't like it.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264956060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The only time Intel has had an inferior CPU design was the P4 era. And the P4 had \_high\_ power consumption, in part because the new 90nm process had high leakage currents. They got themselves around that problem by making bigger heatsinks.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The only time Intel has had an inferior CPU design was the P4 era .
And the P4 had \ _high \ _ power consumption , in part because the new 90nm process had high leakage currents .
They got themselves around that problem by making bigger heatsinks .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The only time Intel has had an inferior CPU design was the P4 era.
And the P4 had \_high\_ power consumption, in part because the new 90nm process had high leakage currents.
They got themselves around that problem by making bigger heatsinks.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_0048256.30976544</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_0048256.30976322</id>
	<title>No sir, I don't like it.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264948860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>While this may have impressive consequences for the NAND market and for end-user storage solutions, there is a much larger problem which everyone is skirting around. It isn't about how NAND can only be used for storage and not for executable ROM like NOR Flash. It isn't about how stuffing more memory into a smaller space will allow for insanely huge SSD drives in devices ranging from cellphones to television sets.</p><p>It's about how Intel is going to leverage their CPU monopoly to take over the Flash memory market. They have not been able to make any headway with their StrataFlash due to their lukewarm support and eventual divestiture of the StrongARM CPU series. So by building this new super-efficient NAND solution, they are positioning their Atom CPU as *the* architecture for embedded systems.</p><p>If I were ARM and ARM CPU vendors, I'd be very wary and worried.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>While this may have impressive consequences for the NAND market and for end-user storage solutions , there is a much larger problem which everyone is skirting around .
It is n't about how NAND can only be used for storage and not for executable ROM like NOR Flash .
It is n't about how stuffing more memory into a smaller space will allow for insanely huge SSD drives in devices ranging from cellphones to television sets.It 's about how Intel is going to leverage their CPU monopoly to take over the Flash memory market .
They have not been able to make any headway with their StrataFlash due to their lukewarm support and eventual divestiture of the StrongARM CPU series .
So by building this new super-efficient NAND solution , they are positioning their Atom CPU as * the * architecture for embedded systems.If I were ARM and ARM CPU vendors , I 'd be very wary and worried .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>While this may have impressive consequences for the NAND market and for end-user storage solutions, there is a much larger problem which everyone is skirting around.
It isn't about how NAND can only be used for storage and not for executable ROM like NOR Flash.
It isn't about how stuffing more memory into a smaller space will allow for insanely huge SSD drives in devices ranging from cellphones to television sets.It's about how Intel is going to leverage their CPU monopoly to take over the Flash memory market.
They have not been able to make any headway with their StrataFlash due to their lukewarm support and eventual divestiture of the StrongARM CPU series.
So by building this new super-efficient NAND solution, they are positioning their Atom CPU as *the* architecture for embedded systems.If I were ARM and ARM CPU vendors, I'd be very wary and worried.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_0048256.30977326</id>
	<title>1 TB USB Flash drive!</title>
	<author>jameskojiro</author>
	<datestamp>1264959060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I really would like a 1TB USB flash drive so i can carry around my pr0n collection everywhere and use my new iPad to view it all when I am on vacation!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I really would like a 1TB USB flash drive so i can carry around my pr0n collection everywhere and use my new iPad to view it all when I am on vacation !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I really would like a 1TB USB flash drive so i can carry around my pr0n collection everywhere and use my new iPad to view it all when I am on vacation!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_01_0048256_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_0048256.30976996
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_0048256.30976544
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_0048256.30976322
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_01_0048256_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_0048256.30977432
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_0048256.30976826
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_01_0048256_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_0048256.30984834
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_0048256.30977240
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_01_0048256_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_0048256.30978362
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_0048256.30976826
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_01_0048256_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_0048256.30976470
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_0048256.30976322
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_01_0048256_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_0048256.30977562
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_0048256.30976258
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_01_0048256_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_0048256.30976806
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_0048256.30976632
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_01_0048256_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_0048256.30985008
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_0048256.30976544
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_0048256.30976322
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_01_0048256_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_0048256.30977260
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_0048256.30976826
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_01_0048256_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_0048256.30978006
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_0048256.30976544
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_0048256.30976322
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_01_0048256_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_0048256.30977500
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_0048256.30976260
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_01_0048256_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_0048256.30977466
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_0048256.30976260
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_01_0048256_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_0048256.30977572
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_0048256.30977240
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_01_0048256_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_0048256.30976728
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_0048256.30976474
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_01_0048256_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_0048256.30976866
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_0048256.30976322
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_01_0048256_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_0048256.30977938
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_0048256.30976632
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_01_0048256_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_0048256.30976460
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_0048256.30976322
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_01_0048256_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_0048256.30978818
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_0048256.30976260
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_01_0048256_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_0048256.30977236
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_0048256.30976964
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_01_0048256_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_0048256.30980784
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_0048256.30976592
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_0048256.30976300
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_01_0048256_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_0048256.30981934
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_0048256.30976490
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_0048256.30976322
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_01_0048256_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_0048256.30976550
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_0048256.30976490
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_0048256.30976322
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_01_0048256.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_0048256.30976260
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_0048256.30977466
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_0048256.30977500
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_0048256.30978818
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_01_0048256.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_0048256.30976322
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_0048256.30976470
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_0048256.30976460
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_0048256.30976544
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_0048256.30978006
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_0048256.30985008
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_0048256.30976996
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_0048256.30976866
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_0048256.30976490
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_0048256.30976550
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_0048256.30981934
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_01_0048256.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_0048256.30976632
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_0048256.30976806
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_0048256.30977938
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_01_0048256.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_0048256.30976826
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_0048256.30978362
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_0048256.30977432
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_0048256.30977260
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_01_0048256.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_0048256.30976300
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_0048256.30976592
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_0048256.30980784
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_01_0048256.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_0048256.30976964
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_0048256.30977236
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_01_0048256.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_0048256.30977240
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_0048256.30984834
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_0048256.30977572
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_01_0048256.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_0048256.30976474
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_0048256.30976728
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_01_0048256.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_0048256.30976258
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_0048256.30977562
</commentlist>
</conversation>
